Sheridan McKeever

Ethics Paper
Eye in the Sky

In terms of ethics, the movie Eye in the Sky is an absolute nightmare. In short, the movie

is a drama that takes us through the ethical dilemma of collateral damage. Three of the United

States and Great Britain’s most wanted African targets are all in one room in a Somalian village

house. The house sits just near a village market where a young girl selling bread is in high threat

of fatal injury if a missile is sent through the roof of this home. This situation poses a great deal

of concern in striking the house. Colonel Powell and Pilot Steve Watts both take on great

responsibility in the movie and must make terribly difficult decisions regarding the matter.

Colonel Powell is the first character I have chosen to evaluate from the movie. She had

been tracking one of the targets (Susan Danford) for 6 years prior to this event, so obviously she

was very invested in the mission, which I think clouded her judgement a little bit. She said in the

movie, “I’ve tracked her for six years. This is the closest I’ve ever got.” (36:30) When intel came

in that Danford, her husband, and one other target would be in the same place, Colonel Powell

could not pass up the opportunity to capture these individuals: Danford in specific. Hidden

cameras gave more intel as to what was taking place in this house. Footage revealed two suicide

bombers gearing up for a suicide bombing. This inclined Powell to transition the mission

objective from capture to kill. Striking the target became the only option as getting ground troops

into the heavily guarded Somalian village was nearly impossible without starting an all-out brawl

between the two forces. Obviously, switching the mission over to a kill mission was hard for

some of the other parties involved to swallow.

 Lieutenant General Frank Benson seemed to feel the same way as Colonel Powell and

managed to get the Attorney General on board as well. However, he was struggling to convince

Angela Northman and the minister in the room. Their initial thoughts were that it was a capture

mission, but then became even more against the situation when the little girl came into the

picture. This created the biggest ethical dilemma of the movie. The big question was “Do we

strike the target, taking out the suicide bombers and the three most wanted targets, or do we

minimize collateral damage and save the girl?” Powell thought that maybe she could do both.

She went to Sergeant Mushtaq Saddiq who was capable of calculating the possible collateral

damage. Powel thought that if the could reduce the risk of killing the girl to under 50%, she

could get everyone’s approval to strike the target, which is what she wanted to do from the start,

regardless of the girl. This is what is called a utilitarian approach, which according to Ethics

Unwrapped, means “an ethical theory that determines right from wrong by focusing on

outcomes.” In this case scenario, Powell felt that if they struck the house before the bombers left,

they could save countless lives that would otherwise be lost when the suicide bombs went off in

most likely a public place. Sergeant Saddiq did all the calculations he could, but he wasn’t able

to find a way to reduce the risk to under 50%; the best he could do was 45-60%. I could see that

this upset Powell so much that she used her authority over Sergeant Saddiq to incline him to say

the risk was only 45%. I believe this was a bit of an abuse of power.

The second character I have chosen to evaluate is Pilot Steve Watts. From the start of the

movie, I could tell he was a great guy, but I confirmed that when he stood up to Colonel Powell.

When Powell ordered for him to strike the target regardless of the girl and her chance of fatality,

he responded with “I am the pilot in command responsible for releasing this weapon. I will fire

when this girl is out of the way.” (54:49) I thought this was extremely brave of him as he was
directly going against the orders of his superiors. In all honestly, he is the one who gave the girl

the biggest chance of survival. I could see the hurt and tears in his eyes as he was ordered to

strike the target again, which is likely the blast that actually ended up killing the girl.

Overall, I think this movie really reminded me of the scenarios that we went over in class,

especially the one about the lever and the train tracks. Do you save the one person but kill the

other five or do you make the choice to sacrifice the one person to save the other five. In this

case the girl was the one person and the tens of potential fatalities from the bombers were the

other five. In the movie, Powell said, “There is a lot more at stake than you see in this image.”

Overall, I think the right choice was made in executing the plan and taking out the three most

wanted people; however, I couldn’t help but be heartbroken when the little girl died.
 Works Cited

Ethics Unwrapped, McCombs School of Business. Utilitarianism - Ethics Unwrapped

(utexas.edu). Accessed 2 Oct 2022.

Eye in the Sky (Movie)