Geronimo for Morality

In Zero Dark Thirty, there are many actions that do not align with Nagel’s ideas of Absolutism as defined in War and Massacre; however, some of these actions do align with Nagel’s ideas of Utilitarianism. Nagel defines utilitarianism and absolutism by stating, “Utilitarianism gives primacy to a concern with what will happen. Absolutism gives primacy to a concern with what one is doing.” Utilitarianism is more concerned with the outcomes of ones actions. Utilitarianism believes that as long as the good outweighs the negative consequences for more people then it is okay. Absolutism, on the other hand, is concerned with the action itself. If the action itself is wrong even if done for good reason, then it is still wrong.

            These ideas of utilitarianism and absolutism can be used to argue some of the actions done in Zero Dark Thirty. Throughout the beginning of the movie, the CIA is torturing individuals that are associated with Al-Qaeda. They are doing this in order to find out information to lead them to Usama Bin Laden. Utilitarianism could argue that this is morally okay because the suffering of these individuals results in a great good for the world. However, absolutism would argue that torturing is immoral no matter the reason for the torture. I found myself agreeing with absolutism during the movie. Torture is often not an effective method to discover accurate information and seeing the horrors they put these people through made me incredibly uncomfortable. Even if you do find some accurate information through the torture, I do not believe that it is a morally acceptable approach.

            The next major action I saw that led to internal disagreement was during the raid of the compound. During this mission, SEAL Team Six kills every man and a few women in the compound; however, they do spare the children. In this action, I can without a doubt in my mind see utilitarianism defending the actions of the SEALs because killing a handful of these men and women would lead to the greater good for the entire world. However, despite the good that could come out of this mission, absolutism would argue that killing in itself is wrong no matter who it is. In this case, I would agree with the utilitarianism point-of-view. I believe that despite the immorality of killing, the action itself was not immoral due to the positive consequences.

            While watching, I kept wondering what they were going to do with the children and women who survived. I found myself thinking maybe they should kill them, but I could also argue that killing them would be unnecessary and more so, immoral. Some part of me kept thinking that they do not know what these women and children have been taught while living with Bin Laden and other Al-Qaeda leaders. At the same time, I kept arguing the fact that it would not be moral to kill unarmed women and children purely due to the fact that they married or were born into this family. I still do not know what they did with the women and children who survived and I am honestly not sure what the appropriate action would be for them. 

The Force of Utilitarianism

 In watching Star Wars (1977) by George Lucas, for about the 27th time in my life, the moral and political positions of the Skywalker family, are much more apparent. Before reading Thomas Nagel's "War and Massacre", the motivations for galactic conflict seemed to be a rather elementary fight, but now understanding the stance of both a Utilitarian and Abosolutionist standpoint, the dynamic of moral justification comes into account at a fundamental level.

In the case of Luke Skywalker, he finds motivation in joining the fight against the Galatic Empire, Darth Vader, and the world-killing Death Star after his family life with Uncle Ben on Tatooine is obliterated by the Empire in search of intel for their own political agenda. This chain of events opens Luke into the new mindset of the Utilitarianism way of thinking. He is told by the rebels and Ben Kenobi that in order to create a sense of "balance in the galaxy" he must join the war to create peace. Per Nagel's ideas presented, the Utilitarianism ideology states, "that if faced with the possibility of preventing a greater evil by producing a lesser, one should choose the lesser evil" (355).

While Luke is first presented as a rather simple and almost meek farm boy with dreams to go into space with friends, when he is presented with the movement of the Alliance that becomes greater than himself, he practically jumps at the chance. Suddenly, he transcends his farming personality and thus becomes a fulled fledged soldier for the Rebel Alliance. He turns in his time on Tatooine for shooting merciless at the opposition, the Galatic Empire.

But Nagel presents a bit of concern for said action upon this ideology. That even with a cause is widely accepted (such as the Rebel Alliance), when taking a step back the root actions presented under this ideology should be evaluated closer on the moral spectrum. Along with Nagel, "Intending Harm" author Shelly Kagan writes that "there is something particularly signification about those cases where the harm is countenanced because of the fact that it is a vehicle" (336). This idea shows a different side of Luke's new ideology. That while he has abandoned his previous life and motivations, he has adopted a morally "right" cause to stand behind and commit himself to. Kagan continues to emphasize that one's moral alignment is based on the individual's goal of an action that does harm, i.e Luke and the Alliance shooting up the Death Star left and right.

While a movement like the Rebel Alliance stands for a morally "good" goal, that is for the best interest of most people of the galaxy, they are not quite Nagel's Absolutists that stand for the death of none. These rebels, and now Luke Skywalker himself, become part of the Utilitarian idea that still inflicts harm of ones in the Empire, but for the greater good.