Preparation can be Costly

How costly can preparation (or the lack thereof) be? If there is one thing America has taught me through war, is that being prepared for it can save many lives, and lacking preparation can lead to the death of many. Lets portray American Sniper for example, it depicts a unique situation, one in which they are at "war" in order to prevent a war. Ironic isn't it? but it's just as real as it is ironic. Chris Kyle has over 160 credited kills to his name, these are all people that could have "potentially" lead to a severe war and/or death of many people. Kyle is seen as a hero, but in reality also viewed as the bad guy, after all, who are we to decide whether or not someone will choose to do something catastrophic until it does happen?
Morever, we have a situation in which we are doing everything we can, to be prepared for potential threats following the 9/11 attack that we didn't have a clue would happen. Now take Saving Private Ryan, a very distinct film that has a purpose within the purpose. One that, although is supposed to be about saving a Private in the midst of war, conveys how difficult it was to obtain victory during WW2 after the conquering of much of Western Europe by the Nazi Germany reign and the Pearl Harbor attack by the Japanese Navy. Here we have a situation in which the lack of preparation caused us many lives. These two events and many like it, have shaped the way we think and take threats now. We have to make a choice on "potential threats" as Shelly Kagan states in Intending Harm, we either choose to kill one/a few in order to save two/a multitude, or we run the risk of that person killing many before facing justice.
Being in the position of the military, what exactly are you supposed to do? Do you go on a killing spree of these "potential" threats, or do you sit back and wait for a drastic tragedy to happen? One could argue that America wouldn't be in this position in the first place if they would just stay out of other countries; then again, had America stayed out of the way during the first two world wars, they would not only have ran the risk of being conquered as well, but they would have simply sat back as the holocaust was occurring and dictatorship engulfed the world.
Many believe wars and armies shouldn't exist in the first place, I can partially agree with those bold statements, there shouldn't be a need for either to exist, but the truth is, there is evil all over the world, and power being handed down to one person or one group of people can be heavily dangerous, thus leading to a need for systems of self-defense. America began with the Militia, whom along with all the other brave people who stepped up are responsible for our independence. Evil actions have forced the world to create armies and self-defense systems. American Sniper depicts both a hero yet somehow a bad guy, similar to a vigilante, it shows the way America now prepares for future events, safety at the cost of lives. Saving Private Ryan depicts what the consequences were for the lack of preparation, victory at the cost of lives. We end up with two unfair options, Safety and preparation first at the cost of lives or lives at the cost of the lack of safety and preparation.

Detached Desire for a Greater Calling

In the 1998 film Saving Private Ryan, we are told the war story of a group of men that fought their way through Europe in World War Two to find a paratrooper named Private Ryan. They are sent on the mission because all of Private Ryan’s brothers have been killed in battle and the U.S. Army has decided to send him home so his mother doesn’t have all of her sons killed in the world war. Of course there are men lost on this journey of finding a needle in a haystack and when they finally do find him, the rest of the men die in action, but Private Ryan lives on and tries to live his life to the fullest in honor of all the men that died for his safe return home.

The interesting thing about this is the cost of this objective that is paid to save the one life of a man with many. In the movie, one gets the sense that these men are doing it for the greater good, for Mrs. Ryan to have one son at least, that she shouldn’t have to pay such a price for the country. These men have the duty to follow orders and give a life of happiness and stability in America after the war for Private Ryan, they wanted it but they could do what they need to, to at least give a young soldier the chance to do that when, such as Captain Miller (Tom Hanks), has already lived that life before the war. Yes, he wants to return to that life, but it is duty that compels him and good will for Ryan to give everything in his power to completing the objective.

Immanuel Kant writes very much about good will and means of ends in Groundwork for the Metaphysics of Morals. Kant writes on Dignity and Price, “Whatever is relative to universal human inclinations and needs has a market price. Whatever, even without a presupposing a need, accords with a certain taste--- that is, with satisfaction in the mere random play of our mental powers--- has an attachment price. But that which constitutes the sole condition under which anything can be an end in itself has not mere relative worth, i.e., a price, but an inner worth--- i.e., dignity”.  This kind of mission that the army gave Captain Miller has a price, but the final end is worth more than anything else because of the ethical implication they put on the families, why end a family name when it isn’t absolutely necessary even though that last brother is fighting at his own will. He has a greater attachment to country than family at first, but at the end has a great weight of responsibility to have lived up to what he was given by the men. Kant does also writes,”…The moral worth of an action done out of duty has its moral worth, not in the objective to be reached by that action, but in the maxim in accordance with which the action is decided upon; it depends, therefore, not on actualizing the object of the action, but solely on the principle of volition in accordance with which the action was done without any regard for objects of faculty of desire.” I found this interesting just in the fact that there is moral worth in just following through with an objective without desire effecting your completion of it.

This brings me to my modern day point. There are people who operate drones to eliminate targets out wherever it is needed. The soldiers are in combat, but at home, they have to follow these objectives given without question and have no idea if what they do is morally right or wrong to them. There is a sense of duty in what they do, but there is a weight of wondering guilt if they did something considered wrong or right in the grand scheme of ends. So has the military made a form of war where the soldier has no choice in the ultimate end unlike war in World War Two, sure they didn’t have a choice what they had to do, but there were instance of hand to hand combat that allowed them to keep a shred of what they were doing morally and could decide for themselves.