Judging the Lord of War

Chris Zimmerman

ENGL 384

Paper #2

4/6/08

By looking at Kant’s Metaphysics of Morals, I will judge some of the characters of the movie, Lord of War and determine if they are ethical or unethical. The main character, Yuri Orlov, is undoubtedly unethical in Kant’s eyes. In terms of ethics,

Interpol agent Jack Valentine is the polar opposite of Yuri. Similarly, Yuri’s brother

Vitaly is an ethical man, at least far more than Yuri is. By looking at a few scenes of the movie, it becomes apparent how ethical or unethical these characters are.

The Lord of War is a movie that follows the life of Yuri Orlov, a worldwide gun dealer whose life starts out small and not yet unethical until he faces a series of choices throughout his life that diminish his ethical being before he truly becomes the Lord of

War and learns full well the price of selling one’s soul. This movie is a poignant look at the darker side of human nature and the ethics, and lack thereof, as well as a look at how the powers that be influence the rest of the world and work behind the scenes. At times, it seems as if the viewer is supposed to feel sorry for Yuri when things go badly for him.

I did not have such a problem. He is an unethical man through and through. Strangely enough, Yuri Orlov does not see himself as a bad man. On multiple occasions throughout the movie, he mentions that violence is simply human nature (for example, when he refers to spearheads being found in the ribcages of the earliest skeletons) and he is merely supplying people with a basic need; he feels the need for weapons (he refers to it as the means to defend themselves) is just as important as the need for food. He looks at human nature and psychology as his guides, not ethics. He does not see anything unethical about dealing weapons to people, especially since he is looking only for profit; he does not support any one particular side and at one point refers to himself as an “equal opportunity merchant of death.” (Lord of War). Yuri thinks of himself only as a businessman and is outside the judgement of ethics. On a bit of a side- note, he goes so far in his love of profit (as the end he is most concerned with) to make a

Kantian council of prudence in his “Second rule of gun running: Always ensure you have a foolproof way to get paid.”

However, because he is a shrewd businessman and only looks for profit, he does not treat people as an end in themselves; customers are merely a means to the end of gaining money. This goes against one of Kant’s most stressed points – the Formula of

Humanity. In this axiom from The Metaphysics of Morals, Kant states:

Act in accordance with a maxim of ends that it can be a universal law for everyone

to have. In accordance with this principle a human being is an end for himself as

well as for others, and it is not enough that he is not authorized to use either

himself or others merely as a means… (157).

2 In other words, it is one’s duty to respect others as human beings (and respect their dignity) and as an end in themselves. Anything less would be immoral and neglecting of one’s duties to others.

Every deal that Yuri makes flies in the face of this rule. Yuri knows that his guns are used to kill people and the people that buy his guns will surely kill people. This may seem like a consequentialist argument at first, but surely this shows that Yuri has a duty to his fellow human beings and he clearly does not perform his duty (whether that be to protect the lives of others or to treat people as an end in themselves). In the scene that I describe at the end of this paper, Yuri even says that “a shooting war is better for business. I prefer people to shoot and miss, just as long as they’re firing.” Clearly Yuri treats people only as a means and does not respect their human dignity.

Yuri’s brother, Vitaly, is also in the gun running business with Yuri, but he takes on a much smaller part in it. He seems to make no deals at all with anyone, taking a backseat to his brother, and he disappears for large parts of the movie; his only role seems to be to watch Yuri’s back. Actually, while Vitaly is away, he is spending time in rehab from his problem with cocaine. Kant would have an issue with that since Vitaly is not following through on a perfect duty to himself. One of the perfect duties to oneself is to refrain from “stupefying oneself by the excessive use of food and drink.” (180). Kant says that a “human being who is drunk is like a mere animal and not to be treated like a human being” and that drunkenness can “…result from narcotics…” (180). But compared to Yuri, Vitaly’s problems are minor.

Unlike Yuri, Vitaly has a sense of morals. Kant would not say that Vitaly always acts in accordance with deontological rules, since he is in the business with Yuri and not

3 treating people as an end in themselves, nor is he following his duty to his fellow human beings. However, there is one scene where Vitaly proves that he has morals and fulfills his obligation of duty towards the Formula of Humanity. It ends up being his last scene where he ends up redeeming himself. In that scene set in Monrovia, Liberia Yuri is meeting with his number one client and Vitaly is there watching over Yuri. Vitaly witnesses a gang of thugs that work for the local despot (Yuri’s client) cut down a woman and child in a nearby camp. He tells Yuri that they cannot do the deal since as soon as they “…hand over the weapons, these people are going to die.” “It’s not our business,”

Yuri replied, shrugging off the duty he has to respect these people’s humanity. “It’s what we always do; we can’t control what they do,” continued Yuri, ignoring reason and an obvious duty. “Today we can…we gotta do something!” Vitaly replied, seeing his duty clearly. Minutes later, Vitaly blew up one truck of munitions and ran with a grenade towards the other truck. The despot and his guards end up shooting Vitaly before he can finish his task. When a guard asked Vitaly what he was doing, Vitaly said, “Something for Yuri.” This shows that one of the reasons he did what he did was because he wanted to make Yuri a better person and since Kant says that we have a duty to perfect others, this is virtuous on Vitaly’s part. More importantly, Vitaly risked his life to save the lives of the people in the camp. He knew he would get no reward from it and in fact would lose all the money from the deal and possibly his life (which he did lose here). Vitaly acted out of duty for duty’s sake, and Kant would approve of the reasoning behind his actions.

Interestingly, earlier in the beginning of that scene, Yuri makes commentary as the narrator and judges the “freedom fighters” in Africa. “Every faction in Africa calls

4 themselves by these noble names – ‘liberation this,’ ‘patriotic that,’ ‘democratic republic of something or other.’ I guess they can’t own up to what they usually are – federation of oppressors worse than the last bunch of oppressors.” This is ironic, since he is judging them as being immoral, but he has no problem at all about selling them these weapons of death. He sells his weapons and washes his hands of all responsibility and he feels that no one should judge him as immoral. Kant would certainly disapprove of Yuri not fulfilling his duty to protect others. At the end of that same scene, Yuri narrates again and says, “The massacre played out exactly as Vitaly had predicted, as did a half dozen other massacres…you can’t stop them all. In my experience, you can’t stop any of them.” Again, Yuri shows that he will not lift a finger to help others and does not respect the lives of other human beings.

Kant says that “the greatest violation of a human being’s duty to himself regarded merely as a moral being (the humanity of his own person) is the contrary of truthfulness, lying…” (182). In other words, you have a perfect duty to yourself to tell the truth, since lying degrades oneself. Yuri fails in his duty to be honest. I could fill up ten pages if I merely listed all of the times that Yuri lied in the movie, but I will just name a few major instances. First of all, even his name is a lie. He constantly lies to his wife about his occupation and he tells her she is the only one in his life even though he cheats on her throughout the whole movie. Not only is he lying to his wife and being negligent in one perfect duty he has to himself, but he is also defiling himself with lust, which is another example of dereliction of duty to oneself according to Kant (178).

I will now describe a scene in the movie that shows Yuri’s incessant lying and contrasts him against the Interpol agent, Jack Valentine. On a boat, Yuri is transporting

5 an ex-Soviet military helicopter and Jack Valentine investigates the boat, hoping to catch

Yuri breaking the law since selling a military helicopter is major offense. Yuri tells a nearby mechanic, “It’s not a military helicopter; it’s a rescue helicopter. The law’s on our side.” Yuri has the weaponry quickly removed from the chopper and sets it aside

(with false paperwork for a bogus buyer) before Valentine can get to the helicopter.

Valentine confronts Yuri and Yuri says that the chopper is not a military helicopter, but it is going to be used for humanitarian aid (two lies for the price of one here). Valentine rhetorically asks if the weapons sitting next to the chopper just happen to be going to same place. Yuri points out that it is to a different buyer and he is complying with the current laws and trade practices of Interpol. Valentine says, “We both know that is an obscene bureaucratic loophole that’s gonna be closed any goddamn day.” “But it’s not closed. And while certain people might interpret this cargo as suspicious, thank God we live in a world where suspicion alone does not constitute a crime…and where men like you respect the rule of law.” Valentine then gave up this particular instance because he knew it was true; he was a good officer who believed in the law. Yuri continued with the narration, “I was as guilty as sin but Valentine couldn’t prove it. And he was the rarest breed of law enforcement officer – the type who knew I was breaking the law but wouldn’t break it himself to bust me.” Jack Valentine does not want to break the law and become a criminal himself. He has a conscience which is a strict judge that keeps him ethical. This is a good example of why Valentine is a good Kantian. His conscience ensures that he does his perfect duty to himself. Kant defines conscience as the

“consciousness of an internal court in man.” (189). Kant also says that a conscience “… follows him like a shadow when he plans to escape” his duties or judgements (189).

6 Obviously, Valentine’s conscience follows him around and does a fine job where he goes. It is interesting to note that even Yuri has a conscience; he just ignores it all the time, thus showing how he shirks his duty even when he knows how to do the right thing.

As the aforementioned scene shows, Interpol agent Jack Valentine was a virtuous man who believed in moral and external laws. Valentine did not believe that the act or the person made something ethical or unethical. Like Kant, he is a deontologist who believes the rules are what is most important in ethics. More importantly, Valentine does his duty for duty’s sake, not for any external reward.

Valentine is incorruptible; Yuri even says this about him: “They say every man has his price…but Valentine couldn’t be bought.” Even Valentine’s fellow agents are bought out by Yuri and supply counter intelligence when Yuri pays them, but Valentine remains pure. He is an honest man who values duty and honor. He believes in following the rules, even when criminals hide behind these rules. Kant would surely be proud of

Valentine; he is a man who is most concerned in morality and doing his duty. Even his job is that of serving others (not in a servile way, but in a duty-bound guardian way).

There is one final scene that I would like to describe that I feel perfectly illustrates why Valentine is ethical and Yuri is not. In this scene, Yuri’s plane, which is carrying illegal firearms, of course, lands (not where he is instructed to land) on a road. Yuri quickly gives away all of his weapons, not through any thought of goodwill or charity, but to avoid being caught red-handed by Interpol. By the time Valentine and another

Interpol agent (named Ambisi) arrive on the scene, Yuri is sitting alone in the middle of nowhere on his now-empty plane. Ambisi puts a machete to Yuri’s throat and threatens to kill him. Valentine stops Ambisi. Ambisi says, “We can make him disappear, Mr.

7 Valentine. Around here, people disappear all the time.” “I can’t do that,” Valentine says, showing his acknowledgement of his duty to the dignity of even one such as Yuri’s life and abiding by the rules. “Look where we are. Who will know?” Ambisi replies. “We will,” Valentine says. This demonstrates Valentine’s conscience at work and dedication to the rules, even when others around him would use consequentialist arguments against him. Yuri lies to Valentine and says that he is on a safari and that he “trades arms.”

Valentine notices the dodge and says that Yuri “traffics arms.” Then, in a perfect display of why Valentine is a good Kantian who is always concerned with the well-being of others, duty, and deontology, he says:

You get rich by giving the poorest people on the planet the means to continue

killing each other. Do you know why I do what I do? …nine out of ten war

victims today are killed with assault rifles and small arms. Like yours. …I am

legally permitted to hold you for twenty-four hours without charging you. The

reason why I will delay you for every second of the permissible twenty-four hours

is I am delaying your deadly trade and the deaths of your victims. I don't think of

it is taking a day from you, but giving a day to them. Some innocent man, woman,

or child is gonna have an extra day on this earth because you are not free. (Lord

of War).

Lord of War is a decent movie that is ethically charged. It shows the morals or complete lack of morals through the characters. Sadly enough, two of the main characters (Jack Valentine, who is profoundly ethical; and Vitaly Orlov, who is mostly ethical) end up either dying or losing in the end while the morally bankrupt Yuri walks free. Yuri wraps this sentiment up best by saying, “They say evil prevails when good

8 men fail to act. What they ought to say is ‘evil prevails.’” I feel this cynical observation on Yuri’s part is a generally accurate critique of the world we live in.

Works Cited

Kant, Immanuel. The Metaphysics of Morals. Trans. and Ed by Mary Gregor. New

York: Cambridge University Press. 1996.

Kant, Immanuel. Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals. Trans. and Ed by Mary

Gregor. New York: Cambridge University Press. 1997.

Lord of War. Dir. Andrew Niccol. DVD. Entertainment Manufacturing Company: