In Saving Private Ryan, a band of eight men travelled across the battlefield of France to find one man and bring home, Ryan. This naturally brings up dissent in the group, for it seems to be a waste to send and risk eight men for the sake of one. On the other hand, Ryan has just lost three brothers due to the war, and the traumatic experience that the mother would have to endure in losing a fourth son would be devastating. Ryan’s dispatch towards home is seen as a service by the United States government. At the end of the film, it is important to know that 6 men out of the 8 had eventually died before they were able to send Ryan home. Ignoring the obvious question about whether war is worth it, in this essay, I want to determine whether the lives of six men was worth saving the life of Ryan, whether it was ethical to send these men on this mission or not. To do this, I will be approaching this topic with the ethical schools of Utilitarianism and Duty Ethics.

Utilitarianism is a philosophy that adheres to cause and effect, measuring whether an act is justified or right by measuring the good and evil that must go into making a decision. If the ends justifies the means, then Utilitarianism judges the action to be morally acceptable, though not always right. Jeremy Bentham’s Utilitarianism attempts to use maths. Acts are measured by ‘pleasure and happiness’, pit against the ‘pain and sadness’. This means that Bentham is measuring the pleasure of the mother, against the pain of six mothers, also the life of one man, against the loss of six. It is obvious that if using Bentham’s methodology, that Ryan’s life was not ‘right’ to save. There are also other forms of Utilitarianism. Act Utilitarianism and Duty Utilitarianism also focuses on the act and the cause, but there is a difference in the way that the resulting action is decided. Act Utilitarianism focuses on the goodness of each measurable action, in that you would measure each action by itself. In this case, then, the ‘act of saving Ryan’ would be justified, until the moment that another man loses his life. In Saving Private Ryan, according to Act Utilitarianism, the moment the medic had passed away, Ryan was not worth saving, as the pain of one man’s death would be equal in measure to saving Ryan’s (without external factors).

Duty Utilitarianism works in a different way. Duty utilitarianism works based on the concept that if something has been proven to be ‘right’, then it is ‘duty’ to continue to carry out that action, even if at the time there is no clear outweighing of good against the evil. For example, this can be used in the case of staying on the right side of the road. For example, the killing of someone is generally said to be wrong. If this is the case, then even if the victim is a mass murderer, it would be unethical to kill the man, even though the good effects may outweigh the evil. However, the fault of this is evident, as this means that there is no choice for the human, but to live based off a determined rule. This also means that there are cases such as the one just mentioned, which would leave someone unpunished, in that it might be the right choice to kill. There are no exceptions, even if the particular action could have a positive result (which does not follow the rule of ‘ends justifying the means’).

Another form of utilitarianism is the idea of negative utilitarianism, which tries to minimise all kinds of suffering, since suffering generally outweighs the good. In this case, the philosophy is reverted in a sense, rather to maximise pleasure and happiness, the aim is to reduce all sadness and pain as a priority, even if there is not as much, or any pleasure or happiness gained from the ethical choice. In Saving Private Ryan, it is clear that these men would not attempt the mission to save Ryan, since the objective is to attempt to take away all suffering possible.

In Saving Private Ryan, another question about war is quickly brought up, on whether war is worthwhile. Utilitarianism would without question judge in favour against the whole war, due to the extreme loss of life. Although one might argue that there is a ‘positive effect’ due to an escape from tyranny, I personally question the loss of life that went along for the ‘freedom’ that the World War II was fought for. I have a sense of disdain for Utilitarianism, being a Christian who believes in the speciality of the human. Since I generally tend to take into account emotions and situations of those around me, Utilitarianism falls in the fact that it is much too dependent on figures, rather than emotions. It classes humans not as people, but instead as values, which dehumanises the ethical problems that people face. Life and judgements should not be decided upon through use of pitting one weight against another. If this was to happen, life would be degraded, and the sanctity of being able to live and experience would be taken away.

On the other hand, however, there are some people who would dispute my opinion. They would argue that life is not actually anything special, and that there is no reason that we should not follow Utilitarianism, which is directed more towards the outcome of the decision. This philosophy will appeal to those who ‘look at the bigger picture’, so to speak.

Thus, I was drawn towards Kantian ethics. Kant’s ideas followed that human beings occupied a special place in creation, and thus has ‘an intrinsic worth, that is, dignity, that makes humankind valuable. Kant then suggested that it is the ‘intent’ that makes an action good, rather than the result, which can be seen as a complete contrast to Utilitarianism. If one had desired to do a good deed, but the result came out badly, the action would still, by Kant’s definition, be an ethical and the correct choice to make. Kant places the act on the word ‘ought’. What ‘ought’ someone do? In Saving Private Ryan, the intention to save one person’s life is certainly the right choice to make. The fact that many people have died to save this life is irrelevant, for it is what one ‘ought’ to have done that is most important.

I find Kantian ethics interesting, as it attempts to focus on the goodness of the human, and is a very personal type of morality. In my opinion, it attempts to test the moral fibre of every individual, and works in a way under the idea that every man is for himself, always being tested on their individual righteousness. However, there are clear problems with Kantian ethics, as the simpleminded focus on the intention will leave to drastic results. For example, if there is a murderer on the run, who is about to destroy a bus full of 20 men and women, it would be unethical for you to kill this man, as the intention would be to kill, but the result would be to save 20 lives. Thus, it is for this reason that I call Kantian ethics a very personal type of ethics, since it is a decision that ‘benefits’ you alone, in the case of having an afterlife, since you will have a completely clean slate, no matter if you could have done some good with a different intention. It is clear that Kant used a priori as the basis of this way of thinking. It is also interesting to note that Kant believed in an afterlife, for he felt that life and ethics would not, and could not be justified without one. This would certainly make sense, considering that Kant’s actions are solely for the individual making the choice’s good.

If Kant’s ethics were to be applied to those of the soldiers in Saving Private Ryan, not only would they be unable to kill, but they would also have to save Ryan, no matter how many lives it cost. Yet if Kantian Ethics could be applied to the whole world, there would be no war at all.

In conclusion, the soldiers in Saving Private Ryan made decided that what would do was what was right (Kant), rather than doing what is best for the greatest number (Utilitarianism). Although

Kantian ethics is rather awkward to apply to a war situation, Kantian ethics does capture the essence of the soldiers, who conquer their fears and misgivings to go outside their orders and eventually perish in honourable deaths. Utilitarianism would probably be more applicable to the scenario of war, and it suggests that all should be done for the best outcome in life. Degrading as it is for the human, Utilitarianism would probably the correct ethical theory to follow with in the case of war, as the loss of war could be potentially very devastating for the country. There is no reason that people should undertake war, according to both theories.

(I know this is similar to my extended essay, too much of other people’s thoughts and too few of my own, I wrote this while doing extended essay mindset so they’re similar. I also know my conclusion is weak.)