Stacy Papillion
Dr. E. Childs
English 1301
Your Wrong Morality vs. My Right Morality
Many of us are confident in our own definition of morality (whatever that definition may be) and act accordingly in regards to discharging those beliefs in living our daily lives. That is not to say we as individuals don’t on some subconscious level, judge others by our own standards of morality and the values we individually hold dear. “In No Country For Old Men”, the actions of Anton Chigurh, Sherrif Bell and Llewelyn Moss to demonstrate this aspect of life in their roles in this movie. Each character obviously has their own self-serving analysis on what constitutes morality and how one should go about life in accordance with those moral codes.
Sherriff Bell seems to live by a moral code that is in accordance to what the majority of people throughout his lifetime have lived by. Sherriff Bell has a hard time understanding things that occur in life that are beyond his moral code and the way he lives life. Sherriff Bell tends to judge others that act outside of what he believes is beyond his interpretation of righteous morality. In “No Country For Old Men as Moral Philosophy” (McFarland164) Sherriff Bell makes a comment in reference to not knowing what crime is anymore. I am sure Sherriff Bell is quite familiar with the definition of crime as it relates to the letter of the law, but in this regard he is judging the actions of others, using his own personal views of morality.
Sherriff Bell also believes his own sense of mental wellness and self-worth has made it to a crossroad and he is currently in the throes of an internal battle that is gnawing away at his very soul. Sherriff Bell has basically given up on making any type of difference in anyone else’s life, seeing as he has failed to make a satisfying difference in his own life. Sherriff Bell is content with the carnage around him and has found a way to further desensitize himself from feeling any real emotion in regards to it. In the film “No Country For Old Men” Sherriff Bell rides a horse through the scene of a drug massacre, without showing any real emotion. Sherriff Bell makes a comment about the victims stating, “They died of natural causes, causes that are normal to their line of work” It has been established that Sherriff Bell has been on the job for quite some time, and has applied judgment to the victim’s and suspects involved in the massacre.
Llewelyn Moss has also demonstrated applying his own sense and definition of morals to his life and decisions he makes concerning his life and the life of his wife Carla Jean. Moss seems to live an average life, well as average of a life a Vietnam veteran can live. Moss applies the rules of his sense of living by a moral code to satisfy his own ego and financial gains. It seems clear that Moss believes stealing is wrong and he demonstrates that knowledge by lying to Carla Jean about where he came up on the money and the new gun he shows off and by returning to give the dying, thirsty man a drink of water. Moss is a man of simple thinking “Finders keepers, loser’s weepers.” Moss seems to believe the drug dealers had a stroke of bad luck that in some weird twist became good luck for him.
Moss feels his good luck and good intentions will aide him in escaping Chigurh and the death squad that is feverishly hunting him and the millions he has stolen. Moss has gotten so involved in his own self-serving desires, that he has failed to think within the realms of what I or maybe even you may feel is a common sense decision in regards to saving his self and the life of his wife. As you can see, in the last sentence, I have even fell victim to judging Moss using my own definition of moral code and how to apply it to decisions that affect life. Moss is also very set in his beliefs and he is willing to die in defense of his moral code. Moss is a man, a man that loves his wife, but he loves the taste of greed a bit more. I feel Moss is selfish and has his mind on one thing, being rich, by any means he deems necessary in pursuit of this goal.
Anton Chigurh is the equivalent of a nightmare to Bell and Moss. Chigurh has taken morality as viewed by all and boiled it down, poured off all of what we view is good, and redefined it to fit into his life as a paid murderer. I wonder if Chigurgh at some point of his life was a decent, upstanding citizen, as defined by the majority of society. Like Sherriff Bell and Moss, Chigurh uses his moral code to judge others and to move about in his everyday life. I find it very intriguing how Chigurh places his moral code above all others, but at times he can display a tendency to be able to briefly switch his cold hearted, callous, black and white moral rules, to having a small amount of pity for his potential victims.
In the article, No Country for Old Men as Moral Philosophy, it references Chigurh as being human in regards to anatomy, but un human in regards to his actions and perception of morals and human life and the code it’s lived by (McFarland171). I believe Chigurh is viewed in such a manner due to his animalistic, lack of emotion personality. I believe Chigurh displays emotions of annoyance and frustration, but not anger. I don’t feel Chigurh got angry, during the movie because it simply is not in his nature. It seems he doesn’t have the need for anger, because wanting to be held as a grim reaper like figure that instills instant fear in all he comes into to contact with. Chigurh is successful in triggering the desired reaction from all of the poor souls that had the misfortune of dealing with him, so he feeds his ego with every contact.
I feel as being human, at times we can relate to Anton Chigurh and his philosophies. Although I am not, nor have I ever considered being a murderer for hire, I have experienced the emotion of anger and the fantasy of an “Anton Chigurh” paying a visit to the source of my annoyance. I agree that in the movie, we hoped Chigurh would fall victim to his own demented thinking and way of living, just as most of the good for nothing characters do. I wonder if that would have truly satisfied our own deep rooted “Anton Chigurhs” that reside deep inside of us on the darkside of our human nature.
In the book, The Unrelenting Country, (Doom149) it is referenced that America’s need for violence is not something new, but just a part of our history. This statement rings true of our culture in regards to the topic of morals. We as humans can’t resist having a ying and yang aspect of our morality. There are times when we are very compassionate and are willing to bend over backwards for others. There are also those times that we are very vindictive, controlling and evil. Many of us are very ashamed of this aspect of our own personal morality, and we often deny and attempt to hide its existence. This comes about, when we judge others using our own personal moral code. We can tend to be unyielding when we believe someone has violated our interpretation of what living standards the majority of our society should live by.
In the book, “He’s a Psychopathic Killer But So What?” Folklore And Morality In Cormac Mccarthy’s “No Country For Old Men.” (Cooper1) there is a observation made in reference to the similarities of Sheriff Bell and Anton Chigurh where the topic of morality arises. Like Anton Chigurh, Sheriff Bell has a personal outlook and interpretation of how the world works and how to survive. Many of us will tend side more with Sheriff Bell in regards to morality, because we tend to and have always went with the majority of society. There is a vast majority of our society that mask their evils sides, and secretly cheer Anton Chigurh on in his mission.
A perfect example of this is mentioned in David Reynolds paper, where he feels Anton Chigurh attempts to possess a desire to act as a supreme being in regards to deciding life or death on people he encounters. Reynolds as being human himself, also has a darkside that he masks, therefore he falls in line with the status quo in regards to what is an acceptable line of work and how to go about doing that job. Llewelyn Moss is also a perfect fit for this theory. Llewelyn Moss is a simple guy, that by all counts in the movie, practices the moral codes of the majority, but he could not completely hide the evil, underhanded, unmerciful side of his moral code.
When Llewelyn Moss happens upon the massacre, and he initially decides to leave the seriously injured man that is begging for water. The problem with this situation is not that Llewelyn left the injured man, but the way he treated the man prior to leaving him behind to die. Eventually Llewelyn Moss went back to help the man, but it was many hours later. Llewelyn Moss’ actions prove the evil that reside in all of us, the yang so to say. If Anton Chigurh would have participated in the gun fight involving the drug dealers, we would not have had any sympathy for the deceased and the way they met their demise. This way of thinking further proves that we are all capable of adopting Anton Chigurh’s taboo philosophy. In Tammy’s paper, she referenced everyone having a fear of the “Boogey Man”, we all in some ways are the boggy men at sometimes in our lives. We as a society, create the Boogey Men, that cause this to be “No Country For Old Men.”
Works Cited
Cooper, Lydia R. "He's A Psychopathic Killer, But So What?": Folklore And Morality In Cormac Mccarthy's "No Country For Old Men." Papers On Language & Literature 45.1 (2009): 37-59. Academic Search Complete. Web. 7 Dec. 2012.
Doom, Ryan P. Brothers Coen : Unique Characters Of Violence. n.p.: Praeger, 2009. eBook Collection (EBSCOhost). Web. 7 Dec. 2012.
McClure, Christopher. "No Country For Old Gods." Perspectives On Political Science 39.1 (2010): 46-51. Academic Search Complete. Web. 7 Dec. 2012.
McFarland, Douglas. “No Country For Old Men As Moral Philosophy.” The Philosophy of the Coen Brothers. Ed.Mark T. Conrad. Lexington: University of Kentucky, 2009. 163-175. Print.
No Country For Old Men.Dir. Joel Coen and Ethan Coen. Perf. Javier Bardem, Josh Brolin, Woody Harrelson, and Tommy Lee Jones. Miramax Films, 2007. DVD.
