Criminal Interpretation of Kant's Guide to Happiness using Woody Allen's Crimes and Misdemeanors

     Woody Allen's film, Crimes and Misdemeanors, offers us a lush resource
of moral situations and questions with which to examine the ethical philosophy of
Immanuel Kant, presented in his Groundwork of the Metaphysic of Morals. The
film has a dual narrative which presents us with two characters that might each
be considered main characters. The characters, who are played by Woody Allen
and Martin Landau, have lives that are interconnected through mutual distant
relatives and acquaintences.
     As the stories of these two characters progress we develop an image of
each of them. Woody Allen would be seen as a generally good person. He is
nice and friendly with everyone he meets(with one exception: his brother in law,
played by Alan Alda). He has a sister and niece whom he loyally cares for and
spends time with. He takes a special interest in that niece, sharing with her his
favorite hobbies and interests. He has a wife, but that marriage is failing. He
does handle this difficult situation with a great deal of respectfulness and regret,
even finding the moral worth to go with her to a family gathering after their
relationship has been broken - which he has no inclination to do. Through the
course of the movie he is falling in love with a woman who works for Alda. He
does not do this in an infidelitous way, but does pursue this woman as a love
interest, after it is clear that his marriage is ending.
     Martin Landau, on the other hand, would not be seen as generally good.
In many ways, he would be considered a "bad person." He is recognized as a
good doctor and a wealthy philantropists. But, his methods in helping these
charities were questionable, and he seems to have maybe even taken a
personal financial profit from them. He is decades into a marriage which has
given him children whom have grown up strong, happy, and healthy. Yet, he is
cheating on his wife. He has a mistress with whom he keeps a scandalous love
affair, leading to a double life split between his family and the mistress. Soon
this mistress is no longer happy sharing him with his family, she wants him to be
hers - apparently believing that he is, in the spirit of Plato's Aristophenes, her
other half. She desires to be with him always, and will stop at nothing to attain
that goal. Martin Landau has also made some questionable financial practices
that, if revealed, could have a very negative effect on his life(the extent to which
is left unclear). The mistress threatens to reveal his financially scandolous secret
while demanding to speak to his wife. This would, in turn, reveal his love affair
secret. He does not want any of this to happen. So, he has his brother, who has
apparent connections to the mob, have her killed. All of Landau's actions -
cheating on his wife, participating in a financial scam, and having the mistress
murdered - are done out of pure inclination, and are often contradicting his
duties. Therefore, his actions are entirely without moral worth.
     It is possible to imagine someone on their way out of a screening of this
film thinking, "See, it's true: Bad people get all the good breaks and good people
end up unhappy." If this person is not a student of Kant, they may even continue
and build upon this thinking. "Therefore, we all should do what we need to do to
become happy, even if we have to be dishonest or unfair to other people
because it doesn't pay to be a good person." This conclusion is, perhaps,
inspired by Woody Allen's flirtations with good outcomes following criminal
activities. But it is unfortunately far off target from Kant's ideas of how to be
happy.
     The conclusion runs directly opposite Kant's statement that, "a good will
seems to constitute the indispensible condition of our very worthiness to be
happy.1" Talents, qualities of temperament, or gifts of fortune are all essentially
useless, "unless a good will is present by which their influence on the mind--and
so too the whole principle of action--may be corrected and adjusted to universal
ends." (Kant p. 61) What this is saying is that simply being a good person does
not necesarily result in happiness or a good will. This is because it is not the
outcome of a person's actions, or its impact on other people, that gives these
actions moral worth. "A good will is not good because of what it effects or
accomplishes--because of its fitness for attaining some proposed end: it is good
through its willing alone--that is, good in itself." (Kant p. 62) With respect to a
good will Kant is very direct in saying, "Its usefulness or fruitlessness can neither
add to, nor subtract from, this value." (Kant p 62)
     Every person, then, should know what is to be done in order to possess a
good will. One only needs to be asked, "'Can you also will that your maxim
should become a universal law?' Where you cannot, it is to be rejected, and that
not because of a prospective loss to your or even to others, but because it
cannot fit as a principle into a possible enactment of universal law." (Kant p. 71)
In order to create our good will we need to manage our actions to be in
agreement with the one categorical imperative: "'Act as if the maxim of your
action were to become through your will a universal law.'"
(Kant p. 89)
     It is clear that, "To assure one's happiness is a duty." (Kant p. 67)
Therefore, it would appear that one would want to generally be a good
person in order to be happy. Since happiness can only be attained through a
good will, and a good will is based on the catergorical imperative, one's actions
will be agreeable to most, or all, who perceive these actions. Any action which
can be willed to be universal law is an action which is fair and honest. It is
probably also respectful and caring.
     Although it is not accurate to say that being a good person will lead to
happiness, it is accurate to say that following the catergorical imperative is a
prerequisite to happiness. Further, acting in accordance with the catergorical
imperative appears to be very likely to lead one to be a a good person.

Back to Reviews page

Back to Philosophy page

Ryan's Writings main page