The dilemma of the United States forces is dual: they could kill the terrorist leader at the cost of innocent civilians and protect the rest of the world by ending his group’s operations or let him and the civilians live while risking other people in the future. In that case, the problem is as follows:
For the country's protection (A), the United States government must kill the terrorist leader (B); however, the protection of the States (A) also means that innocent civilians will die (C). Extensively, killing the terrorist head (B) will mean protect the United States from possible future attacks (D), but the killing of the civilians will mean committing multiple murders (-D). Therefore, if the United States protects its citizens from future attacks (D), innocent people will die (C); however, the death of the leader (B) means the United States government is made up of murderers (-D).
The principles of absolutism in ethics revolve around Immanuel Kant’s ideologies on morality where actions are morally permissible when they conform to the nature of ought to instead of if quality. In other words, there are absolute standards based on “universal laws” against which one can judge moral questions and determine whether an action is right or wrong regardless of the context and involved persons (J. Rachels and S. Rachels, 122). Consequently, people perform moral actions because they ought to and not because if they do so, they get desired results. Thus, in the case of the United States’ dilemma: (a) because actions are morally permissible if they are universally acceptable, and (b) the killing of innocent people would mean murder is ethical, then it would mean that (c) the killing of civilians is immoral no matter the results. For that reason, an absolutist would not drop the bomb and choose to prevent (-D) and (C) by protecting the lives of the innocent people and upholding the integrity of the United States.
Meanwhile, act-utilitarianism approaches ethical conundrums by considering the consequences of a single or more actions. Apparently, in the views of act-utilitarianism, rule-based moralities are wrong in determining the permissibility of an action because they are rigid and identify different actions as one. Naturally, responses to dilemmas differ in context and for that reason, the only ways through which one could determine whether an act is ethical or not involve considering the consequences. Concurrently, Jeremy Bentham advocated “the Principle of Utility” that requires one to choose an action that has the “best overall consequences” for all persons (J. Rachels and S. Rachels, 92). Accordingly, act-utilitarianism would drop the bomb and kill the terrorist leader (B) because that will mean the country will have protection against future attacks (D). Still, the bomb will also kill innocent people (C) and portray the government in a negative light (-D); however, the death of few people to prevent that of many is ethically permissible on the grounds of act-utilitarianism.
Works Cited
Rachels James and Stuart Rachels. The Elements of Moral Philosophy. 7th. New York: McGraw-Hill Education, 2011. Print.
