However, after discovering that these terrorists were plotting a suicide bomb attack in the room, Colonel Catherine abandoned the plan to capture Danford alive with special forces and planned to attack directly with drones and missiles.
But now, a little girl named Aria suddenly appeared in the attack range of the missile, and she was selling her homemade Nan cake. Steve, the drone pilot, refused to launch the missile and asked for a new risk assessment.
After additional risk assessment, the computer thinks that if a missile attack is carried out, it will cause 75% damage to innocent little girls.
However, if there is no missile attack, these terrorists may escape and detonate bombs in public places, which will kill about 80 innocent people.
Is that sacrificing the life of a little girl and saving 80 lives? Or choose not to launch missiles, let the little girl live, let these terrorists escape, and create suicide bombings, killing 80 people?
This reminds me of Michael Thornton of Harvard University in the United States in "What Should Justice Do? The article mentioned "runaway trams". The tram problem is a controversial philosophical and moral issue in philosophy. Suppose you are driving an out-of-control tram and it hits five people who have no idea that they are about to be killed. Just then, a fork appeared in front of the track where the tram was moving, and a person stood on it. So, you chose to kill those five people? Or hit the steering wheel, drive to the fork and kill someone?
What should justice do? It is mentioned in this book that people who are in favor of driving a tram to a fork in the road and sacrificing one person's name to save five lives are utilitarian. They are the principle of the greatest happiness and attach importance to the interests of most people. Therefore, they can choose to sacrifice their personal interests.
Those who oppose driving a tram to one person and saving the interests of five people at the expense of one person are liberals. They believe that the rights of individuals should be guaranteed, and their own interests should never be sacrificed for the benefit of the majority, no matter how big the interests of the majority are.
Liberals led by Angela think that missiles should not be fired, which may kill the little girl, who is an innocent victim of this war. Even though the little girl was saved after knowing not to fire missiles, terrorists carried suicide bombers and killed 80 people in public places. Why? Because little girls, as individuals protected by law, have the right to refuse to sacrifice their lives for the lives of most people.
Utilitarians, led by Foreign Minister James, believe that missiles should be launched. Even if it may cause a little girl to be killed by a missile, it is just to sacrifice one person's life and protect 80 people's lives.
This is the first reason why there is a moral dilemma: it stems from conflicting moral principles.
Utilitarians, led by James, believe that we should save as many lives as possible (80 lives), even if it hurts personal interests (the life of the little girl Aria).
The liberalism led by Angela believes that even if there are sufficient reasons to save 80 lives, it can't kill an innocent little girl.
Conflicting moral principles cause moral dilemma.
Of course, the utilitarianism headed by James doesn't want the little girl to be killed by a missile. What they want to see more is that the missile is successfully launched and the terrorists are successfully killed, but the little girl is still alive, even if there is only a 25% chance. That's good. For example, the tram problem, we would like to see that after we drove the tram to the fork, we saved those five people, and the one on the fork was still alive. Similarly, in the eyes of liberals, if a little girl voluntarily sacrificed her life to save the lives of 80 people, then liberals have nothing to argue about. Because she voluntarily sacrificed her life to save others' lives, this is the little girl's right to exercise personal freedom. However, we can't take the little girl's life without her knowledge.
The second reason for the moral dilemma is that we are not sure how things will develop.
In the film, when the computer analyzes that the bomb carried by terrorists will kill 80 people, Angela retorts, "This death figure is only your hypothesis. What is certain is that if we take action now, this little girl will definitely die."
James replied, "So you risked killing 80 people to save a girl?"
Angela's answer is: "Yes, I am willing to take the risk to marry her."
However, in the same way, we also use this idea to analyze the probability of a missile killing a little girl. Similarly, if a missile is launched, the chance of killing the little girl is 75%, but will it be killed? Is it possible that the missile successfully killed the terrorist, but the little girl survived? After all, 75% of this data is the result of computer evaluation, which is not necessarily correct.
Here, whether utilitarian or libertarian, their confusion is that they are not sure how things will develop. In the eyes of utilitarians, what if the missile missed and killed the little girl instead of the terrorist? In the eyes of liberals, what if the little girl is willing to sacrifice her life to save the lives of those 80 people afterwards, and the best time to launch missiles has passed?
They are not sure how the next thing will unfold. In the film, Angela chooses to take risks, assuming that the little girl is unwilling to give up her life.
Finally, the result of the compromise between the two sides is that after the little girl sells the cake and leaves, she will use the drone to carry out missile attacks.
? In short, both sides are escaping from this uncertainty. If we don't know what will happen next, the best way is to try to eliminate the conditions that lead to this uncertainty. However, in the end, the little girl was still there, but the drone had launched Hellfire missiles, the terrorists were killed, and the little girl was also killed.
After the missile was launched, the terrorists and the little girl were killed. Angela said to General Benson in tears, "In my opinion, this is very disgraceful. You made these decisions in a comfortable chair. "
? General Benson said calmly: "I have participated in the aftermath of five suicide bombings. I have personally been to the scene and seen the bodies with my own eyes. What you saw while drinking coffee and eating cookies today was cruel. Those people may be more cruel than these people. Never tell a soldier that he doesn't know the cost of war. "
It seems that utilitarianism (General Benson) finally won, but the liberals led by Angela failed. Is that really the case?
? Let's go back to General Benson's conversation. We can't help asking why General Benson said that you didn't deal with those suicide bombings. You have no idea how sick those terrorists are!
Let's think about it, why does General Benson have the right to say these words with one voice? There is only one reason: the moral dilemma arising from our uncertainty about how things will develop has been eliminated. In other words, the terrorists have been killed and the little girl has been killed, which is a foregone conclusion. Therefore, General Benson will confidently conclude that this time the terrorists will be so cruel and will cause great harm to society according to the terrorist suicide bombings he has handled before. But let's suppose that if these terrorists regret it at the last minute and decide not to carry out terrorist attacks again. The probability is small, but there is also a certain possibility, isn't it? If you can't accept this assumption, let's assume that the missile didn't launch, the little girl was saved, and the special forces stopped the terrorists when they tried to commit suicide. Isn't this a good result? At least it's better than blowing up an innocent little girl
Now, let's leave for a while and look at an article called "Afghan Shepherd" mentioned in the book "What Justice Should Do".
? In June 2005, a US Navy soldier Marcus Rutrell and three other SEALs were on a reconnaissance mission near the Afghan border. They want to spy on a Taliban leader. When they occupied a position on the ridge overlooking the whole village, they met an Afghan herder with a little boy. American soldiers discuss killing them or letting them go. Finally, Rutrell decided to let them go. An hour and a half later, the four soldiers were surrounded by 80 ~ 100 Taliban armed with AK-47s and rocket launchers. Three of their comrades died, as did 16 of their comrades on the helicopter that came to the rescue. Only Rutriel escaped. Afterwards, Rutrell regretted not killing the shepherd at that time, and regretted that his decision had killed his comrades.
? Is that really the case? Let's ask Luttrell why he regrets it. The answer can only be: Rutrell saw the painful consequences of letting the shepherd go-the shepherd informed the terrorists and killed his comrades. So Luttrell's confession is correct, right? Have we considered such a situation? If they killed the shepherd in public, if the shepherd was a kind person, wouldn't they inform the terrorists? But you already killed them. Is this assumption exactly the same as what General Benson said?
? So, in this war of bombing terrorists with drone missiles, utilitarianism also lost morally? I didn't say that. Let's assume another situation: the utilitarianism headed by James did not launch drone missiles to attack terrorists. The little girl was saved, but the terrorists escaped and killed 80 people with suicide bombs. If so, Angela's liberals won? Really?
? If you were the decision maker, what would you do? Are you a utilitarian? Or a liberal supremacist?
Does anyone really know right or wrong?