Kantian Analyses of Blue Jasmine
Blue Jasmine is a 2013 American dark comedy-drama written and directed by Woody Allen. The film tells the story of a rich Manhattan socialite who falls into hard times and has to move into her sister's apartment in San Francisco. Jasmine has recently suffered a nervous breakdown and, having incurred heavy debts, has been forced to seek refuge with her sister. Jasmine is haunted by memories of her past life as a Manhattan socialite and the failure of her marriage to the suave financier Hal. Hal is the character, who violates Kantian ethics in the movie the most. On the other side of the spectrum is Ginger’s working-class ex-husband Augie, who was, indeed, the less harmful character, but also has a moral duty.
Immanuel Kant, in his radical deontologist’s perspective, denies, ideas of consequentialism, or, in other words, believes that morality lies somewhere other than in consequences, as in opposition to the utilitarian ethical theory. Properly motivated will, or the Good Will, is what, according to the philosopher, we nurture, something that comes in a form of habit, but the ground for moral values prepared in us by Nature and its formation depends upon our Nurture, or habit (TNMV, 477).
Our motivation, according to the theory, comes from three sources: self-interest, inclination (that can be harmful to our morals, as it can go against the moral duty) and duty. Acting out of duty is acting out of respect for the universal law of reason, or act out of categorical imperative at only on these maxims that one can become a universal law. Within a given context and the film, Hal and Augie appear on the opposite sides of the moral scale. While touring New York, Ginger sees Hal kiss another woman. The woman later appears at Jasmine's birthday party. Ginger debates whether to say anything to Jasmine but decides to stay quiet, aware that Jasmine might react badly to the suggestion that Hal is having an affair and Augie suggests that it is her responsibility as a friend to get Jasmine’s back, because “this is what friends do”. In the meantime, Hal was exposed to the authorities as a major fraudster running a Ponzi scheme with his clients' money.
These two characters are complete opposites of each other; one has no sense of moral duty and keeps fooling his wife until she figures out, refuses it many times before, and doesn’t seem to care about the situation that much. Hal also was well aware of his public image and made sure people know about his charity donations that also cut his tax. Acting purely out of self-interest, Hal is punished by his wife and put in a jail, where he commits suicide. Treating investors, wife, and mistresses as means, in other words, merely using everyone, Hal loses everything at the end.
Augie’s character, in contrast, did mostly good, even to Jasmine, who paid no regard. In the scene, prior to the one where Jasmine loses her fiancée, Augie, I believe, makes a moral decision to tell her about all consequences, preventing her from fooling a man (exactly what her husband did to her). Seemingly, he wasn’t caring about consequences, when he told her “I just want you to know what you have done,” and “people don’t get over things as fast as you are” and walks away. Here, he treats her authentically, merely because he is trying to call her reason, even if it was done in seriously damaging way. Augie was seeking if not justice, but at least a compensation and maybe a punishment for Jasmine (that she deserves) and acted according to his moral duty that appears to be shaped by a Good Will.
Returning to the episode with Ginger and Augie, where she explains that Hal is cheating on Jasmine and what is her moral obligation. Throughout the whole movie, Ginger seemingly lacks moral orienteers and often acts out of self-interest. She lacks established self, and therefore, incapable of making a right decision (or any sort of decision without being heavily influenced by people surrounding her). She also seemed a nicer person in absence of her sister, prior to her constant influence. In the given situation Ginger acts out of moral duty, but whether it was done independently is still in ambiguous. Let’s assume that Augie directing her toward a moral choice, to act out of duty. Then, identifying her inclination, one could say “to tell a person when their husband/wife is cheating.” Maxim, then, would be “it’s ok to tell people that their husband/wife cheating,” and universalized maxim will sound “it is always ok to tell people that their husband/wife cheating” and it doesn’t contradict itself. There still will be wives and husbands who don’t cheat, and no fooling, but the conception of cheating in marriage could die out (only if spouses react on cheating in a same certain way – divorce or stop cheating). The problem appears at the last step of Categorical Imperative: because of the future cheat on Chilly with Al, Ginger contradicts her own will when tells Jasmin about Hal. In her own situation, she preferred to keep silence, rather than confess, and therefore, she is willing to do it, but won’t let same happened to her. Sadly, the maxim could contribute to a Good Will, but died out with the unwillingness to be complete.
In Blue Jasmine, Woody Allen creates a great complexity of the situation and characters only in 100 minutes, which opens up a great opportunity for interpretations and analyses of the film.
