A week ago, I rushed to see Hot Fuzz. Hot Fuzz is definitely not an artistic or aesthetic movie, it’s an entertaining comedy, a spoof of the classical cop action movies, such as Bad Boys, Lethal Weapon, etc. Having enjoyed the zombie spoof, Shaun of the Dead, I was expecting a lot of fun and excitement - as well as some compulsive popcorn eating - when I went to see this movie, but I was definitely not planning on writing about its implications on moral philosophy. In fact, I was excited to see that the movie was much more than an entertaining comedy. It’s a movie about deontology versus utilitarianism, about the individual versus the collective, it deserves to join the list of the “libertarian minded” movies. Unfortunately, I will have to reveal major spoilers in order to present the case for this movie and enjoin anyone to see it before reading the following.
In the beginning of the movie, we witness the progress of Nicholas Angel, as he makes a career in the police force. He is a model cop, works extremely hard at his job and is extremely good at what he does. In most private businesses, such a person would be rewarded so that he cannot be bought out by a competing company. Unfortunately, the police force is a State monopoly that does not need to be efficient and seek profit; it lives off tax money, doesn’t have any competition and thus is rather bureaucratic. Indeed, his superiors are relocating him to a tiny country town with virtually no crime. By being so efficient, Angel is making his hierarchy look bad in comparison. Not only is he punished for his efficiency, but now the streets of London will probably be more dangerous.
Arriving in the small town of Sandford, he throws out of the pub teenagers having beers. Angel believes in deontology, that actions themselves are either permissible or not, regardless of the actual or intended consequences. Unfortunately, at this point he is not familiar with natural right, and upholds some positive rights as his standard of deontology. Later on, as he discovers his new job, we understand that the police force is very lax in Sandford, spending most of their days eating cake, all at the expense of the taxpayers.
When a series of murders are committed in the town, everyone talks about “accidents” and Angel is the only one willing to investigate. At first, he comes to a conclusion which is the classical plot of too many movies: a greedy businessman is trying to cut the competition out. However he is soon proven wrong, actually the businessman would enjoy having competition as it would bring dynamism to the town!
The real reason behind the murders is that the town council kills everyone they don’t like, on utilitarian grounds. The drinking teenagers are killed because their arrest record would look bad on the town’s crime statistics, the “living statue”, a street performer, is killed as he does not fit the town’s standards, a man and his house are blown up because the house doesn’t look good etc. The town council dresses in robes and meets in a cemetery, much like a dark sect. They only care and speak about one thing: “the common good”. That’s right! In this movie, the deontological, individualistic hero faces a bunch of collectivists concerned by the common good, who - like many collectivists - do not mind killing in order to reach their goal. This is honey to the libertarian movie watcher, as these values are so rarely upheld in movies.
Last but not least, Angel, after being left for dead, returns to the town to rid it of the sect. At one point, the preacher tries to convince him. “You may not be a man of God, but surely you are a man of peace.” We learn in the beginning that Angel is an agnostic, he does not need God to derive his ethical standards. He answers “I may not be a man of God, but I know right from wrong.” He is making the statement that man can naturally know which acts are good and which are evil, this knowledge is natural, it is not revealed by God. He is also making the point that him retaliating against the villagers, in self defense, is right. He recognizes that non-initiation of coercion, NOT pacifism, is the right value to uphold.
All in all, this movie is definitely not a movie about libertarianism, but it certainly has a libertarian flavor. Watching a sect obsessed with “the common good” being defeated by an individualistic deontologist is a pleasure I warmly recommend.