ipl-logo

Act Utilitarianism In Film

1396 Words6 Pages

In the respect of utilitarian, act utilitarianism applies in this movie. Act utilitarianism states that “everyone should perform an act which will bring about the greatest amount of good over bad for everyone affected by the act” (Thiroux and Krasemann 39). Thus, an act utilitarian would agree with the action of the main character, Nick, who purposely joins the juror team to sway the jury into delivering the verdict he wanted because he was certain that it would bring about the greatest amount of good. In this case, only gun manufacturers would benefit if the defendant side won the case and the consequence would be that firearm sale would not change or the worst case scenario, more firearms would be sold in the market, which is extremely dangerous …show more content…

This absolute, universal law goes against the schemes of Marlee and Nick. Kantians also follow the maxim that every person is an end and not a means to an end. Thus while some utilitarians would accept the scheme, a Kantian would not in any circumstance accept it as it is basically using the gun manufacturer and it’s workers as a mean to an end as stated earlier. Another Kantians would not accept the schemes of Nick and Marlee, and the result of said schemes is due to an important principle brought about by Immanuel Kant which denotes that “…no human being should be thought of or used merely as a means for someone else’s end” (Thiroux and Krasemann 55). That principle is referred to as the Practical Imperative. The fact that Nick and Marlee used the jurors to achieve their end-game is unacceptable as it violates that principle. Finally, Kant also spoke of obeying “...rules out of a sense of duty” (Thiroux and Krasemann 55). The Duty Ethics followed by Kantians that people must do something moral out of a sense of duty rather than an inclination. Judge Harkin represented this when he reprimanded or lectured Nick on civic duty when he acted as if he wanted to dodge jury duty. A Kantian would view this movie, especially during the end when Nick appealed to the jury to think with their hearts by asking the jury to talk about the law because it was their duty to do

Show More
Related
186 Words | 1 Pages

As the play went on, Juror Eight started proving how the boy was innocent. In the end Juror Eight changed all the other juror’s minds, except for Juror Three’s. Juror Three ended up changing his vote, not because they changed his mind but because he gave into peer pressure. He still had his prejudice influenced decision, he only gave in because he didn't want it to be a hung jury. Another example, from the same play, is Juror Eight.

Read More
997 Words | 4 Pages

In his play Twelve Angry Men, Reginald Rose brings us back in time to 1957, to a jury room of a New York Court of Law where one man, Juror #8, confronts the rest of the jury to look at a homicide case without prejudice, and ultimately convinces Juror #2, a very soft-spoken man who at first had little say in the deliberation. Throughout the play, many of the jurors give convincing arguments that make one think about whether the boy is “guilty” or “not guilty.” Ultimately, one is convinced by ethos, logos, and pathos. We can see ethos, logos, and pathos having an effect on Juror #2 as he begins as a humble man and changes into someone brave at the end. Although all three modes play a part in convincing Juror #2, pathos was the most influential

Read More
1964 Words | 8 Pages

What is worth our attention in this movie is how in the beginning they are trying to convince each other to vote guilty. 11 juror voted guilty and only one voted not guilty. Their judgments were based upon either their past personal experience which created their thoughts and behavior or upon facts. Juror 8 represents the conscience. He stood up for his inner feelings that the accused young boy is innocent.

Read More
744 Words | 3 Pages

The movie begins in the humid jury room by taking a vote to see whether or not the boy is guilty: eleven guilties and one not guilty. At this point Mr. Davis (the only not guilty vote) could have easily switched his vote and sentenced the boy to death, however he did not. This is where some men get aggravated. This film shows the many ways the men try to persuade one another to change their vote through the characters of Mr. Davis (Juror 8), Juror 4, and Mr. McCardle (Juror 9).

Read More
1247 Words | 5 Pages

While all of the other men have changed their vote to a not guilty verdict, the third jurors remains with his original belief. Even in the very end of the play, he acts hostile against the others trying to change his mind, in saying “Do you think I’m an idiot or something?” (Rose 72). One juror that seems almost impervious to argumentative fallacies and peer pressure is Juror 8. Juror almost displays the ideal juror, and the rest tend to mimic the flaws of the system.

Read More
1186 Words | 5 Pages

Twelve Angry Men is in many ways a love letter to the American legal justice system. We find here eleven men, swayed to conclusions by prejudices, past experience, and short-sightedness, challenged by one man who holds himself and his peers to a higher standard of justice, demanding that this marginalized member of society be given his due process. We see the jurors struggle between the two, seemingly conflicting, purposes of a jury, to punish the guilty and to protect the innocent. It proves, however, that the logic of the American trial-by-jury system does work.

Read More
754 Words | 4 Pages

Georgie Milton did something not many people have the guts to do, he took the life of his best friend to save him from the torture that awaited him, but, he took the life of another man and he took this life with the intention of murder. Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, there is no difference between euthanasia and murder; and to this indictment, George Milton has pleaded not guilty. If I am to prove him otherwise, you must find him so. Lennie Small has been described to us as a caring giant. He had no bad intentions; and it is fair to say that our witnesses have provided us with sufficient evidence to support my argument.

Read More
549 Words | 3 Pages

What if one day, twenty years from now you were chosen to discuss the fate of an eighteen year old boy. What would you do? Would you take your job and do it responsibly, or would you do it like some of the Jurors in 12 Angry Men and blow it off so you can finish early and leave. Even though there was a lot of controversy in that jury room, I noticed that Jurors 3,7, and 9 used their personalities, beliefs, and views of their responsibilities to bring the boy on trial to justice. This very excitable juror is the last to change his vote, and while his stubbornness could be seen as being based more on emotions than facts, he starts off with his little notebook with facts of the case and tries to insist that he has no personal feelings on the matter.

Read More
1191 Words | 5 Pages

The play 12 Angry Men is about a jury of twelve men that are given the task of deciding the fate, guilty or not guilty, of a young boy accused of murdering his father. The theme of standing up against the majority is very prevalent in this story because of the decisions some of the jurors make throughout the play. Juror 8 makes the decision to vote not guilty, he is the one and only juror in this play that decides to vote not guilty for the boy in the beginning. The other eleven jurors decide to vote guilty because of the evidence that they have been presented with. The act of Juror 8 standing against the majority of the other jurors about the case, voting not guilty, allows the jurors to thoroughly dissect the case, understanding it fully and thoughtfully before making their decision of guilty or not guilty.

Read More
803 Words | 4 Pages

In 12 Angry Men, the movie begins in a courtroom where the case is being discussed by the judge, who seems fairly uninterested. The jurors are then instructed to enter the jury room to begin their deliberations. They take a vote and all but juror 8 vote guilty. The jurors react violently to the dissenting vote but ultimately decide to go around the table in hope of convincing the 8th juror.

Read More
801 Words | 4 Pages

If it wasn 't for Juror #8, I don 't know what terrible consequences would have been. Owing to his insistence, the case was discussed and everyone began to pay attention to the details of the case, testimony, evidence, and witness actions. In the end, twelve people overcame prejudice, ceased the conflict, and made the right decision. The play tells us that justice can be affected by prejudice very easily.

Read More
842 Words | 4 Pages

Dr. Irving Janis’ symptoms of groupthink in the film such as “belief in the inherent morality of the group” which Janis states,” members believe in the rightness of their cause and therefore ignore the ethical or moral consequences of their decisions” (Psysr.org, 2018). They believe what they are saying is right and don’t think about what comes along with the decision made. Closed-mindedness is another obvious symptom seen in the jury. Juror 10 uses the phrase “one of them” and frequently divides society into the words “us” and “them” using the phrase to point out stereotypes. Individuals on the jury often justify their views to avoid challenges.

Read More
1139 Words | 5 Pages

8: I think that… as a juror… we have to really think, we have to think about all the evidence, about all the outcomes. Well if I voted guilty at the initial vote, we would’ve let the boy die but as a juror being given jury duty… one of the highest duties of citizenship… is a big duty and being trusted and chosen to have a person’s life in your hands is just way too much pressure to handle and is one of the hardest things to do in your own lifetime and a one of a lifetime experience that you will just never forget. I would say that a case like this takes so much time and needs to have a proper moral to end up with the right

Read More
631 Words | 3 Pages

Looking at the utilitarian approach, it is seen to have significant meaning for both those that are for and against gun control. As the utilitarian theory approach focuses on the theory that “an action is ethical if the good that it is predicted to produce outweighs the bad”. In this case, depending on the perspective of the individual, it can have significantly lead to different conclusions that supports both sides of the gun control debate. Specifically, gun control proponents have argued that the utilitarian approach is justification for gun control as the banning of gun ownership will protect society and make the world a better place through a lower chance of gun violence despite the restraining of civil liberties. On the other hand, gun control

Read More
1404 Words | 6 Pages

The script introduces the viewers to the typical behavior and the state of mind of these jurors, who surprisingly turn out to be the last to change their opinions from “guilty” to “not guilty”. Juror#3 the frustrated father whose personal conflicts and experiences influence his view of the accused’s crime is very desperate to make it clear that his mind is already made up before the deliberations even start. Similar

Read More

More about Act Utilitarianism In Film

Related Topics

Open Document