The movie “High Noon” has interesting comparisons to Kant’s philosophies and views. While many will say that it may reflect the views of the philosopher, particularly through the actions of the main character Kane, this article will take a look at the interesting and somewhat contrary point of view by looking at the actions of Kane’s wife.

It’s important to first note that Kane’s wife is an emotional person. She is a religious woman, a Quaker to be precise, and she chose this lifestyle after seeing her father and her brother shot to death. Her current views on weapons, violence and her personal involvement reflect the emotional side of her which Kant would clearly say is a weak point and differs completely from the Kantian view.

Supporting his anti-Kantian ways is the fact that he is very focused on consequences. She doesn’t see the act of killing simply for the act and defensive purpose of it. She cares too much about who might and will die and not enough why they would risk her life to perform the act. Kant would say that she does not see duty in the individual’s action and rather focuses a lot on how and what this can lead to, no matter how unpredictable.

Conversely, it’s also important to note that Kane’s wife is an analytical person. She relies on her reason to some degree to establish her own views on life. It’s clear that she doesn’t believe in killing because she finds it morally wrong in her religion, but she also discusses the very human and deadly aspect of killing. She recognizes how useless it would be to kill another man and that it would break all your moral standards to do so. One can say that she is simply acting according to God’s teachings, but has come to accept this of her own free will and has established these views after her personal experience. Kane’s wife isn’t just another religious fanatic protesting self-righteousness and mortal/civilized laws. She is a woman who has great self-respect and is able to carry that respect throughout life so that she is clear about one thing: she can honestly and justifiably say that killing is wrong. She has a strong moral foundation.

However, at the end of the film, Kane’s wife takes a drastic turn towards Kant’s philosophy. She is able to free her mind of future worry and analysis, and in doing so she realizes her duty to protect her husband from him protecting her. She is willing to break her point of view on killing to save her husband, though she doesn’t break her morals. What she does is justified and it is a logical and moral act that Kant would promote for the simple fact that she follows the Ethics of Duty.

It is clear that the character of Kane’s wife is dynamic. She stays moral and true to herself throughout the movie, but what changes is how she defines this or how her actions define her. Although she doesn’t lose her emotions to perform any action, she is able to push them aside and let them not interfere. Kane’s wife always had the underlying rules of the Ethics of Duty, but in the end it took a clear and decisive act to allow her to really express what she had and already knew.