Saving Private Ryan

Having watched the movie, I was as disgusted as I have seen the bloody scenes where in soldiers embarked on a bloody and deadly war fight against their enemies from another nation. The movie might have depicted the periods of the two known world wars wherein nations fought against each other making use of its militia, Army troops, bombs, marine warships, and sometimes the use of warheads that will surely kill thousands of soldiers and sometimes even the innocent civilians. It is hard to imagine this kind of a scebe happening in reality, but I believe that brutality and violence shown in the film do really happen in real wars.
Now, how can we tell that these acts done were good or bad? Using the Ethical theories of Teleology and Deontology, let us try to examine whether the actions done by the characters in the film are considered ethical or not ethical. First I am going to employ the Deontologist point of view of the famous pure rule deontologist, Immanuel Kant. Kant argued that there should be an entire ethical system based on a moral rule, and that is the Categorical Imperative. Kant argued that an act is considered right or wrong not based on the consequences alone, but by the nature of the act itself; neither for the sake of one’s own good (hedonism)or for the sake of a common good (Utilitarianism). Kant said that an action is considered morally right or good if it is based on the moral rule of ‘good will’, wherein actions are according to the pure good intentions of people doing an act. By nature, good intentions will produce an act that is purely morally right. According to Kant, acts shall be done in accordance with principle, and reason “duty for the sake of duty alone’ for example, it is the duty of some one to preserve life, so killing is wrong. Not on the consequences, not even on the basis of so called hedonism and utilitarianism. Thus, actions are judged whether they are moral or not if it is intentionally ‘done for the sake of the duty alone.’
Going back to our discussion of the case of the movie, many of the actions done in each scene, taking for example the war scenes wherein a lot of soldier’s livers were killed, how can we justify that their actions are ethical or unethical? What shall be the qualifications of judging their moral worth? Does the act of firing your guns, bombing, shedding blood, killing thousands of soldiers, be morally acceptable? Imagine yourself in that serious, deadly situation; here you are fighting with your enemies, dying for your own nation. You say that what you are doing is indeed a noble deed since it is for the sake of your country. So there you are, in the midst of a bloody war sacrificing your own life. Using the Deontologist point of view, considering the act alone of taking other’s lives, that act is considered wrong, since it is in the nature that killing is wrong regardless of the anticipated consequences, either for the sake of one good or for the good of others. Moreover killing is wrong regardless of the reason of killing the lives of others in order to save other lives on the other hand.
Yet, Kant discussed that the action s done, and in qualifying their moral worth, we have to consider the principles of reason. According to Kant, all human beings that have the capacity to be moral are rational beings. That means, they have the capability to use reason as a guiding force to take a moral action.

However, using a teologist point of view, one can say that the action done has its moral worth in accordance with its consequences, such as for one’s own good or for the good of the others. Having seen the actions done by the soldiers in the film, if one has to kill the enemy in order to save one’s nation, then the action can be justified to be morally right. When, one died of a noble death because of fighting for everyone’s good, then the action done can be considered as morally right regardless of the nature of the act itself.

L.N. Santiago

Saving Private Ryan is a film that vividly illustrates how war can bring out both violence and nobility in a man; that, indeed, he is an “animal” capable of reason and morality.

During World War II, a band of skillful soldiers is pulled-out of their mission to search for a Private, a soldier with the lowest rank, to save his mother from such overwhelming grief of having lost almost all her sons. Most of them were not really ecstatic for the task given to them since they did not see the need to risk eight lives for just one Private. Nevertheless, they still went on but only because their duty requires them to.

As soldiers, they accept their duty as defenders of a greater cause. That duty involves following commands given to them even if it does not coincide with what they believe in, and may even reach to the extent of dying for that unacknowledged cause. Issues arise as these soldiers proceed with their mission. Examining the concept of duty and utilitarianism along the way and trying to rationalize and connect the reason and significance of their duty to their personal lives.

At their first attempt to question the importance of finding the single living son left of Mrs. Ryan, they start to question the difference of a mother having lost all sons to a mother who lost his only child/son. The grief of having lost a number of sons would, hypothetically, have no significant difference of having lost an only son. It is not to say that the life of the only son is equivalent to the life of two or three sons. To put it simply, both mothers lost all their sons. They have experienced the same amount of joy from their son/s and have lost, equally, the same amount. Unfortunately, the question of whose mother felt the loneliest is not theirs to answer. The only issue the soldiers need to be concerned about is their duty—to infallibly accomplish their duty without questions. It is not to diminish the importance of their beliefs, but only to emphasize that the law overpowers everyone. If they had let themselves be overpowered by their griping and went AWOL to immediately gratify themselves, they would not only abandon their duty but also be regarded as pusillanimous babies; thus, they would not “earn” the right to go home and may even be stigmatized for making such decision. Instead of staying and accomplishing their assigned task and realizing the more pleasurable effect it will give to them in the future, they would blindly choose to bear a heavier burden just to feel pleasure for a short time.

Another attempt was when they reflect on the concept of going in to a war. What will war bring to a decent man? As Emerson beautifully puts it, “War educates the senses, calls into action the will, perfects the physical constitution, and brings men into such swift and close collision in critical moments that man measures man”. But to soldiers who have seen the brutalities of the war, been part of it and had been changed by it—the men of Capt. Miller would simply say that the war makes a person FUBAR! Either way, the question given more importance is whether one has given his all to fulfill his duties. Emerson and the soldiers summed up the positive and negative impacts of the war to soldiers/people. But it is still up to them how they would handle themselves after being struck by such overwhelming influence. As for Capt. Miller and his men, they have, indeed, been changed. FUBAR at first, but later strengthened and enlightened by the need to “get a ticket home”. Should they have chosen to abandon their mission midway, they would have remained as they were when the mission began.

Last attempt was when Capt. Miller was trying to rationalize their situation. A soldier in a war would normally reason that the death of a soldier would save the lives of more people, but in his case it is the opposite and, therefore, would be more difficult to find the rationale for risking the lives of men to save a man. He certainly does not know who Pvt. Ryan is, his character, skills and whatever it is he is capable of, all he could do to justify his own actions is to expect him to earn what he and the other soldiers have laid their lives for to save him and his mother. He further reasons out by considering the mission to save Pvt. Ryan as a ticket to get themselves out of the battlefields and as the only decent thing they would have done in the bloody, violent and brutal war. The question is not whether to continue or not to continue with the mission, but how to convince oneself to go on, i.e. to justify to oneself the good one’s decision will bring if its immediate consequence is pain. If he had failed to convince himself to save Pvt. Ryan, he would not have experienced the need of reasoning with himself to do what he does not want to do; thus, would not have felt a higher pleasure and would have only satisfied himself with a lower kind of pleasure (giving in to aggressive impulses by joining the real war and killing Germans).

Careful thought of these matters bring the soldiers to realize the value of their mission as a duty and as something instrumental for each of them. At first, they acted because duty requires them to and because they are trained to be obedient, but in the end, they understand that they can also use it to fulfill their own cause and at the same time do it for the sake of doing something good and decent.

After seeing Saving Private Ryan, I was definitely moved by each of the main characters, particularly the eight soldiers who went looking for Private Ryan and Ryan himself. Specifically and speaking from the duty ethicist’s point of view, there were a lot of scenes that turned out to be impressive. I would like to point out two of them here.

First is that part of the film when the Captain received his orders to go and look for Private Ryan and have him sent home to save the latter’s mother from possible insanity since three of her four sons have already breathed their last breaths in the battlefield. It was already too painful for the Captain, as I have seen in the film, that he had lost so many men in his command at that point. I just know that it was much more difficult to take on his part to leave his soldiers in the battlefield and go carry out another mission, which was to save Private Ryan.

Though what was being asked from him was at that time a bit incomprehensible and unacceptable, he still chose to carry it out without questions. It was not the same with the other seven men that the Captain also pulled out from their original missions. For them it was really objectionable until almost the end of the plot. But they carried it out just the same because, primarily, they have pledged allegiance to their country.

The same good impression goes for Ryan when the eight men have finally found him. In that scene at the bridge that was to be blown up, that was, for me, the most “deontologically” striking part of the story. Ryan was completely aware of what might happen to her mother, although he seemed a bit disrespectful there, but he also chose to stay and to see for himself the victory they had been looking forward to.

Although not explicitly said by the characters, I think they really saw that carrying out their respective missions have goodness in themselves. I am saying that because their circumstances were full of uncertainties. Two of the eight men even died on their way to Ryan’s location. The possibility of losing both their lives and the war was also not at all remote. Yet they chose to stand by their convictions. Not because they know something good was sure to come as consequences of their actions like an award or any recognition, but that it was simply their duty and that there is intrinsic value or innate worth in them.

Doing otherwise would have been as good as suicide with no honor being earned.

The movie “Tears of the Sun” very much depicted the reality that is happening in any part of the world, during the past or even at the present. It greatly showed the ability of a human to do an act based on his duty (Deontological perspective) and also to do an action, which is out of his duty, because he thinks it is moral even though his life is at stake (Utilitarian perspective). Lt. Waters, in the said movie, is a good example.

The scene wherein Lt. Waters saved Dr. Kendricks can be understood based on the deontological perspective. Despite his move to deceive Dr. Kendricks by granting her request, it was his way to put his duty into action. He agreed to what Dr. Kendricks had asked him but when the chopper landed, he forced her to come with them for her to be saved (which is his duty) and left the African refugees in the said site. Also, Dr. Kendricks, being a doctor and doing her duty to give her service to the African refugees, refuses to leave the place and the African people. She only agreed to go with the condition that the refugees must also be saved. She made this decision because of the idea that she cannot leave the refugees in great danger.

On the other hand, scenes that can be understood from a Utilitarian perspective include the scene wherein Lt. Waters decided to return to the site to save the African refugees, which is out of his duty. For he saw that many people were killed, his conscience and great concern for the other innocent people that were left behind put him in the state to break the command told to him and save them despite putting his life and the other soldiers’ lives at risk. He did what he thinks is moral and right (saving the lives of the innocent Africen refugees against the rebel army) which brought a greater good for the refugees and also, for themselves as well.

Saving Private Ryan
The movie constitutes the solidarity of being in army, of being a good soldier and how war had been all evil in every lapse of mankind’s history. Saving Private Ryan was successful in portrayal of both deontological and utilitarian principles, in ways that the characters had to decide over matters of duty or personal disposition. It can be seen clearly at the very start of the film that all the soldiers were basically just doing their duty, for the sake of winning the war; they do whatever it takes to win it, even if it’s their lives that is at stake.
I’d like to put emphasis first on duty-based scenes;
I was shocked to witness the first scene, where the US troops were powdered with bombs, rifles and machine guns, as if the Germans were merely doing a dynamite fishing – only that humans serve as they’re target here. They were all afraid before battling in, but it is in their line of duty to serve and enforce the army to eradicate the enemies’ force. The next scene is rather a dramatic one, where the Chief of Army chose to risk his men in mission of finding Private Ryan despite the fact that it is a ratio of one man’s lives to many, all for the sake of one mother’s feelings and her grave loss of 3 sons all at once. This action might seem a little questionable, why Ryan? Why only him and not the others also? Simply put, if they’d not strive to save his life, just imagine how painful it would be for the mother to receive a letter saying all her 3 sons died fighting in war, none of them left to return in her company, drink coffee with while retelling their stories of bravery and nobility. It will break the mother’s heart. After winning the first stop at shore of Ohama beach, Captain Miller was ordered to save Private James Ryan. All along it was like a battle of good and evil in and out their troop. The others seem in doubt of this mission but still they do it because it is what they’ve been told to do so. The whole quest was focused on their duty to save Ryan but as they were doing it, they have found themselves torn between choices, whether to continue or retreat. In the case of Private Ryan not leaving the bridge, it can be considered as a deontological act in the sense that he had stood upon his duty to guard the bridge no matter what and until the end, instead of simply going home with Cpt. Mills’ troop back to his mother. It is therefore a matter of weighing things over what is suppose to be good or bad. Thus we lead now to utilitarian.
It was quite a dilemma for me to analyze the decision of saving Private Ryan for the sake of his mother. By Utilitarian – it is meant for greatest good for greatest number of people. So even if it provides the mother the greatest possible good/pleasure of having her son back, it is in any way unreasonable in the side of the soldiers to suffer. Considering the number of the soldiers that have died/almost died and the possible suffering of their mothers also, it still is of greater and inequitable amount compared to the mother of Ryan. For the soldiers not to risk their lives for sake of one man is by no doubt much pleasurable. But the issue here is not merely the quantity, rather the quality of pleasure to be achieved and by that the mother’s side has its edge. The war itself signifies a utilitarian view whereas war is being fight upon for the sake of a bloc’s idealism which is evidently embodying hundreds and thousands of people. All in all, the actions shown and the circumstances given in the film gives way for both justification and criticism, as if the emotional aspects and decency can be considered greater and more of value than life, telling that one person should not just live by himself, for the sake of himself but live for the sake of nobleness and make the most of it.

The movie "Saving Private Ryan" is a great example of the principle of deontology.

The first 10 minutes of the film is really shocking. You will see American Soldiers on their fatigue chilling from inside their boat carrier, some are confident, some are anxious and afraid. Maybe many of them wanted to just go back home for they don't have an assurance of tomorrow after what they will experience in the shore. But there is no turning back - it is their duty to fight the war and win (hopefully alive).

As the carrier slides down its cover, dozens of American soldiers lost their lives already and many more will follow as they walk their way on the shore.

As we all know military practices strict codes of discipline, integrity and order. It means that they are bound to their duties no matter what happens, even if its their life at risk (or even they will have to endure MENTAL and PHYSICAL TORTURE).

When the captain of the group that is to save private Ryan got his mission, he obeyed it, even if it is going to risk eight more lives plus his.

The captain's decision is right in the point of view of deontological ethics but a totally questionable deed in the perspective of utilitarianism and teleology because the decision to obey the command is going to risk eight lives just to save one.

The story went on with the captain losing two of his men in the mission to save Private Ryan. His men are totally in doubt but they followed their superior anyway because it is their duty just as the Captain's duty to follow his superiors in the central office.

Skipping the drama, they found Private Ryan, at the bridge, refusing to go home with them because he wants to accomplish his duty at the bridge (but at the end got home safely with the captain and the rest of troops).

It may be very hard in the perspective of teleology to understand these phenomena, but without duty there will be no order in the military and wars could hardly be won if all are afraid to risk their lives in the name of pleasure and not of duty.

Synopsis:

The film is all about a group of well-trained, skilled and high class U.S. Navy military led by Lieutenant Waters (Bruce Willis) on a mission to rescue Dr. Lena Hendricks (Monica Belluci) in the wartorn Africa. Dr. Hendricks refused to go and abandon her African refugees. Lt. Waters decided to go out in his own mission and rescue not only Dr. Hendricks but also the Africans under her care. Together they fought the African rebels. In the end, the group successfully saved the refugees and Lt. Waters and Dr. Hendricks safely got back to America although some of their members died during the war.

Utilitarian Perspective

*The scene wherein Lt. Waters forced Dr. Hendricks to get on the helicopter and leave the African refugees.

By using a Utilitarian perspective we could justify why Lt. Waters decided to leave the refugees. We should remember that the nature of the mission is to save Dr. Hendricks , the two nuns and a priest and not the refugees. Utilitarianism tells us that an “act is good if it maximizes pleasure and minimize pain”. Sure enough, leaving the refugees would minimize pain for Lt. Waters because he wouldn’t have to burden himself and all the other Navy of protecting the refugees. He is maximizing pleasure because they easily accomplished the mission satisfactorily. The act is justifiable because in a pragmatic sense, it is not their responsibility to save the refugees. Why then should they bother? Why should they waste their energy? Why care about the Africans in the first place? Doing so would be senseless thing to do since it would not produce pleasure on their part. It would be absurd for a Utilitarian to save someone else life if your own life would be in jeopardy.

Deontological Perspective

*The scene wherein Dr. Hendricks firmly refused to go with Lt. Waters to save her own life and abandon the refugees under her care.

This scene can be understood using deontological perspective. Out of duty and not because of her position as a doctor but as a human being compelled Dr. Hendricks to act in such as a way. She knows that if she did left the refugees on their own they are all going to die of disease or be murdered by the rebel groups. She might as well die with them than to run away from them knowing that her conscience would bother her. Her act is justifiable because it is reasonable to help those in need and are suffering. The act itself is good. Dr. Hendricks perfectly understand that her duty as a doctor in a place like Africa goes beyond curing diseases but also of being one and empathizing with her clients.

*The scene wherein Lt. Waters ordered the helicopter to go back and save the Africans instead and his willingness to fight the rebel militias until the end
These scenes show how determined Lt. Waters and his men in protecting/helping the African refugees. They have done those things out of duty to help their fellow human being regardless of differences in color or in race. This scene reminds of Jesus telling the people that everyone is his brother’s keeper. Lahat tayo ay may pananagutan hindi lang sa ating sarili, ngunit pati na rin sa ating kapwa. Even if Lt. Water’s superior made it clear that he is on his own mission he never did lose faith and continue to fight till the end. Viewing this from the utilitarian perspective would be absurd since there is no pleasure in sacrificing one’s self. If Lt. Waters decided to do the opposite it would be very wrong on the perspective of deontologist since they have a duty to protect the life of other people. However, for the utilitarians, that would be a very wise move because they are going to minimize pain and maximixe pleasure.

8 Men (led by capt Miller) are in the hunt for some soldier named private Ryan, this was the central story plot of the film "Saving Private Ryan". The reason behind this mission was simple, private Ryan has already lost three of his brothers and if ever he also gets killed in the war, Mrs Ryan will be overwhelmed with such terrible loss. Just try to imagine receiving a news that your sons, all four of them, have died at the same time. it does makes sense, great pain that is, really. But this mission of saving an unknown private(which is the lowest of all the military ranks) is not a picnic, these 8 men would have to risk their lives in acceptng this mission because they were in a state of war.

I think it is improper to risk the lives of 8 men in exchange of one, this is entirely against the greatest happiness principle of the Utilitarians. if we are going to analyze the situation using the utilitarian perspective, they would say that risking the lives of 8 soldiers for just a single guy is down right unacceptable.
On the other hand, we could analyze the same situation using the deontologist perspective. As we know, deontology is all about our duties as a person and given the dangerous mission assigned to them. we could say that by risking their lives to save private ryan is like accomlishing their duty as soldiers and that is something that has moral value in itself.

The sad thing though is that eventually, they died. Caparzo was killed by an adept german sniper when he carried the little girl, and then right after him another soldier died, even their medic died soon aftewards until almost everyone died, just to save Ryan. Sure, they accomplished thier mission and died a not so painful death but still, risking their lives, all 8 or 7 or 6 them(i'm not sure how many of them survived the final german encounter across the bridge) for Ryan is good and has moral value in itself but does it really stand? i think it was a miniscule act to save someone for the sake of the other. For one, each one of them is valued as a person by thier own mothers or fathers or any othe family member and the loss of each would inflict similar pain regardless of how tragic the loss is. There are other Mrs. Ryan out their who would experience the same pain and grief as Mrs Ryan would feel if she lost all of his sons, only their surnames differ. Second note, in a constant state of war wherein lives is wasted comparative to how often we breath, does it really matter if ryan was added on the death toll. I mean it was his duty to sacrifice his life to defend his country in the first place and so why make the effort the save a person who's primary duty is to offer his life on order to fight? iT does not make any sense at all. I'm not saying that what they did was stupid. Yes, I know it was their duty and all that jazz, but still, Ryan also has a duty of sacrificing his life for the country and so his eventual death is part of this duty. I guess the consolation prize for this was when Capt Miller said to him "EARN IT," meaning he must live a good life so that all of their efforts will not wasted.

On Utilitarianism and Higher Pleasures.

The movie Saving Private Ryan is replete with scenes and situations that are most likely to tickle a philosophical mind; every conflict in the text, with the given subtexts, gives the thinking viewer interesting things to ponder with.

Now, incorporating John Stuart Mill’s utilitarianist point of view in discerning what may be good or not, the movie Saving Private Ryan is likely to support the following points:

i) that in some given circumstances requiring decision-making, there exists a greatest good for the greatest number;
ii) that there are higher and lower kinds of pleasure with respect to individual point of views;
iii) that despite the fact that a common, universal standard of what is right and good may exist, “higher and lower pleasures” still vary from individual to individual;
iv) that oftentimes, these higher and lower pleasures are influenced by an individual’s own values and manner of thinking;
v) that duty as an objective in carrying out a task can sometimes be offset by the so-called summum bonum, or greatest good for the greatest number, and lastly;
vi) that a seemingly exorbitant cost needed to achieve a seemingly much less conclusion can sometimes be justified, mainly because of the social mores and cultural underpinnings that abound a society.

In the movie, eight men are sent to infiltrate a German district in France, seeking to save a lone soldier named James Ryan. These men are quite considered as the best of the US soldiers deployed in France, and that fact made the mission, as one of them remarked, “a grave misallocation of valuable resources.” They are sent to salvage Private James Ryan because his other three brothers have been killed in action, and the administration didn’t want the Ryans’ mother to lose all her sons fighting the war. Initially, the eight men led by Captain John Miller doubted the mission and seen it as an absurd one. But as they moved on , they realized that saving Private James Francis Ryan was the only decent thing they could do in the war. They hoped that Private Ryan be worthy of their sacrifices, and in the end, they found out that he is indeed worthy. Instead of coming home with them, Private Ryan opted to stay with his troops and hold the fortress. Captain Miller and the others realized that their mission was not a futile one.

Private Ryan showed us that his decision---staying with his comrades with the possibility of winning a most important skirmish for doing so, is a more important cause, a higher good, even higher than the chance of coming home to his mother who lost her three other sons. Private Ryan showed that a duty can also be a teleological element; a duty could also be an end in itself.