Introduction
Utilitarianism classifies morality in form of maximizing the anticipated utility for the benefit of all parties that are to be affected by the decision. It supports the fact that all actions are good only if they work towards the goal of enhancing the greatest good for all people. Utilitarianism resolves issues based on the principle that it is only that which produces better results for everybody or for the greatest number that is considered good. Ethical formalism on the other hand supports the fact that only that which is pure in motive is good. It resolves issues or dilemmas by identifying the solution which is pure and unblemished in motive (Pollock, 2008).
Application of Utilitarianism in Sophie’s movie
In the context of Sophie’s movie, utilitarianism would resolve that, one of the children be killed and Sophie survives with the other one. Sophie is in a dilemma and because they have been taken to a place where all their rights are deprived especially individual rights, making a choice is inevitable. By sparing the boy, Sophie made a better choice since the boy had a better chance of survival. Irrespective of her choice, it was imperative that she saves one child for the good of society.
Application of Ethical Formalism in Sophie’s movie
In ethical formalism, what matters is not the result but the motive. Since all people have the duty to protect their children so had Sophie, but because the situation demanded that she protects only one. Sophie was morally justified to save one child; it was also morally justified to choose the son over the daughter because the son was old and could survive in the harsh environment of the concentration camp.
Debate over the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki
The bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki is one of the military and political decisions in history that elicits an unprecedented debate. There have been a lot of questions as to why the United States of America opted to drop the bomb especially at the peak end of the war and various arguments have been floated in favor of or in opposition to the bombing. It is worth mentioning that Americans were not informed of the war or the developments leading to the events. To gain a better understanding of the bombing, it is imperative to examine the various competing views in the debate.
Those who supported the bombing exercise argue that it was the only measure that could disable Japan and the bombing could lead to the surrendering of Japan. They also argue that the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki was only necessary to shorten the war and in order to save the lives of Americans. The proponents argue that the bombing was critical to ensure that the line between defeat and surrender was made clear in the context of Japan.
Proponents argue that the bombing was necessary to send signals to the USSR in the imminent Soviet-American conflict. The bombing was considered as a measure to guarantee leverage in future negotiations with the USSR.
Those opposing the bombing argue that the US was unethical in the actions since it demonstrated its inhuman character by justifying that the lives of the Americans were superior to those of the Japanese. They argue that the war was wrong since the lives and the safety of the people of Japan were paramount. It is also unethical to justify that a plot to save American life could be achieved by killing the Japanese population (Llc, 2010). The debate on the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki is that of ethical formalism. This is because the debate is aimed at arriving at promoting the well-being of the population and humanity. And its motive is not for the benefit of all parties.
Conclusion
Ethical formalism and utilitarianism are applied towards the resolution of situational ethics and values the resulting concerns. It concerns the identification of choices and analysis of the choices based on the ethical system.
References
Llc, B. (2010). Atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki: Debate over the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. New York, NY: General Books LLC.
Pollock, M.J. (2008). Ethical Dilemmas and Decisions in Criminal Justice (6th ed.). New York, NY: Cengage Learning.