Last Thursday March 30, I watched the movie Eye in the Sky. In the movie a bunch of different ethical issues were presented. The main issue or decision to make was whether or not the military would bomb a house full of terrorist. The problem in making this decision was that it would kill innocent civilians who were within range of the bomb. Another resolution presented to handle this situation would be to send ground troops to try and capture the terrorist. Personally, I disagree with this option of action. I disagree with this option because it has the most variables. A lot of different things could go wrong by trying to catch the terrorist with ground troops. The ground troops could make an error, the terrorist are armed and could kill Americans, …show more content…
Terrorist are phenomenal at hiding and traveling place to place. In addition, it would give the terrorist more opportunities to kill more innocent lives. The final option would be to drop the bomb on the house. The estimated number of civilian deaths would be around eighty people. The problem within this solution is that innocent men, women, and children would be included in the total number of deaths. Also, another problem within this solution is if bombing was legally okay. The people making the decision had to take in account the question if bombing the terrorist would be a legal decision. For me this would have been an easy decision, for the reason being bombing the terrorist would result in the least amount of deaths and insure the deaths of the terrorist. In the beginning of the movie, it showed terrorist killing innocent people in a mall. The total death count was 180 innocent lives. By bombing the terrorist, it would result in less than half that number of eighty, and it would prevent the terrorist from future killings of innocent lives. No matter what decision is made, the terrorist win by having people
To support his claim, McPherson argues there is nothing morally relevant to make a distinction between terrorism and conventional war waged by states. In other words, from the moral angel, there is no difference between terrorism and conventional war. Both two types of political violence have some common natures related to morality like posing threat to civilian lives. McPherson argues that conventional war usually causes more casualties and produces fear widely among noncombatants. He focuses on defending the claim that terrorists sometimes do care about noncombatants and proportionality. This viewpoint infers that terrorists do not merely intent to do harm to civilians. As a matter of fact, they sometimes put civilian interests in the first place. Those terrorists caring the victims would not resor...
In her essay Can U.S. Citizens Be Held as Enemy Combatants, Jennifer Vanklausen explores the ethical question of our government’s policy to hold American citizens suspected of terrorist activity against the United States as enemy combatants, withholding their constitutional rights as provided in the fifth and sixth amendments, during an undeclared war.
Based on what I watched and understood in the movie Lars Von Trier’s “Breaking the Waves”, relating it to the Kierkegaardian concept of the teleological suspension of the ethical, Bess McNeill shows ethical acts to her husband, Jan. But the question is, what is ethical? Ethical means that the thing or action which a society follows or a set of standards or norms that to be followed. It is applicable to the universal and it is in ethical that which distinguishes either our action is good or bad. It doesn’t destroy any law or order in the society. In relation to Bess, as the wife of Jan, she did the ethical acts as a wife such as taking care of her husband, doing the household chores, making Jan happy, and doing her sexual obligation to her husband
kill those who want to harm the lives of our people. When a terrorist clearly have a
In a war with no rules, it had been entirely ethical for extreme measures to have been taken. However, it was later shown in the Geneva Convention that it was unethical to attack enemy civilians. Even in earlier conventions, it had been shown to be illegal and immoral. In the instance of Hague IV, it had been shown and ratified by congress that attacking defenseless citizens or persons was wrong (2). This was not the only treaty or convention, as there had been multiple others previously. Therefore, it was unscrupulous and hypocritical for the United States to drop atomic bombs on the
The principles of Just War theory and different ethical frameworks have been used for many years to justify and reject plans for military interventions. These ideologies are useful tools for the leaders of governments and militaries to discuss and make decisions on the morality of different courses of action. If ISIS launched a series of terrorist attacks on American embassies as hypothesized, the given plan for military intervention would be morally justified due to several principles of Just War theory and various ethical frameworks. These include the ideas of jus ad bellum and jus post bellum from Just War theory and the ethical ideologies of utilitarianism and common good ethics.
This problem is a direct result of the “gray areas” that make it difficult to tell the difference between a common crime and a political crime. It combines the two acts into one, blurring the line of distinction (Anderson). The government being attacked sees it as a common criminal attack on its sovereignty, while the terrorist sees it as a legitimate means to an end. The government behind which the terrorist is trying to...
Another reason why some utilitarian thinkers will support torturing these suspect terrorist because law enforcement is saving American lives. On the other hand, other utilitarian thinks will condemn torturing terrorist because affects a personal moral standards to conduct themselves as a productive citizen (“The ‘ticking time bomb’ problem,” 2014). An additional reason why some utilitarian thinks condemn torturing terrorist because it provokes intense psychological pressure to reveal answers that law enforcement may want to hear that’s incorrect. Furthermore, depending on which utilitarian thinker discussing the use of torturing a terrorist, the action could be justified because it prevents further or future injury. Additionally, other utilitarian thinkers would rebuke this action because hurting another doesn’t help people that have already been injured by a terrorist
Many people may think that a being a paralegal is just like being a lawyer, but that is not the case. In fact, there are different types of paralegals just like there are different types of lawyers. These are some of the different types of paralegals that are out there: intellectual property (“IP”) paralegals, family law paralegals, and bankruptcy paralegals (“What Are The Different Types Of Paralegals?” n.d.). According to, “What Do Paralegals Do? (n.d.),” the duties of a paralegal are, “Conduct client interviews and maintain general contact with the client, locate and interview witnesses, conduct investigations, statistical and documentary research, conduct legal research, draft legal documents, correspondence and pleadings, summarize depositions, interrogatories and testimony, attend executions of wills, real
The moral issue here is: Do we have the right to kill, or is that the right
The official reason given for dropping the bomb was to bring a quick end to tht war and save American lives. However, Takaki presents many different explanations as to why the decision to use the bomb was made. He disagrees with the popular belief that the decision to use the bomb was made solely to quickly end the war in the Pacific and to save American lives. Takaki presents theories such as international concerns, American sentiment, and racism in an attempt to more fully explain why this decision was made.
In order for a military to execute its function, every platform of the chain of command must expect and demand obedience to commands (Montrose, 2013), because if this does not happen many lives can be at stake. A simply failure to comply with the orders given can not only jeopardize the lives of the soldiers, it can compromise the safety of all military personnel involved, even in the matter of national security. Utilitarianism has a core theory that some actions may be considered right or wrong relying on the effects of the outcomes. This theory is mostly what could be applied this situation of the detainees in the military prisons. During this time, national security was weak, the country was being attacked and threatened, and thousands of innocent civilians lost their lives. The military could was only looking out for the interest of the country and many interrogation techniques were used to get information that could lead the capture of Al-Qaeda leaders. Soldiers are sent to warzones without the ability to deny their own obligation to war, just because they believe it to be morally wrong. They are sent and receive orders under the assumption the government has all the information needed to make the best decision for the country. According to the periodical, Unjust War and a Soldier’s Moral Dilemma, individual soldiers who have
At first glance, Utilitarian moral theories may seem to support the idea of torturing this innocent man. If we look at this situation we see that there is a dilemma of hurting one man, or having to bear the death of many. We may say that since the basis of Utilitarianism is to do what is best for the greater good, then there is no question that we would torture this one man so that we may save thousands. Take a step back and look at this situation from another angle. What truly is the greater good here? Let us focus on the idea that “if punishing John will do no good, then John should go free” (Pojman, 2002, p.109). What is the chance that a captured soldier is going to give away the secret location of the bomb? It is highly likely he has been trained not to speak under any circumstances. If he does not speak then you have just diminished utility for every single person involved.
Unit I In the article "Ethical Blindness", the writers examine how sometimes choices are frequently made without the individual notwithstanding knowing about it. The choices can be a consequence of an association between individual qualities of the person and attributes of the circumstance. Most research on ethical decision making still expands on the suspicion that choices are made by reasonable people. The rationality presumption is shown different ways. The traditionally moral logic, business ethicists more often than not expect that there is an ethical perspective from which ethicality of a choice can be assessed. It is comprehended that the ethical perspective can be translated in an unexpected way, contingent upon the particular background philosophy, yet they share the presumption that there is a target and unprejudiced line that individuals can use to measure contentions and achieve an answer. An example of this would be that some managers use different philosophical lenses when making a decision – reflecting
One of the integral things that must be addressed when making a film is the ethics involved. Ethics are a constant issue that have to be carefully considered when filmmaking. This difficult decision-making is highly prevalent in that of documentaries, because of the difficulties associated in filming ‘real people’ or “social actors, (Nichols, 2001).” More importantly, the issues faced by a filmmaker differ between each of the documentary modes. Each particular documentary mode poses different formal choices that must be made in order to operate in an ethical fashion. Two films that have been made both display examples of how ethics must be considered when embarking on a documentary are Etre at Avoir [To Be and to Have], (2001) and Capturing the Friedmans (2003). These films have been made in different documentary modes, highlighting that there is not one mode which is easier or has fewer ethical issues associated with it. Additionally, what must be considered is how these style choices in these different modes affect the power relationships between the filmmaker, the subject and its audience, (Nichols, 2001).