MASBANG, FAITH HANNAH A.

BSA-I BLOCK-G

1:30-3:00 PM TUESDAY & THURSDAY DEC. 04, 2019

1. What are the unthinkables in the movie? Why?

Answer: The following are the unthinkable in the movie:

 How did Mr. Young manage to put three nuclear bombs in random locations?
 Mr. Younger turned himself to the militaries despite of what he did.
 Mr. H tortured Mr. Younger to gain information.
 Mr. H kills the wife and tried to harm Mr. Younger’s children to make the terrorist confess where the
locations of each bomb is.
 How western democracies cope or confronted the “war on terror” for the sake of people who are at
stake?
 How much western democracies valued the constitutional rights?

I believe that these are the unthinkables in the movie because I find it very absurd that first, Mr.
Younger let himself get caught in a place where he would be least expected to be seen after announcing to the
public that he had planted three bombs in three random places. I think that he is very ready with the
consequences after his unthinkable act and he had planned it thoroughly; second torture is ethically bad.
According to Kenneth Roth, an American lawyer and an executive director of human rights, it dehumanizes
people by treating them as pawns to be manipulated through their pain, so by this phrase we can actually
conclude that the information extracted by the person who experience tortures is unreliable and worthless and
they just confess in order to elevate pain; third is who is in the right mind will include the family and kill one
of the family member of the guilty in order for him to disclose the information needed, I think it will only
trigger the guilty to stay silent and it will make the situation worst; and lastly I strongly believe that government
is weak in terms of terrorism and tend to do acts contrary to constitutional rights and law and uses justice as a
joke.

2. What do you think is the moral principle of Mr. Younger that lead him to put bombs in diff
places of US? Make a critical analysis on his moral principles.
Answer:

Mr. Younger’s act is guided with the collective morality of Islam. As a member of this religion
they strongly believe that equality, justice, fairness, brotherhood, mercy, compassion, solidarity, and
freedom must reign in every country or in every person rather. So because his people were mistreated
by the militaries and public officials he was driven to put that in end by threatening the government
with the use of nuclear bombs. He seeks justice for every Islamic nations it was stated in the movie
where he proposes his demands to the president. When one bomb exploded in the movie, it triggers
Mr. Younger’s patriotic love and his love for his religion. He said that government is no different with
those barbarians like him who is not afraid to kill those who were innocent because they kill everyday.
His moral principle might be, he accepted his fate and he is brave enough to face the challenges and
consequences of his actions. He is also

3. Is the act or the acts of Mr. H against Mr. Younger morally justifiable? Why? Make critical
analysis.

Answer:

No, Mr. H’s acts against Mr. Younger is immorally justifiable because it is inhuman means of
collecting information in a person who is a victim of it. Torture is both dehumanizing and degrading (Jeremy,
2005). It is an archaic and barbaric practice that lacks place in the civilized world for it directly infringes against
the human rights of the victim (Gray and Wegner, 2010). Most of the practices of torture are sources of pain
which none ought to be exposed to, irrespective of the weight of their crime. It is also inhuman because it not
only causes immense pain but also results in restricted independence and freedom of the victim (Tarrant et al.,
2012). The victim is rendered defenseless and unproductive as long as the pain endures. The self-esteem of the
tortured is always demeaned as he/she is turned into a gross criminal even if they are genuinely innocent. In
some extreme cases, torture results in death. In-fact the death caused by torture should be treated even more
seriously than murder because in addition to death, it inflicts pain on the defenseless victim before killing
him/her (Tarrant et al., 2012). In fact, torture in itself is practically synonymous to death for at the time of
torture the victim’s life is consumed by the extreme pain. Moreover, the victims often suffer both psychological
and physical problems resulting in poor health for the victim due to the pains caused, injuries and shame that
the victim is compelled to undergo.
 As I see it, Mr. H actions were ignited with fear. It was indirectly mentioned by him that fear drives
the persons to do acts that is beyond the power of law— torturing someone where it is illegal and breaches the
constitution of America and the international law. He thought that his way is effective because he encountered
cases that is similar to this. Of course for him saving countless lives from an imminent attack weighs bigger
than physically abusing an individual in possession for a relevant information. But talking about morals, Mr.
H’s action is morally wrong, torture is morally wrong. Tortures can be wrong in two reason first is the reason
of principle and lastly is the consequentialist reasons. In reason of principle, torture treats the victim as a means
to an end and not an end in themselves. Basically torture treats the victim as a thing, not as a person with all the
value associate with persons. They often dehumanize their victim and uses physical body of the victim not as a
component part of a person of value, but as a tool to achieve the aims. This statement is observed in Mr. H ways
such as cutting the fingers of Mr. Younger, removing his nails, electrifying him, and removing some of his
teeth. While in consequentialist reason, torture is an ineffective interrogation tool because it may produce false
information, usually prisoner will say anything to stop the pain whether it is true; it damages the humanity of
the torturers: and it damages the reputation and moral authority of the institution. This observed when Mr.
Younger tricked them by proposing his demands first, after he’ll tell the location of each bomb but it leads them
to the explosion of the first bomb that killed 53 civilians.

4. Make critical analysis of Ms. Helen's moral and critical principles.

Answer:

In my opinion, Ms. Helen’s moral principle is legalism and she showed the critical principles
of nonmaleficence or to do no harm with others. As an FBI agent where they have to protect the country from
terror attack and other things that can harm it as well as protecting the civil rights of every citizen, she showed
a strong opposition with the ways of Mr. H and the militaries where they brutally interrogated Mr. Younger.
She knows that torture violates the constitutional rights. She initiated to interrogate the defendant without using
any cruelty because aside from torture, as an illegal act, they can get nothing from it which is clearly shown in
movie that Mr. Younger did nothing but to make them believe that they succeeded to made him confessed
where the locations are but they were lead to make the first bomb exploded and he took his life also after that.

5. If you were in that situation how would you resolve the situation? Support.

If I were in this kind of situation I will never use torture or any brutal method against a person whose
guilty of wrong doing because aside from torture being an illegal, we should treat each person with equality. I
know that each of us has reasons of doing those bad acts and Mr. Younger has also his reasons where he only
wants justice for his country. My principles will be the same as to Ms. Helen. I will negotiate with fairness and
take every consideration I can with the defendant’s demand and the government also must cooperate with him
because we all know that terror attack happens because of the unfairness and lack of justice that government
gave them and also since government has people who abuses their power people are driven to do rallies or
even terror attack. But if only if the defendant is not cooperating with my ways I will do the fourth principle
of double effect where there must be a grave reason permitting the evil where I need to save thousand lives
over protecting the right of a one person.