I watched "Eye in the Sky" this past week, and ended up having a large argument with a friend after.
Story follows the UK Army following most-wanted terrorists in Kenya using a drone in the sky. They follow them into a house where they start preparing suicide vests. Plan turns into a remote drone strike, but the pilot keeps delaying as there is a young girl outside the house.
Essentially, a story line similar to the trolley problem - do you (potentially) save 1 innocent girl's life, or potentially watch terrorists attack a crowded place (film estimated 80 deaths).
I found it really hard to sympathise with the "wait and save girl" argument - the moral conflict here is fairly small, and could have been made worse in the film. Friend disagreed saying what they did was wrong.
"Wrong" means not only different things but different kinds of things to different people.
To a consequentialist it means "has bad consequences" or maybe "is reasonably expected to have bad consequences".
To a deontologist it means "breaks moral rules".
Note that those moral rules may be moral rules because a policy of not breaking them has good consequences, and (because most of us are not good at making difficult decisions in real time) it may actually have better consequences than a policy of always trying to wor
If it's worth saying, but not worth its own post (even in Discussion), then it goes here.
Notes for future OT posters:
1. Please add the 'open_thread' tag.
2. Check if there is an active Open Thread before posting a new one. (Immediately before; refresh the list-of-threads page before posting.)
3. Open Threads should be posted in Discussion, and not Main.
4. Open Threads should start on Monday, and end on Sunday.