The Eye in the Sky Movie Analysis (Movie Review Sample)

Author’s Name Professor’s Name Course Date The Eye in the Sky Movie Analysis Introduction The Eye in the Sky is a popular movie about a British military preparing to attack a group of terrorists who share a home in Kenya. A British female leader known as Helen Mirren led the group. There was installation of several tools in the terrorists' homes as part of the terrorist group's attack plot, and they were utilized to keep an eye on their plans and activities. In addition, the monitoring devices were to help the British military to know when all terrorist groups had assembled in the residence so they could alert Kenyan security forces to arrest them. The military group identified two suicide bombers preparing in the home as they monitored the operation on their screens. At the same time, they saw a young girl selling bread near the attack target. This caused the British military to face a moral problem because they had to decide whether to spare the life of the small innocent girl or the hundreds of individuals in the terrorist target area. Based on the documentary's ethical issue, attacking the terrorist group in Kenya was the best moral decision that the British army would make. First, the utilitarianism approach argues that it is morally right to take an action that will give the best results and benefit the largest number of people. Therefore, Helen Mirren would be morally justified in carrying out the activity if she determined that the military gains outweighed the adverse side effects. As the film showed, the military benefits that would be gained from executing the attack would be more than the negative side effects. This is because carrying out the attack would enable the military unit to apprehend the terrorists, preventing them from carrying out further acts of terrorism. Additionally, it would avoid the deaths of many people in the target areas. The non-combat immunity concept, on the other hand, stipulates that the military shall not purposefully target civilians. However, it does not categorize all civilian deaths as immoral, making it moral to harm or murder the young girl to save more lives. In addition, using the moral math approach, which collects all ideas and culls them mathematically to encourage and foster positive human social activity, it would be morally right for the military officers to execute the terrorist attack (Voss 15). This is because the suicide bombers would have a chance to flee and go to the target area, where they would kill more people if the British army decided to stop the attack to prevent the young girl's death. Therefore, based on this argument, it is evident that the moral maths approach would describe the execution as morally right if the cost of preventing them is one life. Additionally, Steve Watts, the pilot of the drone, is the one who is supposed to fire the gun that would shoot and kill the young girl, which would cause him ethical and psychological toll even if he thinks that it was the right thing to do. Even yet, he does not shoot the girl and instead permits the suicide bombers to flee and carry out their attack, which would result in more casualties. The pilot would still experience ethical and psychological trauma because he would believe it was immoral to permit the killing of more people. Accordingly, it would be morally acceptable for the pilot to kill the little girl and save more lives after utilizing the moral math approach to calculate the cost of the psychological pain the pilot would experience because of the death of one person vs. the deaths of many others. Furthermore, the British army would be et...