Reference no: EM134016639
Assignment:
Private Sacks was about to do a terrible thing. He had been ordered to first torture and then murder the prisoner, whom he knew to be no more than an innocent civilian from the "wrong" ethnic background. There was no doubt in his mind that it would be a gross injustice- a war crime, in fact.
Yet quickly thinking it over, he felt that he had no choice but to go ahead. If he obeyed the order, he could make the ordeal as bearable as possible for the victim, making sure they suffered no more than was necessary. If he didn't obey the order, he himself would be killed and the prisoner would still be tortured and killed, but probably more violently. It was better for everyone if he went ahead.
His reasoning seemed clear enough, but of course, it gave him no peace of mind. How could it be that he was both going to do the best he could in the circumstances and also a terrible thing?
Explain how utilitarianism would justify Private Sachs' decision in this case. (Lay out the argument- descriptive claims, moral principle, conclusion.) What do you think his having "no peace of mind" at the thought of following this argument says about utilitarianism? What considerations are at play that might be fueling his hesitation? How would the utilitarian response to his hesitation? What do you think about Private Sachs' decision? Is being a utilitarian the best thing to be in this situation? Is it the best argument for doing what he's planning to do?