Pages

Friday, April 15, 2016

A Deontological Analysis of "Catfish"

While it may be clear that Angela from the documentary Catfish doesn't particularly make the best moral judgments, I will attempt to analyze her moral decisions based on Immanuel Kant's deontology philosophy. I can assume that the reason why Angela went to such great lengths to deceive Nev into believing the elaborate fantasy of her family that she constructed was to get him to continually be in contact with her. Angela needed an escape from her seemingly unfulfilling life. Taking care of two severely handicapped adults, rearing a young daughter, and desperately trying to be a successful painter will no doubt consume much of one's available time. Perhaps it was the "Noonday Demon", or perhaps it was Angela's attempt to fill some void in her heart, but regardless, Angela turned to the digital world of social media, thus initiating the events seen in Catfish.

However, Angels'a actions should be analyzed deeper from a deontological perspective. Her subjective maxim--the principle upon a chosen individual acts--is clear: She wanted an escape from her difficult life at home. Her perceived end goal of lying about herself and her family was selfish in nature, but not unreasonable. Yet Angela's defense falls apart when her actions are analyzed through the categorical imperative.

First, Angela cannot will the maxim of her actions as a universal law. A maxim must imply absolute necessity, which means that it must be disconnected from the circumstances surrounding it. It also follows that any rational person acting rationally must also make the same choices that Angela made--matching her subjective maxim with the objective maxim--which I don't think is the case. The second formulation states that Angela should have treated humanity as not merely a means to an end, but an end in itself. Clearly, Angela is only using Nev as a means to obtain happiness and to temporarily ease the loneliness she feels. Lastly, I don't think it can be said that Angela acted in accordance with the maxims of a member in a "kingdom of ends." Surely someone living in a perfect moral world would not have resorted to creating an elaborate facade on social media and lying about oneself in order to achieve happiness.

Thus, Angela's actions seen in Catfish were immoral because they violate the categorical imperative. One can still certainly house sympathy for Angela because of the circumstances surrounding her, but according to Kantian ethics, her actions were immoral.

1 comment:

Unknown said...

I agree with your observation that Angela's actions were immoral. I like how you analyzed her actions using the categorical imperative. I think you made some great points. I also agree that it is still possible to feel sympathy for her though she acted immorally.