The Duchess - Mnage trios and Morality - Essay Example

Mnage trios and Morality The film "The Duchess" directed by Saul Dibb based on Amanda Foreman's biography of the controversial socialite Georgina Cavendish, the Duchess of Devonshire, entails her very remarkable yet infamous marital arrangements for which, the most interesting moral conflict with regards to marriage can be drawn and is best suitable for further analysis. In the film, Georgina Cavendish (played by Keira Knightley) was portrayed as a fashion-oriented and gambling patron yet intelligent and politically-inclined woman later unfortunately entrapped in marriage with William Cavendish, the 5th Duke of Devonshire. Indeed, a handful of reasons can be assumed in modern times as valid justifications for her to separate from her husband. Such include the various sexual affairs of the Duke, one of which even bore an offspring whom Georgina cared for as her own, her misery being that her role as a wife was deduced to her capability of bearing a son, and last but not the least, his husband's affair with Lady Elizabeth Foster, the closest friend of Georgina to which was described in the film as Georgina's "sole comfort". The affair seemed to be beyond sexual reasons since the Duke refused to banish Lady Elizabeth upon Georgina's knowledge of the affair and even insisted that she live with him despite Georgina's presence in the residence. This is where the moral conflict arises and it is best described in the phrase of mnage trios. Mnage trios literally means household of three in French.1 Needless to say, the film exposes that such arrangement was considered a taboo and unacceptable given the initial reaction of Georgina to the Duke's affair with Lady Elizabeth. In modern times on the other hand, it is defined as a "living arrangement comprising three people (not all of the same sex) in a sexual relationship"2. In contrast to this definition, the film did not depict Georgina agreeing and entering into sexual relations with both the Duke and Lady Elizabeth. Instead, the film rendered Georgina's passive and indirect approval of the affair due to lack of choice such that she wasn't able to influence her husband to banish Lady Elizabeth and she later recognized Lady Elizabeth's admitted intention for her action. That is, for her to be able to see her children whom were taken away from her after her separation with her husband. Despite the already miserable situation, the Duke refused her agreement for separation in order for her to legitimately start a relationship with Charles Grey for whom she had genuine feelings for. Even worse, the Duke threatened of banning her from seeing her children if she continued to see Grey. Georgina chose to be with her children however, she was apparently pregnant with Grey's daughter. In the end, the Duke decided that Grey's family should take the responsibility of raising the child for which Georgina was only able to visit in discretion. The story of Georgina serves as an inspiration and leads us to assess whether an individual's passive approval of a marital arrangement of mnage trios is morally right or wrong for the sake of being able to live with one's children. We shall do so through the differing Immanuel Kant's theory on morality in his written work entitled Foundations of the Metaphysics of Morals (1785) and John Stuart Mill's work on Utilitarianism (1861). But before we move on, we should clarify that the point of debate that in upon agreeing with the marital arrangement, Georgina was unable to live with her daughter fathered by Grey in return, since Georgina was able to see and visit, therefore to be with, the child though in discretion. Immanuel Kant is known for being "completely un-utilitarian"3 because of his "..rejection of satisfaction of desires as a ground for morals4". In addition, he believes that the basis for actions to be moral is its aspect of obligation because men are capable of reason stating further that "..reason's proper function must be to produce a will good in itself.."5. Moreover, an action should not be based solely upon the use of reason per se but also in its adherence to what he termed as the categorical imperative. That is, an "act according to a maxim which can be adopted at the same time as a universal law"6. This imperative is different from a hypothetical imperative which is briefly defined as an "act according to a maxim which can be adopted at the same time as a particular law"7. Going back to the case of Georgina, it could be presumed at first glance that Georgina's passive approval of the mnage trois was morally right since she was able to relinquished her desire to be with Grey-hence to be "free", for the sake of her duty as a mother to her three children with the Duke. But then again, we may say that wherewithal she lives with her children; it is also a satisfaction of desire. Perhaps the only advantage of this argument is that, it is comprehensible that her duty as a mother is of greater importance than her duty as a lover to Grey, and perhaps even than her duty as a mother to Grey's daughter since she was still technically married to the Duke. Thus we now move forward to the discussion whether Georgina's action was in accordance to the categorical imperative or a hypothetical imperative. Earlier, Lady Elizabeth admitted that her reason for engaging in an affair with the Duke was for her to attain the rights of custody to her children with her former husband. Such was conclusive given that the Duke was perceived very powerful at that time. To this Georgina responded that "There are limits for the sacrifices that one makes for her children". But then Lady Elizabeth replied that there are no limits when it comes to sacrifices for one's children. Indeed, we may reckon that later on, Georgina came face-to-face with the same situation and as such, she also sacrificed her freedom and her love for Grey, for her children with the Duke. With this, it is clear that her action abided by a universal law and that is, to love one's children unconditionally. Indeed, we cannot assert that loving one's children unconditionally is only accepted and pursued only for a country or countries in particular but it is precisely that it is accepted and relentlessly pursued by world as a whole. However, the accompanying draw-back is that the action is an implied adherence to a hypothetical imperative in that mnage trios can also be viewed as polygamy-a particular law that only some cultures approve of. We now may reconcile these two contrasting thoughts that in as much as the film is concerned and is portrayed, Georgina only willed upon the former and that is the universal law. Now we move towards whether Georgina's action can still be considered as morally right in a utilitarian view of point through John Stuart Mill's work itself on Utilitarianism (1861). In this work Mill states that "actions are right in proportion as they tend to promote happiness; wrong as they tend to produce the reverse of happiness"8. Furthermore, according to William Ebenstein and Alan Ebenstein in their editorial work, Mill believes that "the highest form of pleasure is sympathetic affection"9 that of which was mainly derived from the golden rule of Jesus, "To do as you would be done by" and "To love your neighbor as yourself" (as were stated as well in Mill's Utilitarianism). Drawing from these beliefs, Georgina's passive approval of the eccentric marital arrangement can be assumed at first glance as immoral for she withdrew her own happiness in her freedom to be with Grey who genuinely loves her. However, a second look would prove that despite this valid argument, it is more logical to assume Georgina's action to be moral since she exhibited sympathetic affection for her children with the Duke, which is the highest form of pleasure. In addition, her statement that she cannot abandon her children upon her refusal to fled with Grey shows that she herself doesn't want to be abandoned herself by her mother-unfortunately, something that had happened to her when she first refused stop seeing Grey at the presence her mother and the Duke. And to such is exhibited "To do as you would be done by". In conclusion, Georgina's involvement with the mnage trios can still be viewed as a moral act whether in a utilitarian or non-utilitarian view of point. As for the non-utilitarian stance, it is given that she has only intentionally willed the fulfillment of the universal law which is to love one's children unconditionally and as for the utilitarian, she has exemplified the sympathetic affection, highest form of pleasure and the golden rule of Jesus. More so, as to Plato's teaching in The Republic, courage is a "conviction about the sort of things that it is right to be afraid of"10 and "temperance..means a control of certain pleasures.. [to be a] 'master of oneself'.."11. Georgina exemplified courage in that upon her conviction on pursuing her unconditional love for her children, she was faced with the torment of mnage trios, something that is indeed to be afraid of, and temperance, as she was able to control her freedom in her decision. It is unfortunate to see however, that amongst the virtues of the state mentioned in The Republic, it is justice that was deprived from her. RESOURCES: Martin, Gary. "Mnage trios". The Phrase Finder. Copyright 1996-2008. . Ebenstein, W. and Ebenstein A. ed. Great Political Thinkers: Plato to the Present Sixth Edition.Singapore: Thomson, Wadsworth, 2000. Read More