Christianchristian blogchristian dilemmakilling in warmercymoral dilemmasaving private ryansteamboat willie. Most war movies have no shortage of moral dilemmas present in them.
As for me, all I know is that I know nothing. Believe it or not, I watched the movie "Saving Private Ryan" for the first time, just few days ago.
The following is a discussion of some of the ethical issues presented in the film, from different moral perspectives. Ryan, an American mother whose four sons had been deployed to Europe during World War II, was about to receive several telegrams informing her of the death of three of her sons.
When the news reached the Chief of Staff George C. Marshall, he decided to send out a team of eight men to rescue the fourth brother, Private Ryan. Marshall argued that rescuing him would be the only way to alleviate some of the grief of a mother and a family who had sacrificed everything for America.
However, the mission entailed a rather high level of risk given that they had no information about his exact location and if he was still alive or not. As the story line develops, the members of the team die one by one in different circumstances, both before and after they found Private Ryan.
The last scene of the film presents an aged Mr.
Ryan, with a numerous family accompanying him to a military cemetery where he remembered the members of the team that rescued him. Even after so many decades, he wondered if he actually earned the chance of living his life while others lost theirs for him. Moreover, the members of the squad performed a moral action by rescuing him due to the fact that they did not do it because they wanted to, rather because they felt it was their duty to obey orders in order to earn their right to go home.
Thus, the fact that the rescuing team died would not affect the moral value of their action as a whole. Moreover, when arguing categorical imperatives, Kant is of the opinion that there are universal values and laws that we should take into consideration when judging the moral value of an action.
Moreover, by rescuing Private Ryan, Marshall treated a soldier and his mother as ends in themselves, rather than means to an end. In other words, if he had treated all soldiers as mere means to winning the war, he would not have cared about Private Ryan or his family.
Ryan for three reasons. Thus, although most of the soldiers were not participating in the mission voluntarily, it could be argued that Private Ryan could have engaged in a similar rescue mission if it have been asked of him, for any other soldier.
This possibility would be reflected by his reluctance to leave the bridge and his sense of responsibility towards his country. From this perspective, it is very difficult to draw a clear line between what could be consider wrong or right.
First, it could be argued that saving Private Ryan did not only lessen the pain of a grieving mother, but contributed to the winning of the war by influencing the battle for the bridge into Paris. Thus, in this case, more happiness was generated in the long term. Thus, generating in this case more grief in the short term.
However, these are all hypothetical cases that deal with imaginary consequences that cannot be predicted or measured. In my opinion, sending a group of men into an almost suicidal mission to rescue someone who might be most likely dead is not immoral, just very irresponsible.
I cannot help keep thinking that, it is rather ironic that governments around the world often take actions that harm their citizens, like avoiding taking measures against environmental pollution, because they would suppose a great economic cost.
While sacrificing both, civilian and military, human lives in wars are often considered mere collateral damages. When arguing all these different moral perspectives, I had to refrain myself from creating a graded scale to measure the value of one human life against eight other lives, due to the common taboo about putting a price on human life in general.
However, it seems that in practical reality, these perspectives and the value they place on human life are rarely applied.The Profound Contradiction of Saving Private Ryan Steven Spielberg's D-Day epic is a brutal, unpatriotic portrait of war—except for the notoriously sappy prologue and epilogue.
What was the film.
The Profound Contradiction of Saving Private Ryan Steven Spielberg's D-Day epic is a brutal, unpatriotic portrait of war—except for the notoriously sappy prologue and epilogue. What was the film. Ethics Movie Training The VADM James B.
Stockdale Center for Ethical Leadership, located in Luce Hall in room , offers a set of facilitator guides centered on ethical themes explored in recent film.
|Moral Dilemma Dialogue: Saving Private Ryan||Is Saving Private Ryan a propaganda film? No 2 Private Ryan was a WW2 soldier.|
The Ingersoll Library, located in the Stockdale Center, houses many movies that focus on ethical dilemmas. Let them try to develop a movie-making program that is more formidable — or more machine-like — than Steven Spielberg. His latest directorial effort, Saving Private Ryan, is as usual a brilliant demonstration of movie-making.
At the level of the individual shot it is just about perfect.
Feb 04, · Rating: 4 out of 4 stars Writer: Robert Rodat Director: Steven Spielberg Saving Private Ryan Plot Summary In A Sentence: A group of eight World War II soldiers re-evaluate and define their definitions of duty, honor, and sacrifice as they are sent on a combat mission to recover one soldier (Private Ryan) because his three brothers.
In Saving Private Ryan, a band of eight men travelled across the battlefield of France to find one man and. bring home, Ryan.
This naturally brings up dissent in the group, for it seems to be a waste to send and risk eight men for the sake of one.5/5(1).