The movie "Source Code" deals with the US government and it's military having the ability to keep basically dead servicemen alive in a state of quasi purgatory so that they may have themselves implanted into another person for a short period of time in the hopes of preventing a tragedy. I've previously seen the movie but watched it again now that I have questions in my mind going into it. The moral decision that must be made by the workers, most notably Cpt. Goodwin, who deals with the soldiers being used in the experiment, due to their close proximity and the bond that they will inevitably start to feel with them is one that I would hope not to ever have to make. Do you continue to allow somebody who has every right to not want to continue with a project such as this after finding out that they are pretty much dead with no hope of living besides these brief 8 minutes to be treated as CPT Stevens is, or do you go against protocol and let them die peacefully? Knowing that there is a very good chance that continuing to use these soldiers against their will can lead to lives being saved or people being brought to "justice" for their deeds? This is a difficult question and one that points to larger issues that go on in the world in which we live. Though not exactly an apples to apples comparison, a similar question is do we torture individuals in the hopes that we can attain knowledge that will help prevent a tragedy? Do we as a society force people to remain in a vegetative state even though they have wills that state they want otherwise? Do we as a society allow for certain amounts of "collateral damage" with regards to warfare or even social or economic projects if we believe they are an acceptable loss towards a greater good?
As far as the first question goes, Whether or not I would allow Cpt. Stevens the dignity and honor with which he deserves and let him die peacefully, the answer is absolutely yes. At that moment at least, whether or not it may make it harder to avert a tragedy is irrelevant, since it's a tragedy itself to keep an individual in the state that Cpt. Stevens is kept. He, along with any person deserves to die with dignity. Dignity being defined by them and not us. It is not our decision as to whether or not to allow it. I would hope that at least as individuals, we would all believe this. That even though scripture may teach us that life is sacred and that people should not commit suicide, I can certainly empathize with somebody who is terminally ill and in a lot of pain just wanting it to end. It is not for me to judge. Although I can see the slippery slope that is created and one that could eventually take society down the path towards ancient Athens or Sparta where children born with the smallest of defects were simply thrown down a well.
With regards to the rest of the questions that inevitably came up when thinking about this first question, I still don't have an answer. I would like to think that as individuals we would be against the things I listed above, but I understand that as a society or should I say as a government, certain aspects of the moral decisions need to be made in order to benefit the whole of society. Perhaps if we all thought with more morality as individuals there would be far less instances where governments felt the need to intervene and end up surrendering the few for the benefit of the many. Basically I'm confused. There are inherent Duty-Based Ethics that Cpt. Goodwin goes against when she allows Cpt. Stevens to have his life support terminated (although he does not ultimately "die" as far as we see). But there are also some very serious Consequential Ethics at play. Again, confused.
No comments:
Post a Comment