JOHN Q.

For John Q. Archibald, morality really encompasses the health and well-being of his son. Not only is he willing to risk his freedom and go against the law, but his ultimate back up plan is to kill himself to provide his only child, Mikey, with a new heart in order to save his life. Accepting that his son is going to die isn't possible in his eyes even though his option are very limited. To him, not only is it moral to do this, but it is the only choice he has. He believes that "when people are sick, they deserve help". But his son isn't the only one he feels he has moral obligations to help. It's true that he holds a number of people in the emergency room hostage, but they all get treated. He even takes in a gunshot victim when he hears that he could die if he doesn't get treatment and into surgery. He also gives a woman patient directions to another hospital to who calls in hysterically on the phone. John believes that you should try to help someone no matter who they are and how much money they have.

Based on viewing John Q.'s decisions in a time of desperation, I believe that his ideas of morality would be most congruent with the German philosopher, Immanuel Kant.Kant taught the idea of categorical imperative. This means that morality is derived from rationality and that either something is good or not good and it has to be good for anyone, anywhere and under any circumstance. There is no grey area in categorical imperative, it is either black or white. Right or wrong.


This might seem a bit ridiculous in the case of our protagonist because of the fact that he took a number of people hostage, caused chaos for the entire law enforcement faculty, and severely beat up a police sniper (only after the sniper tried to kill him of course) but you have to keep in mind that he never intended on hurting anyone. For the majority of the film, the gun that John used to orchestrate the entire situation wasn't even ever loaded, thus he couldn't have really hurt anyone. It only gets loaded when he goes to shoot himself so he was the only one who was ever going to get hurt in the plan. Really when you come down to it he got a handful of people free emergency care and he inconvenienced a number of people to save a life. His son's life. Is there really anything wrong with that? I think not. Those decisions could be allowed in every situation if you include the motive.


And all things considered, there is no grey area of morality in John Archibald's mind. As was mentioned before, "if someone is sick, they deserve help". That statement is true for everyone, everywhere, and in every circumstance. For any father really, he would do anything he could to save the life of his child if he could. To a parent, it is black and white - there is no option of whether or not to act.


Parents understand unconditional love. While have no idea what it is like to have a child or have felt that unlimited care for another human being that you can only have with someone that is your flesh and blood. But from what I am told, have read, can imagine and have seen in the film 'John Q.', when you have a child, a life that so greatly depends on you, a parent still has morals but they can be twisted and bent to protect and provide for your child. This is magnified even more when there is a life at stake. Desperate times call for desperate measures.