Act Utilitarianism In Film

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

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