A Few Good Men

The movie A Few Good Men depicts a murder trial filed by the US government against two US Marine Officers, Private Downey and Private Dawson. In August 6, 1992, in the Guantanamo Bay Naval Base in Cuba, Private William Santiago died of asphyxiation from a supposedly poisoned rag stuffed down his throat by Privates Downey and Dawson. The two were performing what the marines call a “code red”: an unwritten rule amongst them to perform a disciplinary action or punishment on fellow marines who are underperforming or are found disobeying the strict marine code. Santiago was known to be a weakling in the unit, always lagging behind in drills, and constantly experiencing exhaustion and fatigue. Aside from being physically weak, he also broke the strict chain of command and disobeyed the marine code by writing several letters to senior commanders outside his unit, requesting that he be transferred to a different unit and offering to expose one of his colleagues who was involved in an (allegedly) illegal shooting in exchange of being granted his transfer request. These actions were deemed highly offensive by his unit, as the marines are expected to firmly uphold their code of discipline, honor and loyalty.

Despite Santiago’s insistent requests, head of unit Col. Jessep ignored them, reasoning that allowing Santiago to transfer units and dismissing his utter disrespect for marine code as well as his underperformance is tantamount to risking the lives and safety of the American people. It is, after all, their duty as marines to ensure national safety, and having one disloyal weakling poses a severe danger to the country. Hence, rules must be applied very strictly among all of them. Jessep’s resolution was then to have a code red performed on Santiago, which he ordered to have executed. Two of his subordinates, Lt. Markinson and Kendric, ordered privates Downey and Dawson to perform the code red to Santiago on the night of August 6. Putting high regard on their duties as marines and knowing the repercussions of disobeying orders, Dawson and Downey seemed to have no other choice but to obey and follow their superiors. They executed the code red on Santiago by stuffing a rag down his throat and supposedly by beating him up. The result, however, was the accidental killing of Santiago because the rag that Downey and Dawson used turned out to have some harmful agents which aggravated a sickness that they did not know Santiago had.

Downey and Dawson were thereby accused of murder and conduct unbecoming a US marine. As two extremely loyal marines, who put utmost importance on their duty to the country and on the marine code, the two chose to fight the trial to the end. In the end, the verdict was: not guilty for murder but guilty for conduct unbecoming as a US marine. The two were not imprisoned but were discharged indefinitely from their services as marines.

Given the facts, let us examine the morality of Downey and Dawson’s act of performing code red on their comrade Santiago, which unforeseeably led to Santiago’s death, and their degree of responsibility for it.

So, according to Kant, moral evaluation calls for a consideration of two things: the agent’s motive and act. Kant says that a right motive is characterized by doing what one believes is right, “just because it is right.” This means acting out of duty, even if it does not cause you pleasure or happiness. Did Downey and Dawson act out of duty? The motive behind the act was an adherence to an order, to a strict chain of command, which stemmed from their own respect for their duty as marines. Hence, we can say that yes, they did act out of duty. They acted out of duty to their work. Certainly they did not derive pleasure or happiness in following the command. In fact, if left alone to themselves, they would not have inflicted such harm on their comrade, and definitely not kill him. But even if they personally did not desire to perform code red on Santiago, they still followed it because in marines’ terms and norms, this was the ‘right’ thing to do. They put aside their personal inclinations in order to fulfill a duty which they committed themselves to do: to be obedient and loyal, which are marks of an honorable marine and civil servant. The question is: was it right for them to set aside their inner averseness to do what was commanded to them, all for the sake of marine duty? No. According to Kant, an act’s morality is not dependent on its function or purpose, or its correspondence to certain laws of society. Morality is a categorical imperative, which means it is unconditional and applies for all and for always. It is not a hypothetical imperative, which is conditional and is only good for when you want to achieve a certain goal. Although Downey and Dawson did act according to their duty as marines and thereby following the laws and norms of their work, they still did not adhere to the supreme and unconditional law, which is the moral law. Moral law is far greater than the laws that apply to their specific work, and as such, their adherence to marine laws should only be subordinate to their adherence to the moral law.

Going back to Downey and Dawson’s act, we ask: is code red in itself good, if we take away their motive for performing it? The answer is a definite no. A code red constitutes a harsh, physical, and illegal form of punishment which usually comes in the form of beating or torturing, according to the movie. By itself, then, the act is not good. Physical abuse of someone can never be called good and is always evil. Hence, by Kantian moral theory, Downey and Dawson’s act was immoral. Even if the marines view code red as justifiable because of its end goal (which is ultimately the national safety of America), this is clearly a conditional kind of good, and is therefore only a hypothetical imperative: we ought to execute a code red, if we want to ensure that our men are capable of protecting the country. Its very nature as conditional tells us that the act is not absolutely good.

Now, was the immorality of the act enough to fully reveal the agent’s character? More so, was it enough to determine how we are supposed to judge both the accused?

Morality and moral choice imply human responsibility. According to Aristotle, it is not simply what one does but also one’s reasons for doing it that reveals the human being’s character. It is not what one has decided to do, but rather to the goal or reason for the sake of which one does it. Dawson and Downey really had no intent and motive to kill Santiago. What happened that night was something they had not plotted themselves. As mentioned earlier, it was simply adherence to an order, in line with the respect for their work. If it weren’t for this order, if it weren’t for their duty’s nature to just obey without any questions, the two wouldn’t have done (or even allow) it. The act, then, is done under compulsion for the cause of doing it is external. Doing so is, in fact, against their will. They know about the code red, they know about that unwritten disciplinary rule present within their unit, but they did not deliberately will to do this to Santiago. Such an act can’t be considered voluntary for a voluntary act, according to Aristotle, must originate in the agent himself. Aquinas even provided a similar reasoning: that it is possible for an external force to control and influence the external acts of the body. And when external acts are done through threat, or perhaps violence, they are believed to be involuntary primarily because the will of the person coerced is more or less contrary to such external acts.

Although the act in focus can’t be completely classified as a voluntary act, we still just can’t dismiss the two from the moral responsibility. That’s because if we are to consider whether a person deserves praise or blame, then it’s a requirement that that person must be truly capable of making a choice himself. In this case, the cause may lie outside both the agents, but they still have – in one way or another – some share in it. In fact, when they are ordered to do the act, they are not utterly robbed of the choice to not do it. It’s not a matter of life and death for both Dawson and Downey, if you were to think of it. And since the option to go against the order is still at their disposal, then it shows that both are still capable of making for themselves a choice. Given a chance to defy the orders of their superiors, they still found themselves conforming to it. In light of Aristotle’s teachings, this case can be considered involuntary (and thus merits no moral responsibility) because of the presence of an external force that threats and imposes; but in the agents’ preference of the act over an alternative (that is, to not follow), is now considered partially voluntary.

It is true – that the act may not totally and completely originate in the agent, but it is worth noting that it is still the agent – rather than someone or something else – who moves his own bodily parts. And so, even though we can see the reluctant behavior, the unwillingness, of both Dawson and Downey in executing that extrajudicial do-it-yourself punishment, the act is nonetheless voluntary. This earned them part of the blame as well.

At this point, it is important to remind ourselves the answer to this question: why did they conform? One, it’s because it is what is asked of them as subordinates, as marines, as civil servants. Indeed it is their duty to always obey. Two, it is inflicted upon them in ways backed with threats, and thus, possibly stirring up guilt and fear – guilt of violating their strict code of honor and obedience, and yes, fear of getting punished. It was revealed though, that prior to the night of August 6, Dawson had already experienced for himself the repercussions of disobeying a superior’s order. He disobeyed because he exercised his own set of values, because he made a decision about the welfare of a marine that was in conflict with that order. Although it exhibits concern for another’s welfare, it yielded him nothing but a threat of being punished the next time he commits disobedience. Because of this, the order to perform code red to Santiago seemed to have narrowed his option to just follow this time. Here we can find the interplay of performing the act out of “duty as marines” and yes, out of fear. So how can someone be blamed for an act which also stems from fear? One might say that because of this, they shouldn’t be blamed. But according to Aquinas, an act done out of fear is still voluntary; it still emanated from the will despite the presence of fear. Therefore, the act of surrendering to Kendrick and Jessep’s order presupposes an interior act of willing.

Willing, as we have learned through Aquinas, represents choice. And in choosing, a person determines himself to one of two or more possible actions. By choosing to follow – despite the freedom of settling for the otherwise – Dawson and Downey had then determined themselves in the light of the end (or object) of the action chosen. Sure there exists a threat that stirs fear. And it seemed that there’s really no other way but to follow and choose it. But choice, being an act of free will, and being an act in the control of the agent, always implies consent. As Aquinas puts it, “whenever there is choice, there is also intention”.

However, some might argue that the act done must still be considered as an involuntary act because there’s ignorance – that is, unawareness of some of the particulars. Yes, Dawson and Downey did not know of Santiago’s heart condition when they stuffed a rag down in the latter’s throat. Yes, they could have not foreseen his death. But aren’t they capable and rational enough (as marines and as humans) to know that that act, which they were just ordered to do, can – in one way or another – inflict harm to anyone, more so to Santiago who they knew was physically weak? Apparently, they failed to act upon that good. And so, even the two may be ignorant of some particulars, they still committed an act that was partially, if not totally, voluntary. It is their ignorance of the universal principle that made them deserving of partial blame.

In the end, it boils down to this: we – just like Dawson and Downey – can experience such a time when we’ll find our characters challenged by our own sense of what is right and what is not. As human beings, we are all given the gift of rationality, the opportunity where we can discover the good by our own selves. But we must note that in order to be good, it is never enough to know it; nor is it sufficient to just will for it. To be good, we must have to take concrete steps towards its realization. Because just as we have seen in A Few Good Men, honor pertains to the brave and committed soldier, but even more so to the brave citizen who would choose to play outside the rules of his work for the sake of that which promotes what is truly good for all, and whenever necessary.

---------
Final Moral Case Analysis written by Trina Candelaria (BS ME '13) and Trixie Conlu (BS ME '13)
for Philo 102 Class under Dr. Hermida, Ateneo de Manila University