Reaction on films, due Jan 16, Friday

Mercado · Posts: 6 Join date: 2008-11-25

Morality in Uniform
(Tears of the Sun, 2003)

The mission is to extract a critical personality a-sap Dr. Lena Fiore Kendricks (Monica Bellucci), an American national by marriage. The second objective is to extract a priest and two nuns if they choose to do so. Nevertheless, during the rescue and evacuation operation in Nigeria, the navy SEAL officers faced a common and prime moral dilemma of rescuing the refugees in the different periods. The difference remains to be the philosophy of the actions and the decisions.

Dr. Lena Kendricks demanded to include her people – a total of 28 refugees in the rescue operation. To follow the chain of command, Lt. A. K. Walters resorted to deception in a sham ploy to complete the mission: allowing the refugees to evacuate with them, only to leave them behind afterwards. The fundamental premise of this action reflects and reveals duty-based ethics; expressed by Lt. Walters in saying: “It wasn’t about saving your life. It’s getting the job done…completing the mission. That’s all.” Officers follow the code of conduct and abide rules and commands without questions or doubt. In the military, logic and maybe even, morality is governed by mark of allegiance and sense of hierarchy; hence, imposed by authority. Therefore, actions to ensure the completion of the mission are morally good and acceptable. Sometimes actions in the pursuit of duty like sacrifice of lives are even morally obligatory. Hence, from a duty-based ethics approach leaving the refugees behind was morally permissible.

However, the team as navy officers and as humans faced the dual and conflicting options: to complete the mission and leave behind the excess packages or to aid and save the Ibo tribal heir, Arthur Azuka and the other refugees. In the end, the navy SEAL team chose not to obey the rules of engagement and the command of discarding the “excess packages”. Instead of returning to U.S. base, the navy SEAL officers returned to the L2 point Alpha for the indigent Nigerians. Women and child refugees were lifted to safety. The rules of engagement states that defend if fired upon, otherwise do not engage. Instead of following this order, the team engaged in a conventional war against the Fulani guerilla rebels in their trail. Thus, the consequence of their choice lies in the endangerment of the success of the operation and the lives of the officers and the refugees. But the option to protect the other refuges takes an overriding priority over completing the mission immediately.

Philosophy shifted and changed when the officers saw the destruction caused by the military coup: shifting from Deontological to Teleological Ethical System. In the Teological or Utilitarian Ethical System, an act is good if it promotes and leads to the greatest overall human welfare.

If the team did not aid the Nigerian refugees from escaping from the, then the line of leadership of the Ibo tribe will come to a tragic end. Eventually, there are different philosophical reasons leading to decision toward a common end of rescue and survival of a greater number of people for the welfare of the Nigerians. Pragmatism of Navy Seal officer Lieutenant A.K. Waters – combining of the strict rules of the military with the dynamic events of the war – led to doing both his duty and the right thing.

Salinas · Posts: 6 Join date: 2008-11-25

Saving Private Ryan is an epic movie that depicts the Second World War. Looking beyond the scenes and drama of the film, we could analyze the movie by incorporating ethical theories that would explain the actions of the characters given certain circumstances. Since the theme of the film involves duties that need to be executed, it is proper to analyze several scenes using Deontology—the duty-based ethics.
One of the scenes that need to be scrutinized is when Captain John Miller, together with seven soldiers, was given the task to find and bring Private Francis Ryan back home. Despite possibilities of being killed in their search and rescue mission, the soldiers accepted the task. Using the deontologist point of view, I would say that the actions of the eight soldiers are justifiable or morally right since following their duty—to save and bring Private Ryan back to his home— is good in itself. However, looking closely to the duty-based ethics of Kant, it could be seen that such action is not justifiable. Why? According to Kant, a duty is justifiable or morally right if it is acceptable and applicable to everyone and that it can be universalized, thus, it should pass the Universality test. Applying the Universality test of Kant, I think it is not acceptable for everyone to sacrifice and risk the lives of eight well-trained and expert soldiers just to save the life of one; and given the context of the movie which is in war, it is never tolerable to risk the life of a sniper, a medic, a captain, and the others just to save the life of a private whose existence is unsure (whether he is still alive or not.)
Another scene that I pay to consider is when the group of Captain Miller captured a German in the radar site, the scene where the medic was killed in action during their encounter against the Germans. It is depicted on this scene that Captain Miller ordered his men not to kill the captured German despite the agony Germans had caused on the death of their comrade. Though frustrating, Captain Miller’s ordering his men not to kill the German is justifiable, according to duty-based ethics. If I am not mistaken, one of the conducts of military is not to kill an enemy that has already surrendered. Hence, what the Captain did is just following their task or duty as soldiers.
In addition, when Captain Miller had already found Private Ryan, wherein the latter refused to go home with the former together with Miller’s remaining soldiers, also involves deontological perspectives. Private Ryan declined the idea of leaving his post and his comrades, and such action is justifiable adopting the duty-based ethics. Given the fact that Private Ryan will be in no danger if he will go home, he still insisted to stay just to execute his duty—to secure the bridge and protect the town from the German oppressors. Deontologists would say that such action is justified and morally right since it obey the rules of deontology—acting out of duty. Consequently, the decision of Captain Miller to stay with Private Ryan is morally right. Though Private Ryan refused to come/ go home with them, the group of Captain did not leave him (since their duty is to save and bring him back to his home); hence, the act is morally right.

tuason · Posts: 7 Join date: 2008-11-25

I believe that utilitarianism can be seen in the part of the movie wherein the helicopter and Lieutenant Waters and his team of NAVY SEALs pass over their mission and discover that the mission has been raided and destroyed just like what Dr. Kendricks had expected. Lt. Waters, feeling a deep conviction, instructed the helicopter to turn around and reform with the refugees. The SEALs decide on the spot to escort the refugees to the Cameroon border. Even though Lt. Waters knew that his action will threaten the accomplishment of their mission and will risk the lives of his teammates, he still did what he thought was the right thing to do by that time which is escorting the refugees. This scene shows the principle of utilitarianism that an action is right if it tends to promote happiness and wrong if it tends to produce the reverse of happiness-not just the happiness of the performer of the action but also that of everyone affected by it. In Lt. Waters action, it is quite obvious that he disregarded their mission, which is merely for their own “happiness”, and thought of helping the refugees. Also, Lt. Waters action is in accordance with utilitarian principle and is in opposition to egoism which is the view that a person should pursue his own self-interest, even at the expense of others. I believe that Lt. Waters used the hedonic calculus of Bentham and Mill and analyzed happiness as a balance of pleasure over pain. He then compared the intrinsic values produced by two alternative actions (in this case, finishing the mission and leaving the refugees or turning back and escorting the refugees-which would result to the possibility that the rebels will eventually find and kill them) and estimated which would have better consequences. The decision made by Lt. Waters promotes a favorable balance of pleasure over pain because saving the lives of the refugees is pleasurable than finishing the mission and risking the lives of his teammates. This means that Lt. Waters chose the action which would favor the good of the many and not just their own good.

In addition, utilitarianism is also exhibited in the part where the SEALs encounter a small village that is in the process of being wiped out by rebel soldiers. I believe that because Lt. Waters realized that they have an opportunity to stop it, even though they would violate the rules of engagement, he still instructed the refugees to remain on the high ground while his team assaults the village. It is good to note that during the aftermath of the assault, the SEAL team becomes morally conscious after seeing the after-effects of the atrocities. This means that they were certain that what they have done and what they are doing are the right things to do because these are for the benefit of the refugees. Lt. Waters disregarded his interest and the interests of his teammates so that they could rescue a mass number of refugees.

I believe that the acts and decisions made by Lt. Waters and his team are justifiable. This is because they unanimously continue to escort the refugees no matter what the cost it (even risking their own lives) as long as they can save them from the rebels. I also believe that in times of violent coup like this, the lives of the people involved are of great priority and pursuing self-interest is the worst course of action. What Lt. Waters and his team did was the better option and, I strongly believe, has brought better consequences.

In doing otherwise, like what is mentioned, the result would have been egoism. If Lt. Waters and his team chose to leave the refugees, it would have resulted to deaths of the refugees. I believe that even though soldiers have the duty to follow orders and missions, their happiness is still at stake when the situation changes. This means that if faced with situations like what happened in the movie, it would be wrong to let others die if someone has the opportunity to stop it.

de Guzman · Posts: 5 Join date: 2008-11-25

Saving Private Ryan...General Marshall discovers that three of the four Ryan brothers have all died from the battle. He then gave an order to Captain John Miller to find the fourth of the Ryan brothers, Private James Francis Ryan.

Deontology, as stated in wikipedia, is an approach to ethics that focuses on the rightness or wrongness of intentions or motives behind actions, as opposed to the rightness or wrongness of the consequences of those actions. It is sometimes referred to as duty or obligation based ethics.

Given such definition, deontology is easier to use in justifying the acts and decisions presented in the movie, Saving Private Ryan.

“Is it justifiable to risk the lives of eight people to save the life of one?” Using a deontologist’s point of view, yes. It is the duty of Captain Miller and the other soldiers to obey their duties whatever the consequences are. Captain Miller accepted the order to do what is expected of him without considering the fact that risking his life might mean not seeing his wife again. Such act then is morally acceptable and justifiable using deontology.

When Captain Miller and his men found Private Ryan, told him about that his brothers died during the mission, and that they were given an order to take him home, Private Ryan turned down the order – another scene that is morally justifiable in deontological ethics. Private Ryan chose to stay because he knew that it is his duty to continue and pursue his obligation as an officer. Captain Miller, on the other hand, stayed at the site with Private Ryan to defend the bridge from German attacks.

In doing the other way, I for one, would still consider the lives of eight men over Private Ryan’s. However, doing so would be against the rules and duties of being a soldier. Thus, we should consider that not all rules apply to all situations because there would always be differences in circumstances within societies.

manlangit · Posts: 6 Join date: 2008-11-25 Age: 20 Location: Manila, Ph

Tears of the Sun tells about the story of how Lt. Waters tried to do his mission to save Dr. Kendriks from war torn Africa. The story is evolving in a Deontological view which is a duty based ethics. Lt. Waters' plan was to save only Dr. Kendriks because that was what his mission stated, but change of plans happened when the beautiful doctor refused to go with Lt. Waters unless she brings with her the people whom she is taking care of. Lt. Waters agreed to Dr. Kendriks wish, but the truth was he was just using the towns people to get Dr.Kendriks to go with him and his troops.
Lt. Waters was focused only on his mission not thinking about what will happen to the people left behind.

When they were finally in the helicopter Lt. Waters saw below what had happened to the place that they left, the people there were massacred. This caused Lt. Waters to ask the pilot to turn around. They did turn around and had a change of plans. As a military officer it was Lt. Waters responsibilty to save lives and because of that he chose to save even the lives of the towns people. His duty based ethics was also shown when Lt.Waters, his troop, Dr.Kendriks and the towns people reached another town where they saw how brutally the people were killed by the rebel soldiers. In this scene deontological view shifted to teleological view because according to the teleological view an act is good because of what it can do. Lt.Waters and his troop were not involve in the ongoing war in Africa and they were disobeying the rules of engagement. But inspite of this they still pursued on saving the lives of the people in the town. Although they disobeyed the rules of engagement, it brought good because they save lives of people.

Lt. Waters acted upon the urge of his conscience which showed a teleological view on ethics but under his will to save the lives of the many is his sole objective which is to bring Dr.Kendriks back to America

The acts done by Lt. Waters can be justifide as deontological because he acted based on his duty as a military officer

ak_marin · Posts: 2 Join date: 2008-11-25

Honestly, I thought the movie would just bore me. Razz

Seeing the CD cover, knowing that it is a war movie, I initially thought it would just be about guns, guns, and brutality. But what got me interested into ‘really’ watching it was that bit by bit, it came to me that the war, or wars, depicted in the movie were not just limited to the typical battle we see in films like this – government vs. rebels; but rather, the war here can also refer to the inner struggles the characters of the movie have had, which for me, were even greater.

In this movie, “Tears of the Sun”, 8 Navy Seals were ordered to rescue a Doctor, a priest, and two nuns, who run a missionary work in the war-stricken Nigeria. Since those people are not citizens of the latter, technically, they should not be involved in the war. The problem starts when Dr. Kendricks refused to leave until the unit agrees to escort the refugees she is taking care of, to a safe place as well. This was temporarily settled with a condition – only those that are able to walk by themselves can go. This may seem unfair since not everyone is given equal chances to escape. But in utilitarianism, this may be permissible. Those who cannot walk by themselves would have others carry them, thus, slowing down the whole group and making them more vulnerable to ambush attacks. Also, the group’s escape route is within the forests. Those who have been severely injured might not survive the journey itself. So to increase the chances of survival, such measures are employed.

To complete his mission, Lieutenant A.K. Waters tricks Dr. Kendricks by allowing some of the refugees to come along to the rescue location, then leaving them behind at the very last minute. From a deontological perspective, Lieutenant Waters might be commended for completing his mission in spite and despite of all the hindrances. But that’s only his duty as a soldier. He gave his word to Dr. Kendricks that he would secure the safety of those people, too. Isn’t it his personal duty as well, to keep his promises?

It is interesting to note that aside from the 8 soldiers, those refugees themselves risked their lives for their duties, too. The priest and the nuns stayed; Dr. Kendricks, no matter how annoying she is when she goes hysterical, would not want to leave without the people she vowed to take care of, and even the rest of the civilians, whose duty is to live for their families, are much evident.

When the unit came back for the others, it was a direct challenge posted against their commanding officer’s orders. Hence, they were not immediately given the backup transportation they needed. But to Waters, he may be disobeying the direct instructions now, but in truth, as dedicated soldiers, they just wanted to see the mission through to the end.

Soon after, they discover that among the refugees is Arthur, the son of the late tribal king. Due to critical circumstances, Captain Bill Rhodes refer to him then as “excess cargo” that they should get rid of, which Waters defended by answering, “does that mean he’s not human, sir?”

Seeing that Arthur is the heir to the throne, and may be the only hope for ALL of Nigeria, the Eight Navy Seals engaged into battle to protect him and his people. I think this, more than any other part of the movie, best shows what the concept of Utilitarianism tells – to achieve the greatest happiness for the greatest number of people.

batiles · Posts: 5 Join date: 2008-11-24

The movie Tears of the Sun, was a war movie which did not only show the harsh realities of life such as dictatorship, poverty and the continuous disregard for human life but also on how it is not through sabotaging these cruelties can we attain better living, we can attain this by deciding which duties we should follow and stick to, basing it on what we perceive as what would give us the highest level of pleasures and greater good for all.

I’m saying this for I believe that the important, notable scenes in the movie could be depicted by both the Utilitarian perspective – which believes that the ends justify the means, giving emphasis on how it is on the consequences of an action can one determine whether an action is morally worthy or not – and of the Deontological perspective – which gives importance to intention or the motive lying beneath every action when discerning whether an act is morally worthy.

The first important scene is on how Dr. Lena wanted to bring along her Nigerian friends with her when Lieutenant Waters wanted to take her away so as to save her from the rebels whose intentions were to break in into their camp and kill innocent people. We could see this behavior as utilitarian-based for Dr. Lena wanted to bring along these Nigerian people for the sole reason that she believes that bringing along all these people, saving them from the possible harm they would experience from the rebels when they reach the camp, is what constitutes the “greatest good for the greatest number of people” principle, that though this action might bring harm not only to herself but also to Lt. Waters and his men, she still insisted on this thus it is no longer important for her that she together with Lt. Waters and his men have a safe journey home, what’s important for her is that she may be able to save her Nigerian friends (ends) even if it means danger or death to Lt. Waters and his men or even to herself (means). This could also be seen from a deontological perspective for Dr. Lena insisted or rather suggested this alternative for she is thinking of her duty as a doctor, a person…that she should not leave these people behind, that she should not render them from her medical prowess, that she should not as a person, a christian leave them just like that knowing that they would be harmed by rebels sooner or later. In turn, this action becomes non-consequentialist for bringing along all these people might greatly decrease all their chances for survival, still, it did not matter to her that they may all die due to this, as long as her intentions, her beliefs, her duty as a doctor, christian and person be done and fulfilled.

The next important scene is again related to Dr. Lena. This was the part wherein it was finally discovered that the son of the president of Nigeria, the next tribal leader is journeying along with them. From a utilitarian perspective, the principle that “the ends justify the means” best analyzes this situation or this behavior. Dr. Lena, lied straight-face to Lt. Waters about the president’s son, only thinking that this man needs to be saved, regardless of the fact that they would be followed by the rebels thus putting them in danger, for she believes that if the president’s son would be killed by the rebels then its totally the end of democracy for these people. So this comparison between safety for a few people versus freedom of all Nigerian people and choosing the latter truly shows how the utilitarian perspective works. As for the deontological perspective, Dr. Lena in a way views or rather perceives herself as a Nigerian too (as indicated by her usage of the phrase “my people” referring to the Nigerians) and so because of this we could say that she thinks that she is also subject to the president’s son privilege as a tribal leader, and as a follower, a subordinate, it is her duty to protect her master, the person above her using whatever means possible – such as lying and risking the lives of the people with her so long as she fulfills her duty to the person who is the leader of “her people”, of herself as well in a way, though not based on legal and cultural grounds but more on personal feelings and perception of one’s self.

The last important scene is when Lt. Waters and his men decided to protect the Nigerian people no matter what, despite the fact that it exemplifies disobedience in following orders. This act could be deduced as utilitarian for though it is out of disobedience from authority (means) the effect was pure heroism (ends), giving way to how the consequence of actions determine the moral goodness of a certain action, and in this case, it is no longer important that Lt. Waters and his men failed to obey orders, they were still deemed as heroes for they were able to save (some) Nigerian people along with Dr. Lena. This also explains the concept of the levels of pleasure/happiness, for the pleasure/happiness associated with being a good soldier versus a good man were weighed and as it turned out, being a good man, the pleasure that goes along with this is far more favorable for them for in the end Lt. Waters and his men became heroes. It could be of deontological perspective for the action done by Lt. Waters and his men could still be deemed as duty-based. It is because though it is a soldier’s duty to follow orders, it is also their duty, first and foremost to save lives and fight enemies; and that’s exactly what Lt. Waters and his men have done. Also, despite the possibility that they may be killed or be suspended from service, they still did what they did, keeping in mind of their primary duty as a soldier, to protect and save people from enemies.

With this I could say that we should not determine the moral worth of an action through analysis of whether the means done or the resulted consequence of a certain action was in line with following duties, with keeping in mind the greatest good for the greatest number of people and of how the highest level of pleasure/happiness is eminent…it should be able to just make a very vague concept like “goodness”, a tangible one, through whatever means and consequences, these are not important as long as there’s a hint of “good” in it.

Nicha · Posts: 5 Join date: 2008-11-24 Age: 21 Location: Manila

The movie "Saving Private Ryan" centered about trying to locate one of the Ryan brothers amidst a war. Captain John Miller took the assignment and decided to go on with the mission with his comrades.

One of the important events that happened was when Captain Miller accepted the order to locate Private Ryan. This act is best understood from a deontological perspective. The focus of deontology, according to Leonardo D. de Castro's Etika at Pilosopiya, is the act itself and not the consequence. Taking the example of Captain Miller's actions, I can say that it is justifiable from a deontological perspective. Deontology also states that something is good if you do it for the sake of duty.Another scene of the story which can be best understood from a deontological perspective was when the comrades of Captain Miller decided to go on with the mission. Their actions were good in itself. They have decided to perform their duties. In this sense, their actions, even if it produced some unpleasant events, are still good and justififiable.