"Our job is to make terrorism so horrific that is becomes unthinkable to attack Americans"

[Osiris-ODS]

The current state of affairs brings to mind a scene in the movie Swordfish -- the spy thriller starring John Travolta and Hugh Jackman, premised on conflicting moral philosophies on the issue of fighting international terrorism.

Interestingly, the movie was released in the summer of 2001, and was pulled from theaters after 9/11.

Here are the scenes I'm referring to:



Stanley (Jackman):

"War? Who are we at war with?"​

Gabriel (Travolta):

"Anyone who impinges on America's freedom. Terrorist states, Stanley. Someone must bring their war to them. They bomb a church, we bomb 10. They hijack a plane, we take out an airport. They execute American tourist, we tactically nuke an entire city. Our job is to make terrorism so horrific that is becomes unthinkable to attack Americans."
​

Here's the other scene:



Stanley:

"How can you justify all this?"​

Gabriel:

"You're not looking at the big picture Stan. Here's a scenario. You have the power to cure all the world's diseases but the price for this is that you must kill a single innocent child, could you kill that child Stanley?"​

Stanley:

"No."​

Gabriel:

"You disappoint me, it's the greatest good."​

Stanley:

"Well how about 10 innocents?"​

Gabriel:

"Now you're gettin' it, how about a hundred - how about a THOUSAND? Not to save the world but to preserve our way of life."​

Stanley:

"No man has the right to make that decision; you're no different from any other terrorist."​

Gabriel:

"No, you're wrong Stanley. Thousands die every day for no reason at all, where's your bleeding heart for them? You give your twenty dollars to Greenpeace every year thinking you're changing the world? What countries will harbor terrorists when they realize the consequences of what I'll do? Did you know that I can buy nuclear warheads in Minsk for forty million each? Hell, I'd buy half a dozen and even get a discount!"​

This scene poses a classic ethical dilemma of Kantian vs Utilitarian ethics. Whether an action is "morally right" in Utalitarianism is a function of whether the act promotes the greater good (Gabriel's speech was an example of utilitarianism), whereas In Kantianism, the morality of an act is determined by whether it comports with the "categorical imperative" -- irrespective of its effect on other people (i.e., if a person wants to stop being thirsty, it is imperative that they have a drink).

I wonder, looking back on this after 2001 (and particularly today), how many people sympathize with Gabriel's approach. Interestingly, the YouTube comments on some of these videos post 9/11 show that to some people, Gabriel is not the villain.