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

Staying Ahead with a Coverage Plan

Staying ahead of the competition is the goal of any successful sales organization. And to be able to reach that, it is best to make sure that your company is better than the competitor in areas important to the client. But because of a dynamic business landscape these days, many businesses have alreadyreached parity on features, production costs, as well as other areas of cost efficiencies. In other words, it just gets increasingly difficult for some organization to finda significant differentiation, a sustainable competitive advantage. What is often overlooked as a competitive advantage is the sales coverage model – are you really covering your market as effectively and as efficiently as possible? Some even fail to realize that having a sales coverage model that meets the clients’ needs canalready be their differentiating factor.

The sales coverage model is very significant as it helps the companies make sure their sales effortsare aligned with their company financial goals. Get it right and the rest of the dynamics become clear. Get it wrong and it is a recipe for chaos and dysfunction.Indeed, this overall coverage model should be totally appreciated and clearly understood by each of the company’s sales people. This coverage model must then be reflected at each salesman’s coverage plan. The coverage planis a crucial tool for any salesman since it works to maximize output, minimize cost, and of course, drive sales productivity. It sets an organized attack to make sure every client, every customer, is accounted for. It minimizes cost (i.e. transportation, etc.) as the salesman gets to plan his route and schedule, among many others, beforehand. Note that field sales representative is typically the company’s most expensive channel. Therefore, if a salesman follows nothing, there might be more temptation to slack off leading to inefficient use of time and effort, failure to reach sales targets, and worse, dissatisfaction of customer. Indeed, the sales coverage plan is beneficial to optimize all the given resources towards achieving – and even exceeding – the desired sales objective.

Given the magnitude of both sales coverage model and plan,it is important to consider several critical success factors. First, one must consider internal factors such as corporate-established sales processes and role designs. Of course, for any company,it is critical that the right sales resources are doing the right things. And so, even before deployment, a salesman must know his sales job content, his functional accountabilities (including the territory assignment), and the organizational reporting relationships so as to avoid any form of misalignment and confusion.If this is already firmly established, then the sales person can proceed withthe assessment ofthe market situation. Here liethe external factors necessary to device the right and appropriate coverage plan.Given the assigned territory, there is a presumption of area familiarity Thus, it is an advantage if one is familiar with the environment – including the existing and potential clients, as well as the competitors operating within the same area. For the customer aspect, it is important to know the customer segmentationwithin the area of assignment as this yields specific and relevant insights about their buying habits and needs. Analysis of the customers’ buying preference (e.g. the most convenient way, time, frequency, and place to do the transactions) is critical in devising the best coverage plan, creating and providing more “value” for them.Also, knowing this can help the salesperson assign priorities and determine which customers merit the most resources.Of course, it is also critical to determine competitive activity in the areato better understand what customers are experiencing in the marketplace. Assessing the competitive landscape can determine who sets the standard in the area of business, what standard it is, and consequently, what adjustments are necessary to make to surpass them.

By keeping a close eye on these factors, one can actually come up with the most appropriate coverage plan to achieve the desired sales objective. But here’s the rub: it doesn’t end there. As markets change rapidly, continuing to modify the coverage strategy and plan in a thoughtful, fact-based plan is essential. There are a lot of game changers in the market – and one of them is the consumer’s increasing access to information. Because of this, they can challenge standard practices, and can even demand changes to the design and delivery of products and services. Responsiveness, therefore, is also as critical. Again, all these must be reflected in any salesman’s coverage plan, because as some fail to notice, competitive advantage can be at hand through that very plan.

El Presidente

El Presidente, one of the entries in the recent 2012 Metro Manila Film Festival, gives a glimpse of the struggles leading up the momentous declaration of Philippine independence. Graded A by the Cinema Evaluation Board and with almost 3 hours of screening time, the story not only touches on the political infighting and intrigues that took place during the revolution; it also explores the inner struggles of Gen. Emilio Aguinaldo as a husband and a father, depicting as well the agonizing moments of making life-or-death decisions all for the sake of security and national unity.

Having earned the endorsement of the Department of Education as well as the Commission on Higher Education, my expectations of the movie, to be honest, are very high. The trailer is quite engaging, making one confirm the possibility of finally having an entertaining historical epic. And after taking up several History classes since grade school, I really find Aguinaldo to be one of the (if not the) most controversial characters in Philippine history. Why? Well, admit it – he is an iconic and heroic figure, truly a worthy subject for a motion picture. He was the power and glory behind the Filipino’s fight against Spain; he was instrumental in unifying the factions during the revolution; he was the man responsible for the establishment of the first republic in Asia. But in between, there are other intrigues and heated accusations associated with his name, tainting his glorified status. That is why I think any attempt to depict Aguinaldo’s story would really be a tricky endeavor – there’s just a lot of ground to cover, and just plenty of contention to unravel. With that, I really wished to see in this movie how these intrigues and controversies in the life of Emilio Aguinaldo were resolved. There are just overwhelming evidences about these controversies (most are, in fact, unflattering) and for as long as the movie sticks to facts, for me, there will be no problem.

The movie started with Aguinaldo’s capture by the Americans in Palanan, Isabela. The film then transitioned 15 years earlier, depicting him as a lad, unaware of the “great” life ahead of him. In the movie, he received a strange (and yes, close to exact) prediction from an elderly fortuneteller, which I was (at first) uncertain of whether it transpired in reality or just used for the sake of art. The film then follows Aguinaldo through the entirety of his life, his rise and fall from 1896 onwards – from his joining of the Katipunan, his leadership in Cavite, his conflict with Andres Bonifacio, his tension with Antonio Luna, his struggle for recognition of the country’s sovereignty and independence, up to his life after the downfall of the revolutionary government.

Really, it’s a lot for one movie to cover. There are just a lot of crucial, historical events to capture to be able to present – without, as much as possible, committing the dangerous sin of omission – a clear and accurate picture of this very complex character. The movie, if I were to judge it, really did struggle in its own weight. It runs through a list of historical milestones, seemingly moving from one episode to the next with little cohesion. While much is made of Aguinaldo’s martial prowess, I think little time is given to actual character development. True, El Presidente is quite filled with impressively staged battle sequences, but for me they are unnecessarily lengthy to a point that they just end up revealing very little about the main character. In fact, in the end, the film runs quickly through the later decades of the hero’s life, never staying long enough to really examine his decisions. Before watching the film, I heard that this movie is a product of 12 or so years of research, pouring over countless history books and research materials. With that, I was expecting the movie to at least help rectify “misconceptions” in history, coming out with the “truth”. From being exposed to different angles of this part of our history, I was also expecting to find a moving, a convincing, and a solid answer to what really motivated this man who took part in the glorious historical event this country ever experienced – was it truly love for country? Or was it thirst for power? Yes, I was able to see critical events that may suggest one over the other, but these – as I see it – is broadly depicted that in the end it seems that the film refuses to take a stand on the events being portrayed. The film, for me, just tries to cover too much, and a lot is seemingly lost along the way.

Moreover, audiences seem to be thrown into the thick of the film without context or setting. Well, perhaps there is, thanks to the date and setting constantly being flashed at the bottom-left of the big screen. However, it isn’t enough to be noticed; it isn’t enough to nail a sense of direction for the story. I managed to get through it since it isn’t that long since we’ve discussed it in class. But for others, unfortunately, the movie seemed to be such a confusing mess. I was with my mother when I watched the film, and she kept on asking about the continuity and progression of the events. I can sense her annoyance – either for not being able to recall her long lost years of history classes, or perhaps because of a sloppy storytelling.

Don’t get me wrong – the production was not that defective or inadequate. In fact, I was impressed by the sophisticated cinematography. Compared to many other Filipino epic and historical pictures filmed before, El Presidente’s production still offered that wow-factor for us viewers – from the scenes to the lines in Filipino, Spanish, and English are well thought. Yes, it was impressive – just that the handling of its subject matter (e.g. the very emotion in its interpretation), for me, was kind of lacking – lacking in terms of context, in terms of commentary. The plot, no matter how comprehensive it is, seemingly forgets to tell the significance of each event, of each battle, taking place. As a student currently taking up Philippine History in college, I was looking for more depth in the narrative. It’s as if we are just left to accept that Aguinaldo was the bravest, most honorable person ever to participate in the fight for Philippine independence. It’s as if we are just left to think that Spaniards are stupid, that Americans are bad, and that Aguinaldo’s the true hero.

But again, after some thought, it came to me the fact that making a historical film like this is really a tough endeavor. How can one possibly squeeze all those years of history into 2 (in this case, 3) hours of screen time? That alone was a challenge. But what makes it even more challenging is the fact that the subject in itself happens to be a very controversial figure in Philippine history. Thinking of these made me somehow appreciate, more than scorn, this entry in the MMFF.

With these latter realizations, I was reminded of one truth about reflections in history – that is, no history is completely objective. Each is written with inherent biases and motives. With history being about fallible evidence as interpreted by fallible people, then no question of finality and conclusiveness can ever emerge in its realm. True enough, even a single event can be seen and interpreted in many angles, and so it is safe to say that there can always be bias in both the author (the one writing that part of history) and the reader, as a result of their respective contexts. This film just manifests this truth, as its storytelling dramatizes (majority of) history from Aguinaldo’s memoirs and perspective. But I believe (and I really hope) there’s still an attempt to make the script fair and balanced by using other historical research materials as well.

Clearly, El Presidente is not a perfect film. But in the end, it still shines as a passionate attempt to contribute something valuable for Philippine cinema. It really tries to leave nothing out, trying to form a complete picture of Aguinaldo as humanly as possible. Although I expect more from this movie, it made me realize the importance of having a more open mind on varying layers of heroism and the writing of history itself. Besides, it’s not really the details that we should all be after for. I think what’s more important is the opportunity for us to grasp the essence of what it really is to achieve independence as Filipinos. This biopic shows us the general picture of where we have been, it gives us an appreciation of where we are now, and it enables us – in one way or another – to envision how we can continue to better ourselves in the present and yes, in the time to come.