A Few Good Men

Fiction | Play | Adult | Published in 1989

A modern alternative to SparkNotes and CliffsNotes, SuperSummary offers high-quality Study Guides with detailed chapter summaries and analysis of major themes, characters, and more.

Download PDF

Summary

Acts Summaries & Analyses

Act I, Part 1

Act I, Part 2

Act II, Part 1

Act II, Part 2

Character Analysis

Themes

Symbols & Motifs

Important Quotes

Essay Topics

Tools

Beta

Discussion Questions

Themes

Moral Clarity

The characters in A Few Good Men possess varying views about morality, but are all utterly committed to their codes of honor and their beliefs. Jessup, for example, sees the world in stark terms. His view that the world is divided into good and evil obliterates nuance but makes his life easier. He thinks that he’s good and that he’s working to protect the world from evil, separating everything based on whatever side of the fence it happens to reside. For Jessup, this simple dichotomy is an example of moral clarity and a justification for everything he does. He may not be correct, and the rest of the world may not agree with him, but his moral clarity dictates his actions and allows him to justify his behavior even when it results in tragedies like the death of Santiago. Unfortunately for him, most of the world doesn’t necessarily agree with his worldview. His confession is an expression of his moral clarity, as he thinks that the Code Red and Santiago’s death may have been tragic but probably saved lives. Jessup’s moral clarity might have helped him become a successful military commander, but it also becomes his undoing.

Dawson and Downey function as extensions of Jessup’s worldview. They firmly believe in the Marines’ code of honor, treating their military training as an almost religious experience. Their moral clarity derives from their training, suggesting that they view the Marines’ code of honor as the highest possible expression of morality. Downey and Dawson never question their orders and willingly take the blame for Santiago’s death, prioritizing their unit’s survival before their own. When they have the option to accept a reduced sentence, they refuse because they won’t compromise their honor for an easy solution. To them, this decision is self-evident and derives from the moral clarity with which they view the world. The Marines, God, and the US are more important than the needs of the individual, so they willingly sacrifice their own well-being. Their moral clarity actively harms them even while they think that it benefits them. Just as they exemplify the dangers in unquestioningly following orders, Downey and Dawson demonstrate the perils of overinvesting in a particular morality.

Fathers, Mentors, and Leaders

The influence of authority figures is evident throughout A Few Good Men. The court martial centers on the morality of characters who insist that they were following the orders of their superior officers, while some characters struggle with the influence of the guiding figures in their lives. Kaffee, for example, stands in the shadow of his father’s reputation. A famous civil rights lawyer, Kaffee’s father died before Kaffee graduated from law school. As a result, he doubts his ability to match his father’s accomplishments or measure up to the approval that his father might have provided. This self-doubt forces Kaffee to take the easiest options in his cases. He hesitates to try lest he fail; he fears failure because of his father’s influence and reputation. Kaffee’s complex relationship with his father shapes his personality. He develops only because he learns through the case to operate on his own behalf rather than trying to measure up to some imagined version of his father’s legacy.

Jessup sees himself as a father figure to his men. He feels a personal responsibility to train them and turn them into the best possible Marines. His sense of paternal responsibility leads to his refusing Santiago’s request for a transfer. Instead, he wants to bully Santiago into being a better Marine. This blunt insistence that everyone reach the exacting standards that Jessup sets ultimately results in Santiago’s death. As a father figure, he’s a toxic influence. He imprints his blunt and reductionist view of a world divided into good and evil onto all the people under his command. Jessup approves of bullying and violence in the pursuit of his quest to train the best possible Marines. Jessup’s need to fill the role of father figure ends tragically, though he refuses to acknowledge his mistakes.

Jessup’s role as a mentor and a leader has a particularly strong effect on Downey. The young Marine’s parents are dead, and he lacks a mentor in his life. He finds a purpose only when he joins the Marines, whose codes of honor and ethics help give Downey direction in a rudderless existence. He latches on to Dawson (and, by proxy, Jessup) as a mentor figure. Like Santiago, Downey meets a tragic end. He’s dishonorably discharged; his one guiding purpose is taken from him, and he must return to his listlessness, losing the only leader or mentor he ever had.

Institutional Sexism

The story is set in the 1980s, when the US military is dominated by men. The institution restricts the inclusion of women, forbidding them from piloting planes or boats. These rules dictate the career performance of women like Joanne Galloway and force them into certain niches if they want to succeed in the military. She chooses law and becomes a member of the Internal Affairs department of the US Navy. This decision forces her to confront the artificial limitations placed upon her as a woman, to the point that irrelevant moments bluntly remind her of her gender. Though the institution restricts her role, she chooses to perform it as exceptionally as possible. Galloway views her success as a triumph over the sexism she faces in everyday life. As a result, her work ethic and dedication are not just personal triumphs. She’s fighting on behalf of women against an organization that institutionally considers her inferior, using her skill and success as weapons in the fight against institutional sexism.

The contrast between Galloway and Kaffee at the beginning of the story highlights the military’s institutional sexism. Whereas Galloway needs to work twice as hard as her male colleagues to earn half as much respect, Kaffee barely needs to work at all. He coasts through life using his charm, trying to do as little work as possible. He even resents Galloway’s implication that he should try harder at his job, and he refuses to treat her with respect even though she outranks him. Kaffee has accomplished nothing in his career but enjoys more respect and privileges from his superiors than Galloway even though she works far harder than he does. That Kaffee should succeed while applying no effort and Galloway should struggle despite working incredibly hard exemplifies institutional sexism. Although Galloway may not succeed in dismantling the prejudice that holds her back, her work ethic inspires Kaffee to be a better lawyer.