Eye in the Sky – a morality tale of

modern warfare
RIYA TOTEJA (160010007)

Introduction :-​ ​In the 2015 British thriller Eye in the Sky, a military team locates
a terrorist cell preparing an attack expected to kill hundreds. They command a drone
that can drop a bomb on the terrorists, preventing their attack. As the team readies the
bomb, their cameras spy a little girl selling bread within the blast radius. ​The ethical
dilemma is: Should they go through with their mission – killing the girl in order to
prevent the deaths of many others?
Also who should
The politicians to whom a decision was referred to were concerned with negative
publicity should the innocent girl be killed (and the video of the operation leaked) -
correctly depicting our politicians of today (​ethical egoism​).

MY POSITION :-​ ​I think that the girl should not be killed. To morally justify my position I
will make use of the trolley scenario and rule utilitarian method.

Comparison with trolley scenario :-

This modern-day moral dilemma has its roots in a classic philosophical thought
experiment known as the​ trolley problem.
–Trolley Scenario1: You’re a trolley car driver
–Trolley Scenario2: You’re an onlooker

● Psychological research shows that in the first version of the problem, most
people agree with utilitarians, deeming it morally acceptable to flip the switch,
killing one to save five. But in the second version of the problem, people believe
it’s not acceptable to push a stranger to his death – again killing one to save five.
What can explain this discrepancy?
● Scientists think that our moral intuitions evolved to make us good social partners.
Because we learn from a very young age that violence towards others is typically
punished, our moral intuitions tell us it’s wrong to take actions that physically
harm others.
● So in versions of the trolley problem that involve physical contact, like the
onlooker case above, harming one to save many is generally less
 acceptable than in versions that do not involve such contact, like the
switch case.
● The situation we have in the movie is similar to trolley scenario 1 in this
way that in this movie there was no direct physical contact involved in
killing the girl. ​ The missile was fired from a distant location. It was just like
pulling a trigger/switch.
● High-tech battles have the potential to displace much of our direct experience
with the trauma of war. But it has severe implications and leads to degradation of
humanity. This results in more people justifying such killings, calling it essential
for greater public good. Because they can’t realise the gravity of the whole
situation by just pulling a switch.
● The situation in movie is similar to trolley scenario 2, because murder is
involved​ (a missile is being fired knowingly), unlike scenario 1 which can be
called an accident since someone had to die because of the trolley car. Killing is
different than letting die. There is no justification of murder.​ There is no society
that can progress allowing murder of innocent civilians.
● Also in the movie the saving of hundreds of people is dependent on the
assumption that the terrorists we are killing, will kill those hundreds so by killing
the terrorists we will save hundreds.

This situation is also similar to the city of omelas (exploit one child for prosperity of a
whole city). Killing the child will be against child rights and should not be allowed at any
cost.​ Also human beings should not be treated as tools to maximize public good.

Rule Utilitarianism and Act Utilitarianism

An act utilitarianism will say ​one life compared to two suicide bombers killing
hundreds of people,the innocent girl should be killed as it will increase the utility for
maximum people.

But a Rule Utilitarianism will say that :-

In order to have a military system that protects people from being harmed by others, we
authorize the military and other officials to kill innocent people and order hellfire on
them. The purpose of this is to provide overall security to people from terrorist attacks,
but this requires that military officials have the authority to order the killing of innocent
people who are coming in the way.
They should not have the authority to do whatever they think will lead to the best results
in particular cases. Whatever they do must be constrained by rules that limit their
power.

Act utilitarians may sometimes support the killing of innocent people, but rule utilitarians
will understand the risks involved and will oppose a practice that allows it.

If instead looking at the consequences for everyone, military killing innocent

civilians to save lives would lead to a breakdown in trust between civilians and
military, which will degrade the unity of the country. ​The net outcome would be bad.
Thus it would be preferable to have military follow a rule ​"Innocent civilians should
not be killed"​, rather than have them try to maximise utility on a case by case basis.