Can normative ethical theories have any universalizability in contexts where women do not have the ability to make such decisions? As with the situation presented in the film, this raises questions about the epistemological presumptions of ethical systems like deontology which do not consider context and relationships, in contrast to care ethics, which takes relationships into account. What follows is a partial summary of the film for context, but reading the first post is also necessary.
On a packed Sunday, at Saint Nicholas’ Church in the Bronx, the parish priest, Father Flynn speaks about President Kennedy’s assassination the year before, saying that it caused many to doubt, and have crises of faith, but that it also unified people over a shared sense of loss. A young nun, Sister James, listens intently, riveted. Sister Aloysius, the principal of the school, terrifies a misbehaving boy. Father Flynn finishes his sermon by saying that when we doubt, as everyone does at one time or another, we are not alone.
After Mass, Donald Miller, that Sunday’s altar boy and the school’s first Black student, tells Flynn when he grows up, he wants to be a priest too. Flynn says that he would make a good one, and shows him a toy, a dancing ballerina, and gives it to him.
That night, Aloysius asks the nuns what they thought of Flynn’s sermon. She argues that because Flynn was talking about having doubts, he must be having doubts because of something that he has done. She tells all the nuns to watch him. Sister Aloysius sees Father Flynn holding William, one of Sister James’ students’ hand, and sees him pull away. Because of what she has seen, Aloysius reiterates to Sister James that there is a chain of command that must be followed, and if she sees anything out of the ordinary, she needs to tell Aloysius, who will take it up the chain.
Later, Flynn calls Donald down to the rectory to see him. after Sr. James notices Flynn putting a shirt into a locker during the class. Donald has not rejoined the class yet. Sr. James tells Aloysius that Donald seemed frightened after coming back from seeing Flynn. Sr. James says she thinks she smelled alcohol on Donald’s breath when he got back from the rectory. Sister James says that her suspicions shake her faith. Sister Aloysius responds that “When one pursues wrongdoing, one steps away from God, but in His service.” Because Sister Aloysius knows that all the priests will take Father Flynn’s side, she says that they will have to handle it themselves.
Deontology would process this moral matter in distinct ways depending on whether the accusations against Father Flynn were true. Either way, Sister Aloysius’ duty toward Donald is a perfect one. One could provide a justification for working within the system by going up the chain of command, but neither is not to imply that working outside established structures is necessarily in violation of the categorical imperative.
However, some of the actions of Sister Aloysius are definitively in violation of the categorical imperative from after this point. We will explore this idea and its ultimate implications about how the rightness and wrongness of her actions would be judged within the framework of Kantian deontology in the next post.
This was another really insightful entry in this series! I had never heard of this film before reading this, but your posts make it sound very interesting. I liked that you provided more context by elaborating on the plot synopsis in this entry. For someone who has never seen the film, this was helpful in understanding the groundwork for the philosophical discussion. I also like how you continued to tie in philosophical ideals while describing elements of the film.
Hey Mitchell! I really enjoyed reading your passion post it was more than interesting and really intriguing if I might add. You honestly left it at a cliff hanger and I can’t wait to read your next post. Good work!
The blocky structure of writing is personally not appealing to me and I think that pictures throughout the writing would have improved the post from a stylistic perspective. Secondly, I think that morality and ethics within the Catholic faith cannot be seen as one singular ideal; they vary for every person every day. I have not seen this movie, nor do I intend to, but I think rightness and wrongness are two sides of the same coin for any individual, particularly those who interpret faith in a specific manner (one of teaching).
Thank you for the constructive criticism! I agree that the morality of any particular faith or religious tradition cannot be seen as one ideal, nor did I intend to imply so as a person of Christian faith myself, with great respect for the Catholic tradition. Individual and corporate faith and practice vary based on many contexts including cultural ones. I think I agree with your idea that rightness and wrongness are in some way a duality, and that faith teachings and our interpretations are specific. Furthermore, I don’t think the movie is anti-Catholic or anti-faith. I apologize if I have offended you in any way if you are Catholic or a person of faith, as this was not my intent. Thank you for the constructive criticism about the formatting and pictures.