Patricks Final Decision in Gone Baby Gone Film

Table of Contents

Introduction
Patricks Decision
Through the Prism of Kants Three Propositions
In the Context of Sandels Theory
Conclusion
Works Cited

Introduction

Directed by Ben Affleck, Gone Baby Gone tells a story of two investigators looking to solve a mystery behind a girls abduction from her single mother. While attaining positive reviews, the final decision of Patrick, who is one of the investigators, caused many controversies. Some people perceived Patricks action as lacking morality, while others claimed the opposite. This paper will discuss the decision within the context of Kants moral philosophy and Michael Sandels arguments on justice and righteousness.

Patricks Decision

After discovering that the girl was kidnapped by Doyle only to provide her with a more favorable life and future, Patrick is faced with a tough decision to make. Doyle has positive intentions and will keep the child in safety and comfort, whereas the cocaine-addicted mother will neglect her. Patrick discusses the issue with his partner, Angie, who tells him to leave Doyle alone for the sake of the girl. She warns Patrick that she will leave him if he decides to inform the police about Doyle. Although it seems logical to leave the girl with Doyle, Patrick decides to call the police.

Through the Prism of Kants Three Propositions

Kants three premises help individuals to decide whether an action is moral. The first proposition is on differentiating between decisions motivated by duty and activities undertaken because of other factors (McCarty). In the case of Patrick, the decision was made not because of goodwill toward the mother, but because of his professional duty. He also made a promise to the mother that he will bring the girl back. The second proposition states that an action has moral worth when motivating forces have positive intentions (McCarty). It is challenging to derive what Patrick had in his mind when making the decision. His motivations did not include personal benefits because he sacrificed his relationship with Angie. Nor did they include positive intentions toward the girl Patrick was aware that the mother is addicted to drugs, and the girl would only receive neglect. However, he acted out of the necessity to fulfill his promise, which is the topic of the third proposition (Simonetti). Therefore, in summary, it can be said that Patrick acted justly.

In the Context of Sandels Theory

Michael Sandels interpretation of Kants words on righteousness and morality results in the construction of three contrasts. The first contrast is between duty and inclination an action is moral if motivated by duty instead of being done to satisfy a desire (Harvard University 00:31:10-00:33:26). Without this contrast, to promise given by Patrick can be seen as a duty. However, to fulfill that promise may be labeled as the satisfaction of the desire to present an image of a notable person. The second contrast is between autonomy and heteronomy a person acts freely only if his or her actions are determined by reason (Harvard University 00:34:00-00:37:43). Patricks decision was not determined by reason, but by a societal belief that promises should never be broken. The last contrast is between categorical and hypothetical imperatives (Harvard University 00:38:05-00:41:36). Patricks decision is not categorically imperative the action is not right in itself because Patrick was aware of the unfavorable consequences that the girl will experience.

Conclusion

Patricks decision is difficult to assess for morality because of many uncertainties. However, with the help of Kants three premises and Sandels interpretation and three contrasts, it is possible to determine that Patricks action was not morally right. He did not make a reasonable choice even though he had all the arguments. As a result of his decision, the girl will have an uncertain future.