Respond to the online discussion about movie High Noon - Essay Example

12 February, Response to fellows’ reviews You have rightly d that Kant has emphasized upon good will for the existence of morality in an individual’s actions. According to Kant, an individual’s act is morally justified only if it complies with the individual’s duty and is done in good will. And individuals work out the most rational course of action through reasoning. I totally agree with you when you say that Helen and townspeople’s act of not supporting the town marshall and his wife lacked morality because there was no good will behind their selfish attitude.

However, you have jointly discussed the position of Helen and townspeople where you should have elaborated Helen’s role in detail since she did have good will within her intentions which the townspeople did not! By saying this, I am not supporting Helen in her decision of moving out of the town. I just want to say is that you should have clearly indicated that having good will is not enough to make an individual’s action morally justified unless it is accompanied with practical action. 2.

I agree with you when you rightly analyze the role of Kane as a moral activist fighting not for personal satisfaction, but for a moral cause. But you sound too confused about analyzing the role of Amy, particularly when you say, “Amy wanted Kane and this is what guided her, but at the end she dropped everything she believed in just so she can help Kane. Is this a selfish act or a dutiful act?” Kane was just as much husband to Amy when she decided not to stand by him when he was when she chose otherwise!

It is obvious that she felt good will and her action was driven by her motivation to help her husband out of the trouble as a dutiful wife. She was truly a moral activist. You did not at all discuss the role of Helen and townspeople as was the requirement of the question. Just saying “other characters” does not evaluate the role played by the townspeople and Helen against their supposed roles. You need to expand on their individualistic roles to make the response complete. 3. You have put forth a sensibly constructed argument that challenges the ethical justification of Kane’s act of thinking about the whole community and not his own wife.

However, I think it is not about his wife, it is about himself! He needed Amy as a wife for his own sake, and when he decided to compromise upon his personal sake for the sake of the whole community, he was indeed, dutiful to the maximum extent! Also, lack of discussion about Helen and townspeople’s role makes your response incomplete! 4. Your analysis of the role of Kane and Amy is perfectly right. You are confused about the role of townspeople. In reply to the question you have asked, I would say that townspeople were obviously selfish for telling a man to leave the town who wanted to stay not for his own sake, but theirs.

You did not say anything about Helen!