In “War and Massacre,” Thomas Nagel discusses both utilitarianism and
absolutism. He dismisses any claims that state that a person absolutely must be
a pacifist in order to be an absolutist. While an absolutist can be a pacifist,
Nagel explains how that is not a requirement. For example, in the 1977 movie, Star Wars, by George Lucas, Luke Skywalker’s choice at the end of the film is
a choice that would comply with the theory of absolutism. In the movie, the
Death Star is the ultimate weapon, used by Darth Vader to completely destroy
whole planets of people. Luke has to destroy the Death Star in order to prevent
the deaths of millions of innocent people. At the end of the movie, Luke uses
the Force to accomplish this.
However, when the Death
Star is destroyed, so is Grand Moff Tarkin, the commander of the Death Star,
along with anyone else on board. According to Nagel, the theory of absolutism
states that killing is morally wrong, regardless of who the person is, what
they’ve done, or whom their actions have affected. However, “Absolutism requires that we avoid murder at
all costs, not that we prevent it at all costs” (Nagel 358). Luke’s actions at
the end of the movie were not performed with the intention of causing murder.
They were performed with the intention of destroying the Death Star, which
could bring about the deaths of millions of people. While it was foreseen that
Grand Moff Tarkin and the other people aboard the Death Star could die, that
was not the intention of Luke’s actions. He did not destroy the Death Star with
the intention of killing. As Nagel discusses, this is in line with the law of double effect, "which asserts that there is a morally relevant distinction between bringing about or permitting the death of an innocent person deliberately and bringing it about as a side effect of something else" (Nagel 357).
Therefore, Luke’s
decision of using the Force to destroy the Death Star at the end of the movie was
in line with the theory of absolutism. His purpose was not to cause death but
to destroy the machine that takes lives. He could not prevent the deaths that
occurred as the result of this mission. When first watching Star Wars, it seems, as many other movies
involving war do, that the “heroes” of the movie make their decisions based on
what is more so in line with what provides the best overall outcome, making it
seem as if Star Wars is more in line
with utilitarian views. However, as Luke displays at the end of the movie, the
goal of the Jedi Knights is to change the current government and destroy the
Death Star to prevent the destruction of planets of people. The actions they
perform are never with the intention of killing, making Star Wars more in line with the teachings of absolutism, as opposed
to utilitarianism.
Very good post Teresa.
ReplyDeleteI like how you explained your point about Luke destroying the Death Star in accordance with the theory of absolutism. I agree that Luke isn't seeking to kill anyone on the Death Star, instead his intention is to eliminate the Death Star. It would seem he is just doing the right thing. He knows the Death Star is an evil construction, and so Luke (in his good will) seeks to destroy this evil. I can see how someone could argue that him destroying the Death Star is in accordance with the theory of utilitarianism. But I think it is important to remember that utilitarianism is mostly concerned with the results of what happens after the action. Absolutism is more concerned with the actions themselves.
So I think Luke destroyed the Death Star, not necessarily because it would save millions of lives, but more-so because it was the right thing to do. We all know that Luke Skywalker is a good dude too, and that he does things for the right reasons.
I definitely think that you hit the difference between utilitarianism and absolutism right on the head. It is very obvious that Luke never would have intentionally killed anyone. He didn't step into the war with the hopes of killing someone. If I'm not mistaken (though I've never seen it), isn't the Force supposed to be used for good, anyways? The whole side he is on seems to preach that it is important to do the right thing, but to save as many lives as possible. When he is forced with the decision, he doesn't make it with any ill intentions in his heart. He makes it with the knowledge that sometimes death is unable to be prevented.
ReplyDeleteHowever, like John said above, it is easy to see this a utilitarianism point-of-view. Luke knew the weights of his decision. In the end, he was going to have to pick between allowing the Death Star to continue on or killing a few innocent people on-board. It's hard to differentiate between both points-of-view since they are so similar minus one small perspective. I think, in the end, it is up to us to see about a person's true intentions and sort out whether it fits the definition.
For example, with Cries From Syria, we watched it from the point-of-view where we KNOW the president is completely slaughtering people. If we had to even assign a point-of-view to him, it'd definitely be utilitarianism. The few rebels for the many citizens - all for the "good" of the country. Except, knowing what we know, it's all a lie anyways. BUT what if we were the upper-class citizens in that country? Our point-of-view would certainly shift. We could say everything he is doing is to help us in the end. Then we might switch our definition to absolutism.
So, differentiating between the two, to me, is a matter of perspective. If you were to switch sides in Star Wars, would you still see it as an absolutism point-of-view?
It seems that Utilitarianism and Absolutism are two sides of the same coin. I believe that both are different states of mind, but regardless of why you do something it does not necessarily change the outcome. If Luke did it with the intention to kill the end result would have been the same. This brings about a gray area of just because you have the right intentions it does not justify the action sometimes. But I think we can all agree that what Luke did was the right thing to do in this case.
ReplyDelete