The film No Country for Old Men is dedicated to encouraging the modern viewer to transcend traditional thinking and morals to become more open-minded towards philosophies different. The film deals with themes such as man's manipulation of the function of an object, the interaction between people and their concepts of destiny, and social morality. There are three main characters, whose relationships question different roles in society. Javier Bardem plays Anton Chigurh, a seemingly immoral hitman, Josh Brolin plays Llewelyn Moss, a traditionally good man who makes a fundamental mistake, and finally, Tommy Lee Jones plays Sheriff Tom Bell, the hero of the film. However, Anton Chigurh and Sheriff Tom Bell embody how different philosophical approaches exist in a traditional society. The key to understanding the film's philosophical approach lies through these two characters and the skepticism they induce in society. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get Original Essay No Country for Old Men begins with Llewelyn Moss, a war veteran, who stumbles upon an unfinished drug deal with the parties dead and the money left behind. Moss takes the money and Anton Chigurh is introduced as the man who must find the money by any means necessary. Soon after, Sheriff Tom Bell also discovers the scene and quickly discovers that Moss has taken the money. Realizing the consequences of Moss' action, she decides to protect him from his impending murder. At first glance, it seems clear that Bell is the hero and Chigurh the villain, but neither character can be defined exclusively as such. Anton Chigurh is a “man of action”, he is not limited by the boundaries of common morality and can act freely according to his own convictions. In No Country for Old Men, Chigurh appears to be pure evil due to the way he freely kills people paired with the power that comes from taking a life without feeling remorse. However, the Coen brothers who directed the film, test the viewers and ask them to look beyond Chigurh's actions. In reality Chigurh does not kill at random and does not kill everyone he encounters, his actions are all deliberate. Being a man of action, not only of intention, but also basing these actions on a personally defined morality is the ideal state for many philosophers. Fyodor Dostoevsky talks about being a person who can act freely and self-confidently: “And to go to the root of the matter, why are you so positively convinced that not acting against his real normal interests guaranteed by the conclusions of reason and arithmetic is certainly always advantageous to man and must always be a law to mankind?” (Notes from 42) Anton Chigurh acts against the predetermined morality of the society Dostoevsky speaks to, becoming the man Dostoevsky envies. However, he not only acts, but he acts according to his own code. The idea of ​​denying beliefs defined by the masses to find what you value as an individual is also promoted by Nietzsche “Skepticism regarding morality is what is decisive. The end of the moral interpretation of the world, which no longer has any sanction after attempting to escape into the afterlife, leads to nihilism. “Everything is meaningless. ” (Live Dangerously 131) Anton Chigurh's chosen path may seem traditionally immoral and almost horrific, but it is the identity that two of the most famous philosophers speak directly to. No Country For Old Men explores a way of life that could potentially be moral and authentic despite its violent and lawless façade. One of Anton Chigurh's methods of killing is with the use of a penny. In a scene between his character and aparticipant at a local rest stop, this penny turns from a penny to the difference between life and death. Chigurh approaches this man behind the counter in an aggressive manner, there is an extremely menacing manner to his movements and tone of voice that makes it clear that the attendee's life is in danger. Chigurh asks the man a series of annoying questions about his life and then finally asks, "What's the most you've lost in a coin toss?" (Coen) The participant is taken by surprise and it can be inferred that this coin toss could decide whether he will be killed or spared. Anton Chigurh forces his possible victim to feel the weight of this very small object, a coin, and expects him to use it in a game of chance to decide whether to live or die. In this scene, Chigurh manipulates the function of the coin to suit his purposes. Plato speaks directly about this idea and interprets it Albert Hakim: “So Plato's search for the permanent, for essences, is also a search for what is higher and more noble. ” (Hakim 53) This money, in the “world of forms”, exists as a payment method and its essence is perfect. Once this penny enters the “imperfect world” its essence will be distorted. Chigurh becomes exactly what Plato is against, he distances the penny from its truest form by using it for his own ideologies and not those of the “world of forms”. As this penny escapes its true form, Chigurh moves further and further away from the good and truth defined by Plato. Despite the power contained in the penny, it is also balanced by the idea of ​​destiny. This coin toss has two outcomes and this outcome cannot be changed by the station participant or Anton Chigurh. Chigurh will respect this outcome, as it is part of his moral code to follow fate. This destiny is what drives his actions, the belief that he is on an immutable path. No Country For Old Men constantly tests the power of fate, as Chigurh, Moss and Bell wouldn't meet without a remote drug deal gone bad and the film wouldn't last without the constant cat-and-mouse game between the three. The viewer is constantly nervous as the paths of the three men and the fate of their lives intertwine. This idea of ​​the domino effect is first described by Aristotle, “. . . If it were always true to say that it was or would be, it could not not be, or not be. But if something cannot fail to happen, it is impossible for it not to happen; and what cannot fail to happen necessarily happens. Whatever will be, therefore, will be necessary. ” (De Interpretatione) To explain further, if the gas station attendant had caught tails, Chigurh would have killed him, but since he had caught heads he was safe. There were two outcomes based on the outcome of the coin toss, a single event, but both outcomes could become inevitable and can still be considered fate according to Aristotle. Fate must be seen in the context of morality. Chigurh believes that his moral actions are in accordance with fate, but Sheriff Bell is of the same opinion. Although both men have extremely different beliefs, they are motivated to act accordingly. Sheriff Bell's values ​​align much more closely with those defined by society. According to Soren Kierkegaard he has the potential to be “the tragic hero”. Kierkegaard in Fear and Trembling defines the tragic hero as such: “The tragic hero finishes his task at a specific moment in time…” (16) “the tragic hero renounces himself to express the universal…” ( 33). Sheriff Bell constantly works to protect the lives of "innocent" humans like Llewelyn Moss, but ultimately fails. Sheriff Bell might be a “tragic hero” primarily because.