Utilitarianism as an ethical basis can have very virtuous or very depraved qualities. In film, movies such as V for Vendetta and Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part 2 present the two sides of utilitarianism. In a real world example, the Nazis and the Manhattan Project in World War II demonstrate the opposing ethics of utilitarianism.
Utilitarianism, widely known as “the greatest good for the greatest number,” is an ethical school largely started by Jeremy Bentham. Bentham believed that it is one’s moral obligation to provide the best possible outcome for the most people. In other words, if sacrificing one person saves a thousand people, it is one’s moral duty to kill that first person. In V for Vendetta, Delia Surridge is a doctor who is in charge of finding the cure to the St. Mary’s virus that could kill many. In order to save the population of London, she infects her patients with the virus and uses them as studies for her vaccine research. V for Vendetta portrays Delia Surridge as immoral. While she thinks she is saving thousands of lives, she overlooks the fact that she is responsible for killing a few hundred others. The clip below shows the ending scene from an excerpt in her diary during her time researching.
(I'm sorry that it's only the link. When I tried to embed the video, I couldn't find it again on YouTube. Hopefully that link still works.)
The Nazis in World War II had a very similar, still immoral, viewpoint as Delia Surridge. They sacrificed many Jews in order to perform highly unethical experiments on them such as drowning the patients or performing lobotomies. By taking the viewpoint that “the ends justify the means,” the Nazi’s experiments could be considered highly valuable because of their scientific research. However, the major consensus is that the sacrifice and torture of the Jews in order to obtain said research makes the entire ordeal immoral.
On the other hand, there are times when the ends really do justify the means. The Manhattan Project and the dropping of the two atomic bombs, for example, promote utilitarianism during World War II. While the atomic bombs sacrificed hundreds of thousands of Japanese citizens, many argue that the bombs also ended the war, saving millions. The Manhattan Project is largely seen as an American victory, and it is viewed as justified and revering.
In film, Harry Potter sacrifices himself in order to save the wizarding world.
Harry realizes that the only way to defeat the evil Lord Voldemort, is to allow Voldemort to kill Harry. Although Harry himself must suffer, he saves many lives by his death and therefore provides the greatest good for the greatest number.
By simply looking at Harry Potter’s case, it can be said that self-sacrifice makes utilitarianism ethical. Upon comparison of the United States to the Nazis in World War II, however, there is no clear reason why one is viewed as ethical and the other is not. My question is, “Is there as defining line that determines whether utilitarianism is ethical, or does it depend on your own personal opinion?” As an America, I am predisposed to believe that dropping the atomic bombs was the right thing to do, but I wonder if the Nazis viewed their scientific research in the same light.
Both the videos worked for me and both show different aspects of ethics. In the first clip (V for Vendetta), the misguided nature of our actions, even when we feel that we are right and just in our actions. The researcher, in spite of her convictions of the greatest good seems a bit egotistical in her work.
ReplyDeleteThe contrasting clip, Harry Potter, brings into view the idea of sacrifice for the greater good by offering his life. the clips remind me of the train experiment where the switch operator/ pusher has the option to throw him or herself in front of the train rather than the singular person who is standing on the tracks.