Does Might Make Happiness?

Woody Allen brings many concepts of philosophy into his films.  Crimes and Misdemeanors questions the idea of justice.  In the end, most movies have the good guys win and the bad guys lose.  In Crimes and Misdemeanors, the immoral characters face no punishment and are even rewarded.  This brings up the question of whether or not the world is a moral place and if it’s worthwhile to be a just person.

Plato also addresses these issues.  Thrasymachus and Glaucon argue that it is easier and better to be unjust.

I agree that being unjust makes things easier, but it might not make you happy.  Plato only addresses the ease of being unjust, the natural inclination towards it, and injustice’s ability to help one progress and get more than others.   Crimes and Misdemeanors supports these assertions, but it does not support that having an easy life and more success makes one happier.

The seemingly happiest character in the film is Ben, who takes Socrates’ approach of valuing justice.  Ben faces the most apparent suffering by going blind.  However, Ben seems to be the happiest.

Jack and Lester are similar to the idea of the ruler making rules to benefit himself.  They do whatever is necessary to get ahead, ignoring what is just.  As Thrasymachus asserts, justice is the advantage of the stronger.  Jack has an underground network to support him and he has skills to avoid detection.  Lester has money and fame to mask any of his faults.  In the film, Aunt May says, “Might makes right,” which is exemplified in many character’s stories.

Despite the lack of downfall for immoral characters, they remain unhappy.  Judah still has bouts of guilt.  He has trouble having fun.  He used to be gregarious at parties; instead he unhappily sits in a secluded space with the equally depressed Cliff.  He may have success and ease, but not happiness.

Glaucon asserts that the justice enacted by laws is the middle ground between the worst, which is having injustice done to you, and the best, which is doing injustice to others.   The film has many characters that reinforce this point.  Judah is devastated when Dolores blackmails him.  But the injustice of having Dolores killed removes the problem.

Yet, the film undermines Glaucon’s point; Professor Levi asserts that human relationships create the world.  The characters do not form rewarding relationships because they are too busy trying to get ahead.  Cliff, who wants to have an affair, loses both his wife and the woman he is interested in.  This reinforces the idea that being unjust can help you get ahead and have an easy life, but you will ultimately be alone.

Glaucon also says “justice… is to be practiced for the sake of the rewards and popularity that come from a reputation for justice.”  Judah is more concerned with his wife finding out about the affair than he is for a woman’s life.  His goal is to maintain his social status.  The movie opens with him being lauded for a generous donation.  He is unjust even then, being an adulterer and a liar, yet he does whatever is needed to gain rewards and popularity.

Lester also faces a fear of losing his reputation.  He is very particular with what Cliff should film because he knows he is an immoral person.  He doesn’t want to lose his popularity by having his immorality exposed.  This is similar to the assertions made by Thrasymachus and Glaucon because it shows that people will act unjustly if there is no repercussion or if their crimes are unseen, as with Gyges of Lydia.

Both Woody Allen and Socrates question the value of being just and the source of justice.  Is moral law something made up between humans to prevent, as Glaucon called it, “the worst,” by having to suffer injustice without revenge?  Is moral law something from G-d?  Or is justice in our nature and when we act unjustly, is there inner conflict?  Like the Socratic method, the film doesn’t answer questions, but rather poses them.  We as the audience are to decide if there is justice or not.