eye in the sky and Ethics Piece

We seem concerned about ethical behavior in children. We seem less so about ethical understanding and behavior in adults. So, adults do not seem to advance beyond childish ethical consideration, unless it is to justify an ethical lapse. We seem to have an aversion to thinking through ethics, so maybe movies offer a safe way to explore ethical decisions and break through our barriers.

Violence continues to bedevil us. At present, the left decries its use, unless it is in the hands of the underclasses. The right seems to be enamored of it, especially when it is directed against “the other.”

I just saw the new film, Eye in the Sky, with a sterling cast of sterling performances and expert editing to help build suspense. It deals with a single incident of drone warfare against a terrorist gathering. As circumstances change, so do the ethical considerations of the varied decision-makers in the various, far flung places that will make the decision to kill. Our ethical decisions about violence tend to concern direct hand to hand death. When death itself is placed at a remove, whether bombing or the drone strike, how do we approach it? What is it about the human heart and mind that we have a difficult time taking an individual life but we grow numb at the thought of taking multiple lives. Why do the numbers turn into abstraction?

The weight of the movie rests on different characters in the military. First, they have absorbed the religious doctrine of “just war” more fully than the political actors. They easily speak of discrimination and proportionality, two of its major components. They are exasperated by the refusal of their political superiors to act when their critical value, “military necessity” is in play. They have a clear sense of being willing to sacrifice a few lives to prevent a possible catastrophe.

The small group actually piloting the drone certainly faces direct ethical responsibility. Instead of approaching their task like a video game, the eye in the sky gives a personal dimension to their task. Indeed, they seem to be traumatized by the results of their work. No, their work does not involve the marital virtue of physical courage, but they operate under enormous stress. One wonders if they will be able to learn to live with their tasks or if successive events will harden them or increase their burdens.

Perhaps the most chilling ethical person is a political advisor. At one level, she comes off as a near pacifist in her unwillingness to use a drone strike. Yet, her motivation is revealed when she would prefer a terrorist group claiming credit for a massacre rather than trying to explain a one civilian death in the strike.

It also shows the small ethical lapses that start to compound within a person. To cover complicity in a possible investigation, one central figure deliberately places the chances of civilian casualties, “collateral damage” at a lower level to achieve support for the strike. Her underling knows that fudging the figures is dishonest, but he dutifully follows orders. To what degree do the small ethical compromises we make affect the more critical decisions we make?

Through it all, the random quality of life events shine through. Why does the window for