Eye in The Sky Is An Unmissable, Morally Tense, Thriller. First and Foremost, It

Eye in the Sky is an unmissable, morally tense, thriller.
First and foremost, it

is very thrilling movie art that grabs and holds your attention from start to finish.
But it’s also much more than that. As the tension rises with every scene, is very
thrilling that you can’t stop watching it. Eye in the Sky explores a dilemma in the
war against terror. The central character, played by Helen Mirren, is a UK-based
military officer commanding a drone operation to capture a key terrorist on the
‘most wanted’ list. But closer surveillance reveals that this target is in a house
with a group of other terrorists, fitting suicide vests for a bombing that will kill
many people. The mission quickly changes from ‘capture’ to ‘kill’, as they plan
to put a missile into the house. But when they are about to engage, a nine-year
old girl make her small market stall right next to the house where they are going
to drop the missile, and they stop the engaging of the missile and they go
through to the collateral damage estimation (CDE) and thus calculate the
probability that this innocent young girl will be killed.
More intriguingly, the decision of three invoked by each character reflect

their own unique vantage points and set up increasingly more important
conflicts between the utilitarian ethics of the military (greatest benefit for least
cost) and the objective moral values of the elected officials (innocent life is
inherently valuable and should be protected at all costs).
The premise is that British and American forces want to bomb a house in
Somalia with four notorious terrorists whom they know are about to suicide
bomb a crowded marketplace. But there’s a little girl selling bread next to the
house, and she’ll be killed if they bomb the house. If they don’t bomb the house,
however, then more people (including children) will die when the terrorists strike.
Indeed, the end still justifies the means, for the officials pressed for the
missile strike without any qualms about collateral damage. I think what they did
is right for it will benefit all of the people in that country though in the end it
caused the innocent girl’s life but they still did their part to save her and that’s
where the idea of utilitarianism showed.
Throughout the film, military commanders Catherine Powell and Frank

Benson make a compelling consequentialist argument for killing the terrorists
despite the fact it will kill the innocent girl. The suicide bombers, if allowed to
escape, are likely to kill dozens of innocent people. Deontologists argue that the
rules are the rules. Killing is wrong, so it doesn’t matter if more people will benefit.
In the movie as we can see, in the part of commander Powell she is in the
utilitarian action in which she only want to have kill the most wanted person on
her list so that it cannot kill much more people but in the part of Steve Watts
when he said “I am the pilot in command responsible for releasing this weapon.
I will fire when this girl is out of the way.” Steve goes against a direct order from
the Colonel Powell when he does not fire upon the building due to a girl in the
blast radius. As he is the one who controls the weapon, he declares that he will
do it when the girl is safely far away. (right-based) even though it is his duty to
follow the commander (duty-based).
Utilitarians argue for the greatest good for the greatest number. In the
movie one girl dies to save many people – that’s the greatest good for the
greatest number. But the rules say killing is wrong. Another utilitarian action in this
movie it can be seen when the willingness to sacrifice one innocent civilian to
save many more. When one of the people who are looking after the terrorist
house, went to the place where there are many terrorist just to look after and
put the surveillance (beetle) in the house where the most wanted terrorist are at.
I think what the military forces do was better idea even though as we can see in
the movie did they best to save the Kenyan girl.
Submitted by:
Dina Valdez
BSED-IV

Eye in The Sky Is An Unmissable, Morally Tense, Thriller. First and Foremost, It

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Eye in The Sky Is An Unmissable, Morally Tense, Thriller. First and Foremost, It

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Eye in The Sky Is An Unmissable, Morally Tense, Thriller. First and Foremost, It

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Eye in the Sky is an unmissable, morally tense, thriller.

First and foremost, it

More intriguingly, the decision of three invoked by each character reflect

Throughout the film, military commanders Catherine Powell and Frank

You might also like