Different Opinions Of People From Non Human Animals And...

In viewing 12 Angry Men, we see face to face exactly what man really is capable of being. We see different views, different opinions of men such as altruism, egoism, good and evil. It is no doubt that human beings possess either one or any of these characteristics, which make them unique. It is safe to say that our actions, beliefs, and choices separate us from animals and non-livings. The 20th century English philosopher, Martin Hollis, once said, â€Å"Free will – the ability to make decisions about how to act – is what distinguishes people from non-human animals and machines 1†. He went to describe human beings as â€Å"self conscious, rational, creative. We can fall in love, write sonnets or plan for tomorrow. We are capable of faith, hope and†¦show more content†¦He summed up human nature as â€Å"existence precedes essence†. In his book, Existentialism and Human Emotions, he explained what he meant by this. â€Å"It means that, first of al l, man exists, turns up, appears on the scene, and, only afterwards, defines himself. If man, as the existentialist conceives him, is indefinable, it is because at first he is nothing. Only afterward will be something, and he himself will have made what he will be 4†. After watching 12 Angry Men, the prominent view on human nature that is best portrayed in the movie is that people are free to be whatever they want because as Sartre said, â€Å"people create themselves every moment of everyday according to the choices they make 5†. Firstly, perhaps the most egoistic man seen in the film would be Juror 3. He is characterized in the movie as a very strong and very forceful, an extremely opinionated man with a streak of sadism 6. He is intolerant of opinions other than his own and is accustomed to forcing his wishes and views upon others 7. He admitted that he would pull the switch on the boy if he had the chance, claiming that the boy is guilty without going over the evidence thoroughly, even when the evidence proves the boy is innocent. Juror 3’s opinion of the boy reflects a personal experience with his own son, who ran away, and he has not seen his son since. Juror 3 used the experience of his own son and