Hypocrisy in The Justification of Immorality in 'On The Waterfront' Movie

Among the plethora of questionable moral decisions made by Johnny Friendly and Charley Mulloy in the movie On the Waterfront, a closer look at the context of their decisions reveal flaws in the preliminary thought process of what they deem moral. By focusing on these two characters, we can analyze their past to understand how they’ve been socialized to judge actions in the present; and therefore, base their decisions on them. Additionally, we can discern that despite having different reasons for their morals, Charley and Johnny are essentially similar in their their perception of morality. This raises the question of whether the context and reasoning for their morals matter in judging their character. When considering the decisions both Charley and Johnny made throughout the film, it is clear that their actions, moral or not, are a byproduct of their pasts; with this, their actions are hypocritical and not justifiable because their experiences should have taught them to act differently.

The first step in breaking down the morals of Charley and Johnny is to look back at their past to consider how their experiences have shaped them today. If we consider an absolutist perspective, Charley and Johnny’s actions are immoral because they break the law by aiding in multiple murders and extorting money from innocent workers at the piers. However, if we take a relativist lense, Johnny and Charley’s pasts provide an explanation of their current perspectives on morality. For example, the film takes a relativist lense by empathizing with Johnny even though he is the main antagonist. By choosing to include his rough childhood through an inspirational speech made by Johnny, the film is attempting to make us feel pity for him despite all the criminal activities he participates in. In the film, Johnny mentions the hardships he went through in order to manipulate members of his mob to have sympathy for him and his corrupt agenda. For example, Johnny states “my old lady raised us ten kids on a stinkin' watchman's pension. When I was sixteen I had to beg for work in the hold. I didn't work my way up out of there for nuthin'”. It was this lack of stability and wealth during his childhood that motivated Johnny to crave power and inevitably lead to his moral downfall.

The influx of power Johnny obtained hindered him from morally developing in his new place of work. If we were to use Kohlberg’s stages of moral development, Johnny would currently be in the second stage, also known as “individualism and exchange”. This stage is characterized by individuals acting on their own self-interest by evaluating how a moral decision will benefit them. If we apply this to Johnny, we can see how he operates his organization through favors exchanged between members. Every decision he makes is validated by members of his organization because of the mutually beneficial relationship they have. Johnny allows his members to reap the benefits of his extortion if they remain loyal and perform tasks that aid the organization as a whole. As a result, all of his judgements of what's right and wrong are based on how it will affect him and his organization/family at the end of the day. Considering this through a relative lense, Johnny has established a community where his power is used to financially support members of his organization. If he is aiding people in return for their loyalty, Johnny can classify his own actions as moral as they are helping the men in his organization.

On the other hand, Charley's story and development of morals follows a different route from Johnny. Charley and his brother Terry had a rough childhood due to their father dying; as a result, they had to be placed in a children’s home. According to Terry, it wasn’t a home at all which caused Terry to run away and participate in risky activities such as boxing. This unstable environment had a negative effect on Charley growing up as he lost his sense of community and family. As a result, it’s understandable why Charley was fond of Johnny Friendly because their relationship was rather intimate and also based on multiple exchanges of favors. In a sense, Johnny became an authority figure to Charley as they’re relationship was founded over them looking out for each other and essentially keeping each other financially stable. Charley even explains this to Terry by saying “Johnny does you favors, kid. You got to do a little one for him once in a while”.

Charley’s involvement in Johnny’s organization allowed him to be apart of a larger community, which is the closest resemblance he had to a real family after his father’s death. Therefore, we can say that Charley’s morals were heavily skewed by the influence of his “new family.” Charley and the other members of Johnny’s organization are all entrapped by this feeling of belongingness and power that has been granted to them. As a result, they began to base their morals and decisions on the approval of Johnny. If we were to use Kohlberg’s stages of moral development to analyze Charley as well, we can see how he falls between stage three and four, which is the “interpersonal relationship” and “maintenance of social order stage”. People in these stages seek approval from others and attempt to maintain the status quo of their society. Due to Charley’s dependance on Johnny, he has surrounded himself around Johnny’s corrupt organization and continues to adhere to the rules they enforce. Additionally, Charley does every act with the intention of receiving validation from Johnny, who is a father figure to Charley. We see this when Charley reasons with Terry by explaining to him that “when Johnny needs a favor, don't try to figure it out, just do it”.

After looking at both Johnny and Charley’s morals with a relativist perspective, we can see that their rocky upbringing has shaped the way they conduct their lives today. However, if they both use their pasts to justify their morals in the present, then Johnny and Charley can be classified as hypocritical. Consider Johnny’s past, he had to live under a watchmen’s salary with ten other siblings, which means there was limited money to go around. He also stated how he had to “beg for work”. If this was the case, then why was Johnny currently extorting money from innocent workers on the docks? Johnny intentionally prevents some honest working men from being able to work on the docks in order to extort them. These unfair practices are primarily used to strengthen Johnny’s hold of power over the docks which exemplifies his greed and selfishness.

Similarly, Charley’s past was rocky considering the lack of stability he faced from not having a family. Throughout that entire process he had his own brother but chose to neglect his wishes and prioritize Johnny and his organization. Terry even told Charley that he “could’ve been a contender. I could have had class and been somebody. Real class. Instead of a bum, let's face it, which is what I am. It was you, Charley”. Charley’s prioritization of Johnny’s organization over his own brother shows that his morals of loyalty and family aren’t as truthful as they seem to be.

So in answering our question whether context plays a role in judging one’s morals, we can conclude that the past does matter when judging one’s morals. From an absolute and relative lense, Johnny and Charley’s actions cannot be morally justified. When we consider their past lives we discover how their actions are hypocritical and when we evaluate their actions without context, their activities are criminal and immoral. Therefore, neither character should receive any sympathy from audience members despite their troubling pasts.