NAME: JOHN LEE M.

FACTOR
BS in CRIMINOLOGY Block 1-E
DATE: MARCH 18, 2019

TERM PAPER IN ETHICS

EYE IN THE SKY

It is a movie from 2015. There are 5 Suicide Bomber inside the house. Two of
them are British registered and her husband is an American citizen. The mission is to
capture the terrorists inside the house. The problem is changing the plan from capturing
the target to eliminate them, which is the hardest decision they have to make with the
cooperation of minister, attorney general, general and one representative of law
enforcer. The best option they have is to minimize the collateral damage of the attack.

Suddenly there was a girl selling bread as her mother told her, the girl stayed at
the side of the targets house so, the weapon operator did not go as his colonel said to
engage. Then the colonel commanded the official of Kenya to make a plan to buy the
bread of the girl so that they can proceed to engage. The spy managed to buy the bread
but one soldier suspected him and suddenly remembered him as an enemy before then
the spy ran through the houses and crawl under the car. Then the operation to the
target continued, surprisingly after the brawl the girl collected all the bread and sell it
again.

The general asked permission to engage to the target immediately as they see
the terrorist putting a bomb to the vest. The other officials including the minister
disagreed to the decision that the general said. The general said’’ if we let them live
because of that one kid they will cause and killed 80 people inside the shopping mall ‘’
one of the officials answered “is there any British drone attack in the city to the friendly
country?’’ the colonel for the operation told her man to calculate the possible damage of
the area and they engaged as a report the damage to the girl is 45 percent but the girl
died.
 Evaluation

Natural law: if we talk about morality killing is always wrong. But we are talking
about natural law, natural law is based on what is correct and it is discovered by man
through the use of reason and choosing between good and evil. In the situation killing
the terrorist to stop them causing harm to others but considering the damage of the
attack. As a man we are rational being we can choose between right and wrong we all
know that killing the terrorist is the best way to protect the large number of innocent
people that the terrorist can kill but the problem or dilemma is we will sacrifice one
innocent girl in order to protect more. As natural law is based on what is correct it is bad
to kill anyone of them but for the sake of the people it is good to eliminate them to stop
them causing further damage.
Deontology: the changing of plan, the plan is to capture the target and not to kill.
As a military general I know that the most wanted target are there, all of them. To
execute them is my duty it is good to kill the terrorist because it’s my duty to serve and
protect the innocents and the territory of my land. I will execute the target whatever it
takes that’s my responsibility my best option is to minimize the collateral damage of my
attack. It is not my responsibility to shoulder the problem about the girl, but it is burden
to me to kill one of my people in order to fulfill my duty as military general.
Emotivism: it is wrong to execute like that. It is better to capture them when they
go out of that house. They have drones and cameras also an agent to follow the
terrorist.
Virtue ethics: it is wrong. Even they are terrorist they have rights as a human to
live. And as a man we can change just to make them realized the value of life and the
beauty of it.
Filipino virtue ethics: it is wrong according to kapwa every man inside the tribe
is kapwa. They are humans too and they are living in the friendly country which is under
US. I will capture them in order to show them that we are kapwa. “Love your fellow men
as you love yourself” after Spain colonized Philippines. But because I love my fellow
men it is good to kill them for the sake of larger number of my kapwa. Because their
loob is not good towards man, to protect my fellow men because I love them as I love
myself and I don’t want myself to be killed by the terrorist I will kill them for the better.
 Kantian ethics: it is good to eliminate them even sacrificing one life because
they can kill more than a hundred of people if I let them go because of one life. Even
killing is wrong I will take the risk in order to protect the larger number of the innocents
people.
Rights: it is wrong to kill that’s the law of our land but as a military my command
is to protect my people and the land. Because of destroying my land and my people as
a military I have the rights to kill them in order to attain peace.
Justice: it is wrong, after the execution the girl died, according to this theory
there is no rich and poor everyone should have justice. It is okay to kill them and
sacrifice one life but after that they have to serve justice for the innocent life. And all of
them should take responsibility to serve justice. But the saddest part is no one takes
responsibility to that mission because no one knows who did it because they have
powers because they can change the report like what the commander said to the man
who estimated the damage of the target “write it 45% damage to the report”. Powers
can change justice but this is not the right thing to do.
Utilitarianism: it is good. Being in this situation I will choose to sacrifice one life
to eliminate those who can kill a hundred people of the country. This is not about the girl
it is for the better of the state and the people of it.