And what about the 4000 soldiers killed? Ridiculous justification. I'm pretty sure at least half would have joined their army if the choice was food or death.
The fact is, there just wasn't enough food to go around for everyone. There was 10 days worth of food for Jet Li's army. Even if all the food were given to the captives, they wouldn't have lasted. It was either half of them starve to death, or all of them. Even if the soldiers that surrendered joined them, there wouldn't be enough food to feed the combined armies. He needed to save his own troops so he could rescue the next city from the army that was approaching it. They were an even bigger city, with only civilians. More lives would have been lost if that army got there first.
The point of the movie is that sometimes right and wrong choices are not cut and dried. Sometimes the moral thing to do can lead to greater harm or loss of life than the socially reprehensible thing to do. Which is more important, more people surviving at the cost of war crimes, or everyone dies a hero?
Suppose a thousand people are going to starve to death. If no food is found, they all die. But what if a few of them could be killed to serve as food for the rest of them? An absolutely reprehensible thing to do, but if it will save lives, will it be justified? If it's not done, they all die, and the ones who were sacrificed are no worse off either way.
Here's another scenario: Suppose some terrorists stole a nuke and intend to kill a million people with it, but only you have the codes to launch the nuke. They have your wife and daughter captive and demand you give them the codes or they will kill them both. But if you do, you'll save your family but a million people die. Which is the right thing to do?
Swordfish posed the question to one character: What if all of the world's diseases and sicknesses could be eradicated completely (the millions of people HIV positive will be cured and spared from death)... at the cost of one innocent girl's life? Would it be worth it?
The Joker in Dark Knight rigged two ferries with bombs and gave them a deadline. Each ferry could detonate the other ferry killing them all but sparing themself. If neither detonated the other, both would be detonated and all would die. Would it be moral to blow up the other ship knowing that even if you don't do it, they would still die anyway, but you as well?
Do the ends justify the means, or do the means justify the ends? There is no single correct answer. Such is grey and grey morality.
reply
share