What is right and wrong?

Sherlock Holmes and Moral Relativism (Morality and Ethics)

 

Figure 2: “How did you see that? Because I was looking for it.”
Johnson, M.R. et al. (Writers), Ritchie, G. (Director) & Berman, B. (Producer). (2009). Sherlock Holmes [DVD]. USA: Warner Bros. Pictures.

What is right and wrong? Do we construct our own definitions for these terms or is there a rulebook that we must follow? For Sherlock Holmes, the answer is that knowing what is right and wrong comes from his own rational conscience.

Sherlock Holmes (2009), a psychological mystery by Guy Ritchie tells the story of Sherlock Holmes, a legendary sleuth and his right-hand man, Dr Watson, who use logically reasoning to catch the serial killer and occult sorcerer, Lord Blackwood.

The film shows Sherlock Holmes as the true essence of a character who is primarily a rational being; following his own rules and developing his own moral laws. Kant believes that through rationality, individuals legislate moral laws for themselves (Falzon, 2007). This theory links closely to moral relativism where there are no objective moral facts, but the truth of all moral evaluations is relative to individual moral standards (Litch, 2002). This theory is evident in the way Holmes goes against the Church and the society’s perceived views of the dark magic rituals performed by Lord Blackwood. The Church and its followers are lead to believe that these acts are real and blasphemy is committed from these acts. However, when Lord Blackwood appears to be forcing a girl to stab herself on an altar in a black magic ritual, Holmes sees this act and stops Watson from crossing a glass knife used in the ritual, to which Watson asks, “How did you see that?” which Holmes answers with, “I was looking for it.” This example shows that Holmes does not follow the moral laws or a belief constructed by the society, but is a separate rational being who has constructed his own moral laws and conscience.

Sherlock Holmes, however, defies Kant’s theory in the way of putting his personal interests and desires in front of the voice of duty. Kant sees that the matter of an individual’s ordinary moral experience should be that they distinguish between duty and personal desire, where the voice of duty and what is right takes precedence over merely personal interest, desire and inclinations (Falzon, 2007). Holmes does not display evidence of this morality in the movie, where every mystery he solves and action he takes to solve it is of his own choosing and in his best interest. This defiance of Kant’s idea of morality is showed in the film when Holmes continuously performs various experiments on his dog, Gladstone, giving him numerous diseases. It is clear from these experiments that Holmes does not care for the animal’s welfare but merely uses the dog as a tool to aid his curiosity and personal interest in different diseases and drugs. Therefore, Holmes does only appear to do the right thing for his personal interest and does not pay attention to what is right or wrong in his duty to society.

Throughout the film, Sherlock Holmes shows his character as a rational being who develops and follows his own moral laws and ethics but does not contribute to the rightful morality of duty in the society, prioritising his own personal interest about the stern voice of duty.

References

Falzon, C. (2007). Philosophy goes to the movies. (p.82). New York, NY: Routledge.

Johnson, M.R. et al. (Writers), Ritchie, G. (Director) & Berman, B. (Producer). (2009). Sherlock Holmes [DVD]. USA: Warner Bros. Pictures.

Litch, M. (2002). Ethics. In M. Litch (Ed.), Film and philosophy. (pp.68-80). New York, NY: Routledge.