Kant's Depiction Of Violence In Hacksaw Ridge

Using Kant’s ethical framework, the depiction of violence in Hacksaw Ridge fails to pass the necessary tests. It’s not a moral portrayal. To explain this conclusion, it is useful to examine the violence on display from each of the three facets of Kant’s ideas: the good will, the means/end formulation, and the universalization formulation. Since the two formulations of the categorical imperative are the same, according to Kant, an action must pass both iterations of the rule, and this one does not. Before delving into the formulations, however, it bears examination to decide whether Gibson and the other filmmakers followed the good will. It’s almost impossible to determine if they acted in accordance with duty like Kant requires, since they have not said why they portrayed violence in this way, but one can arrive at a logically plausible answer. Most likely, the filmmakers did not portray violence in Hacksaw Ridge based on a determination that it represented the right thing. Instead, it’s more probable they relied on a combination of what depiction they deemed would help the film be most profitable and their on artistic preferences. Gibson, for example, has shown a preoccupation with graphic violence in all his films, so

With the graphic, glorifying representations of violence in the movie, it seems clear the creators used Doss and his story as a means. They used him as an excuse to show audiences these rousing instances of brutal combat. Nevertheless, they did not use Doss’ tale only as a means. While several shots showcase a titillating side to violence, numerous ones also display the horrendous effects it can have. Furthermore, Doss’ beliefs and arguments are given plenty of credence and screen time, allowing people to hear his side of the issue. By doing so, the filmmakers treated Doss as an end, thus passing the means/end