The Ethics of Consequentialism: On Dangerous Ground (1951)

On-Dangerous-Ground-31In Nicholas Ray’s On Dangerous Ground (1951) Jim Wilson (Robert Ryan) is a police officer whose heart is hardened by the world of crime. Physically assaulting criminal suspects in order to obtain information, Jim believes that the ends justify the means.

The idea that the ends justify the means is derived from consequentialism: “the theory that … the moral value of an act should be judged by the value of its consequences.”1 The ethical dilemma posed by consequentialism is that harmful actions can sometimes have positive consequences. If the positive consequences outweigh the negative, then an individual may feel justified in actions that are illegal.

Although Jim’s mistreatment of criminals is against the law, there are positive consequences: gaining information that leads to the arrest of other criminals. When Bernie Tucker (Richard Irving) refuses to reveal the whereabouts of Mushy Castro and Gordy Miller—two men who murdered a police officer—Jim gives Tucker a severe beating that results in a “ruptured bladder.” Jim is a bad cop because of the “means” he uses. His brutality, however, does have a positive “end”: Castro and Miller are both arrested, and, as a result, future crimes may have been prevented.

To justify his brutality, Jim rationalizes his actions. Before beating Tucker, he says to him, “Why do you make me do it?” In reality, Jim is not being made to do anything. Tucker refuses to divulge the information because he is loyal to Castro and Miller and fears retaliation. Jim rationalizes his brutality because he wants justice.

When a person rationalizes doing something that is wrong, their heart can become hardened, and they no longer feel any guilt. A police officer for eleven years, Jim’s heart is hardened from dealing with “crooks, murderers, winos, [and] stoolies”, a class of people he refers to as “garbage.” However, when he leaves the city to investigate a murder, his heart begins to change. Walter Brent (Ward Bond), the grieving father of the murdered girl, wants revenge. In Brent, Jim sees a disturbing reflection of himself: an angry and violent man who wants to take the law into his own hands. Jim’s transformation continues after meeting Mary Malden (Ida Lupino). When he is with her, his anger diminishes, and the lion inside him becomes gentle and subdued.

Jim’s relationship with Mary shows how love has the power to soften a hardened heart. Before meeting her, he was only responsible for himself, not caring if he would suffer the consequences of his actions. But because of Mary, his future wife, it is likely that his behavior as a police officer will change. Responsible to care and provide for her, he will no longer risk breaking the law to further the cause of justice. Mary’s love for Jim restores what he lost in fighting crime: his conscience.

Notes

  1. Merriam Webster, s.v. “Consequentialism,” accessed April 27, 2015, http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/consequentialism
Advertisements

2 thoughts on “The Ethics of Consequentialism: On Dangerous Ground (1951)

  1. Nice essay, but you ignore Ward Bond’s character’s role. Jim, on seeing someone more driven & more violent than himself is repelled by what he sees & recognizes that this is himself writ large.
    Bond’s sympathy to the dead Danny, when he recognizes that he’s ‘Only a kid’ & thus only human, as opposed to being the monster he had envisioned, has it’s effect on Jim. It allows Jim to see that even a person more driven than himself can change. I think this, together with Marie’s influence is what allows Jim to find his own peace.
    Terry

    Liked by 1 person

  2. Chris, it is interesting that Nicholas Ray apparently rebelled against the upbeat ending and that Ryan and Lupino self-directed the final scene after Ray went AWOL. I have no problem with the redemptive ending as it is – as you point out – a natural outcome of the relationship and flows philosophically. From the perspective of film noir, it would be equally credible if Jim turned away from redemption, and the pathos under that scenario would have been as strong. I think another interesting aspect of the scenario is that Mary though blind “sees” something in Jim others and Jim himself cannot see – that his violence is a cry for help.

    Liked by 1 person

Share your thoughts

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s