Introduction The film Boomerang directed by Elia Kazan illustrates a serious moral dilemma when a person has to choose between ambitions and, career on the one hand, and one’s ethical integrity, on the other. The main character State’s Attorney Henry Harvey has to make a choice that may alienate him from many of his friends and even ruin his career, but he is adamant in his decision to defend a person who can be unjustly convicted. This dilemma and the main actions of the main character can be discussed from several perspectives, for instance, one can mention, the ethics of David Hume and the moral philosophy of Immanuel Kant. Overall, it is possible to say that the actions of the protagonists could be driven by his willingness to preserve his personal integrity and his sense of justice. These were the most crucial factors that affected his decisions. The following sections will discuss this argument in more detail. Analysis of the dilemma from a Humean perspective The ideas of David Hume can be applied to the situation that Henry Harvey faces. The cornerstone of Hume’s ethics is the idea that reason cannot be the main driver of a person’s moral choices (Hume as cited in Brick 11). In his view, the moral worth of an action is not determined rationally. It is derived primarily from feelings and emotions of a person who takes a decision. Henry Harvey has to make a moral choice in very difficult circumstances. First, he is pressured by the increasing public outrage and discontent with the work of a policy. Moreover, the protagonist represents the new political administration of the city, and these people urge him to close Waldron’s case as quickly as possible. Yet, at the same time, he is strongly affected by his inner sense of justice and the feeling that John Waldron deserves justice and proper investigation of his case. He might have agreed with the results of the investigation, but it was very difficult for him to suppress the voice of his conscience. The main characters actions can be better explained by David Hume’s argument according to which “reason alone can never be a motive to any action of the will; and secondly it can never oppose passion in the direction of the will” (Hume as cited in Brick 11). To a large extent, Harvey’s actions support this argument. If he had approached this case in a rational and self-interested way, he might have convicted the suspect without trying to find evidence in his defense. One should remember that no one prompted him to take initiative and undertake one’s own investigation. One should note that Hume does not deny the importance of reason because it helps people to analyze information, but rationality is not the main criterion of people’s decisions. So, in many ways, Harvey made such a choice because he did not want to suffer from qualms of conscience. One can argue that David Hume’s ethical theory provides a very likely explanation of Henry Harvey’s actions. However, this theory implies that such a dilemma cannot be resolved objectively. As it has been said the main criterion is the feelings of the main character. On the whole, Humean moral philosophy does not describe the ways and principals of resolving such dilemmas. This is the major limitation of this framework. Kantian ethics Kant’s views on ethics differ dr