Reference no: EM134044396

Question

Because of the high stakes of combat, military life has its share of consequentialist rationalizations for inflicting harm. It is not unusual that commanders decide to sacrifice people or their rights for the greater good. Contemporary defenders of torture in our War on Terror (e.g., former Vice President Dick Chaney) do not consider prohibitions against torture absolute. In this spirit, A Few Good Men includes some standard military rationalizations for rough actions that appeal to the greatest good. Here are some instances from the film, from US history, and from the news: (a) At Gitmo, Jessup sacrificed Dawson and Downey to protect the practices of the Corps (Dawson and Downey took the blame for the Code Red order); (c) when in combat, enemy combatants may be denied rights if it is convenient for military purposes (e.g., the prisoners at our Gitmo internment camp, who have been held captive without a trial); (d) in combat, innocent victims may be sacrificed as collateral damage (carpet bombing in WW2); (e) in combat, entire cities may be destroyed to minimize casualties on our side (Hiroshima, Nagasaki in WW2). In a famous scene in Dirty Harry, the hero tortures a serial killer in order to discover the whereabouts of his kidnapped victim. Being the hero, Dirty Harry seems to justify rule-breaking in emergencies. But in A Few Good Men, Jessup and Kendrick are the least sympathetic characters in the film, which tends to undercut sympathy for rule-breakers, whereas the heroes (the defense team) are those defending the rights of the accused (Dawson and Downey). In the end, does A Few Good Men settle the question of whether rights can ever be violated for the greater good? Does the film suggest that rules cannot ever be broken for the greater good in combat or other emergencies?