Vincent John Avila Ugalde October 13, 2021

BS Architecture 4 GE Ethics
Group 35 Mr. Alvin Galeon

1. What are the unthinkable in the story? Why are they deemed unthinkable?

The “unthinkable” mentioned by Mr. H in the movie is the thought of using the
children in the interrogation of Mr. Younger. “Bring me the kids.” is what Mr. H said as
he planned on torturing the children as a last resort in getting information on the
whereabouts of the bombs planted by Mr. Younger. For me, I think it is deemed
unthinkable because I don’t believe any normal and humane person would use the
same method of interrogation (torture) done to the terrorist on to the children of the
terrorist for they have nothing to do with the situation at hand.

One other example of the “unthinkable” would be Mr. Younger planting bombs in
different American cities knowing it would kill millions of people in the country. Thinking
of the three bombs he planted in different cities as stated by him, having a fourth bomb
makes it all the more unthinkable especially since he had planned his whole scheme
from the beginning. No one else but Mr. H expected there to be another bomb because
the others felt it to be unthinkable for Mr. Younger to have another bomb planted even
after giving the three bomb locations.

2. What is/are the moral principles of Mr. Younger that lead him to attack US by
putting bombs in its different places? Make a critical analysis on the moral guides
of Mr. Younger.

Steven Arthur Younger or Yusuf Atta Mohammed is an American Muslim who was
a former Delta Force operator, an expert in explosives, bomb disposal, and specialized
in nuclear weapons. He is an American citizen who moved to Islamabad with his family
for the work of his father. From what he has stated, he loves his country (Pakistan) but
Americans ‘crap on it,’ and loves his religion (Islam) but Americans “spit on it.” He was
an American soldier who served in Iraq, which gives him first-hand experience on the
relationship of Americans and his countrymen/Muslims and how they were treated.

Mr. Younger believes in justice, and for him to stop the bombs, his demands from
the U.S. government requested no further financial or military support to puppet
regimes and dictatorships in Islamic nations, and to withdraw U.S. forces from all
Islamic countries. This tells us that Mr. Younger felt that he could not take the
oppression of his people any longer and took action by acts of terrorism in this “just
war blessed by Allah.” He even justifies the deaths in the shopping mall, stating that
the Americans kill that many people every day. Lastly, he even allowed himself to be
caught so he could face his oppressors and since he knew the consequences of his
actions (death of millions), he prepared for and accepted the torture that was coming
his way because he believed it would be fair.
3. Are the acts of Mr. H to Mr. Younger morally justifiable? Why?

Mr. Younger had everything planned out the way he wanted it to be. He
successfully set up five different bombs across different states in the U.S.A. He knew
how he was going to be tortured and deal with his since he was trained, he knew how
he was going to prove the authenticity of the bombs, and he had a backup plan in case
he gives in to the torture to make his plan failproof. In other words, he is a criminal
mastermind with a lot of experience, which makes the inhumane actions of Mr. H
towards Mr. Younger acceptable.

When identifying the wrong in both options, I would say that torture is unethical but
at the same time letting your moral principles condemn millions to an avoidable death
is also unethical. In this case, there is no ethically acceptable choice but it is
understandable for Mr. H to torture Mr. Younger to save millions of American lives
(although it is still wrong). This is a smart choice to make compared to sparing the life
of a terrorist over millions of innocent civilians. That is why I believe that the actions of
Mr. H to Mr. Younger were morally justifiable; although torture is unethical, it is still the
right thing to do.

4. Make a critical analysis on the moral principles of Ms. Helen against Mr. H.

Special Agent Helen Brody is the leader of an FBI counter-terrorism team in Los
Angeles assigned to interrogate Mr. Younger. From the start of the story, she can be
seen as a person who believed in justice with fair and constitutional actions.
Comparing her to Mr. H, it is like night and day. It can be seen that both their moral
principles are very different each from other, making it seem like Mr. H is the “bad cop”
while Ms. Brody is the “good cop.” Although it was hard for her to deal with a person
like Mr. Younger because his morals contradict hers, she couldn’t do as much without
Mr. H. I believe the way Ms. Brody goes against Mr. H helps amplify the actions of Mr.
H to help more in bringing out answers from Mr. Younger. For me, I think she saw how
her actions would not be enough, so she allowed Mr. H to continue with the majority
of his plans.

However, Ms. Brody is a person with a strong belief in her moral principles and
held on her own towards the end. It might have seemed that she had given up on her
morals when she let Mr. H do what he wanted, even killing the wife of Mr. Younger as
a last resort, but when Mr. H asked for her to be the one to drag the children back for
him to interrogate them, she stood her ground and said “We’re f*****g human beings.
Let the bomb go off! We cannot do this!” This showed Mr. H that Ms. Brody was still
fixed on her morals and would rather save the children for they have no part in this
war. With that, Mr. H had already given up and set Mr. Younger free because they had
already lost.
5. If you were in the situation, how will you solve the moral dilemma? What moral
principles/guides are you going to apply to solve the problem?

If I were in the situation, I would honestly do the same as Mr. H. This would be
against my moral principle of beneficence, but if it is to save millions of people, I would
give it up. I would be facing a lot of judgment from people, especially the ones close
to me, but I don’t have much of a choice. I feel like the situation is simply comparing
the two sides if one were to save the terrorist and his family, or millions of innocent
lives. It is the smart choice to save millions of people with whatever means necessary.
As I have said, it is unethical to use torture as a method of interrogation but at the
same time letting your moral principles condemn millions to an avoidable death is also
unethical. With proper judgment, justice is the principle I’m going to apply to solve the
problem.