Humans have the power to decide if an action is wrong or right. What differentiates people are their morals and ethics. It makes a big difference when we, as humans choose what is right in our eyes and proceed to act. Morals are what shapes us as individuals and what makes us unique in a certain way. The moral principle to any situation would be to do the right thing above all. Of course, it does not always happen that way. That’s when conflicts arise and the effects are negative consequences. The best way to decide is by thinking it and observing the pros and cons of the situation, then applying your own morals/ethics.
As a Christian, my moral principles are different from other people. Religion plays a big role in how I manage my daily life …show more content…
The Kenyan military leader denies its participation with his troop because he doesn’t want to risk his men’s lives for the operation. The pilot woman has never killed anybody and is faced with this “capture” “kill” situation. Politicians were facing problems due to the difference views and policies. Also, how the military uses specific words/language to describe terrorists/missions.
One of the first dilemmas that I found in the Eye in the Sky is when the drone pilot Watts hesitates about pushing the button to fire the missile. This decision resulted because he sees the little girl selling bread outside of the house that is going to be attacked. He then calls the colonel and asks her to run collateral damage estimate (CDE). She then orders Sgt. Mushtaq Saddiq to do the collateral damage estimate. The estimate came to 65-75% …show more content…
Yes, they are terrorists and they needed to pay. However, the way they were going to pay was being captured. The mission would not have changed if I had been in charge. It would have crossed my mind the thoughts of killing instead of capturing but then I would have thought about the enormous collateral damage the missile would have caused. I do believe in Utilitarianism and with this system the best would have been to kill the terrorists at the moment because it benefited the people. However, my situational ethics would have interfered with my thinking and I would have applied ethics of care. This is because I consider killing a child is wrong. Although I do believe in completing the mission and be successful about it, I do not think everything should be done on my hands to complete a mission. Other options came up as the mission was being completed but it was in the best interest to analyze all of them. The categorical imperative acts upon acting in a way you want everyone else to act. Katherine basically told the sergeant to lie and the death of the little girl and other innocent people lay on her hands. She went against the decision and knowingly gave the clear to the pilot to fire the missile. She should have acted accordingly and within her military standards and her personal ethics. I would not have ordered the missile to be fired. I understand that those terrorists were criminals, but it was unfair that the child was forced to pay
As a Christian, my moral principles are different from other people. Religion plays a big role in how I manage my daily life …show more content…
The Kenyan military leader denies its participation with his troop because he doesn’t want to risk his men’s lives for the operation. The pilot woman has never killed anybody and is faced with this “capture” “kill” situation. Politicians were facing problems due to the difference views and policies. Also, how the military uses specific words/language to describe terrorists/missions.
One of the first dilemmas that I found in the Eye in the Sky is when the drone pilot Watts hesitates about pushing the button to fire the missile. This decision resulted because he sees the little girl selling bread outside of the house that is going to be attacked. He then calls the colonel and asks her to run collateral damage estimate (CDE). She then orders Sgt. Mushtaq Saddiq to do the collateral damage estimate. The estimate came to 65-75% …show more content…
Yes, they are terrorists and they needed to pay. However, the way they were going to pay was being captured. The mission would not have changed if I had been in charge. It would have crossed my mind the thoughts of killing instead of capturing but then I would have thought about the enormous collateral damage the missile would have caused. I do believe in Utilitarianism and with this system the best would have been to kill the terrorists at the moment because it benefited the people. However, my situational ethics would have interfered with my thinking and I would have applied ethics of care. This is because I consider killing a child is wrong. Although I do believe in completing the mission and be successful about it, I do not think everything should be done on my hands to complete a mission. Other options came up as the mission was being completed but it was in the best interest to analyze all of them. The categorical imperative acts upon acting in a way you want everyone else to act. Katherine basically told the sergeant to lie and the death of the little girl and other innocent people lay on her hands. She went against the decision and knowingly gave the clear to the pilot to fire the missile. She should have acted accordingly and within her military standards and her personal ethics. I would not have ordered the missile to be fired. I understand that those terrorists were criminals, but it was unfair that the child was forced to pay