Lord of War: Career choices & Kantian Ethics

The main themes of the film surely deal with the moral consequences of arms dealing as well as the accountability that he inherits with his behavior. Throughout the film, Orlov states that he is only the one selling guns. His true passion lies in making business transactions, traveling, making money and dealing with powerful individuals. However, his actions represent an act that contributes to a common grievance in society. Furthermore, another theme of the difference between means and ends also develops. Orlov’s main end is to fulfill his needs of financial sustainability for his family while providing cost efficient arms to leaders who cannot afford market prices. Again, it is important to consider the overall impact of his behavior and whether his behavior can be accepted under Kantian ethics. Despite having noble personal goals that seem beneficial, his acts cannot be labeled as permissible within Kant’s principles. 

According to Kant, actions are morally permissible if they are only an end and can be applied universally. As humans, we are caught in a dilemma between self-serving interests and those of the greater good, which can apply to our immediate family, those around us or the whole world. Kant’s notions of moral permissiveness rely on humans basing their actions based on duty as an end in itself instead of a means towards a greater end. Also, this action must pass the test of being applied universally; that is, if everyone conducted themselves with the same behavior, would it be beneficial for society. An individual’s moral worth rests on whether his behavior can be satisfied with Kant’s criteria. 

Orlov’s behavior relates to Kant’s ideas in terms of both universal application and moral duty versus self-interests. Indeed, Orlov has no intention of hurting others, killing children or even helping others kill people who are innocent. He merely wants to fulfill his own personal passions of conducting international business within a thriving industry while providing for his family. For example, he spent a massive amount of funds to make sure that his family never knew what he was doing. He lied to his wife and his multiple identities and traveling by fabricating stories to his wife. In relation to Kantian ethics, this is noble because he was providing a great living for his family and protecting them from his actions by hiding it. It would seem as though it was noble and not morally reprehensible.

However, Orlov’s behavior within the context of a universal application makes it morally wrong in every aspect. He sold guns to whoever he could under any circumstance, as long as they paid for it. In one instance, he even sold weapons to a leader who he knew was of bad moral character and would use the guns to kill innocent people. This general of a third world African country was surely of bad character and Orlov knew this. If everyone applied this behavior, then the world would be in ruins because the wrong people would have access to weapons that they are going to kill others with. Since this behavior cannot be applied on a universal level, then it is not morally permissible.

Ultimately, Orlov’s behavior represented two separate notions of Kantian criteria for moral behavior. On the one hand, he was serving a noble purpose of providing for his family and doing a job as part of his profession. He was not violent, a killer or user of his own arms. However, he sold weapons to people he reasonably knew were of bad moral character and would do terrible things. On a universal level, this behavior is not acceptable and thus morally reprehensible. Kant’s notions of universal acceptance dictate that under these circumstances, this behavior is not acceptable. Therefore, Orlov’s actions cannot be deemed moral under Kantian ethics.