CHUA, Neil S. 4LM1 Crimson Tide 1) What kind of ignorance did the captain and XO have?

July 25, 2012

The captain had invincible ignorance, due to his strict adherence to the militarys legal principles. To him, launching the nuclear missiles (as originally ordered) was more important than any other matter. While this pushed him to be unethical or inconsiderate of others, the law that he swore to act by justified his actions. He followed the rule that in the absence of any new orders, the original orders still stood. A firm belief and obedience to law, and any ignorance resulting from it, is not something that can be easily dispelled. On the other hand, the XO had vincible ignorance because of his hesitation to follow the initial orders, taking the possibility of the enemys surrender into consideration. He did not want a nuclear holocaust to occur, even if it meant bending the military laws that he was fully aware of. From the very start, he believed that the true enemy is war itself. His ignorance could be truly classified as vincible because all that was needed to dispel his doubt or hesitation was the receipt of the latest orders from higher command. As soon as the submarine received orders to launch or not launch the missiles, he would act accordingly. Until then, he refused to concur with the captains orders to launch the missiles.

2) When did the XOs ignorance shift? The XOs ignorance shifted when he conducted a sort of lawful mutiny against the captain; in doing so, he put his doubts into action. The XO took away the captains authority for the sake of any civilians that may be wiped out in the possible nuclear holocaust resulting from a mistaken launch of nuclear missiles. This marked the shift to invincible ignorance. The XOs wider perspective of the situation made him put the welfare of civilians before military orders something that was not legal according to military law, but was right considering the lives that were at risk. At that point, both the captain & XO had vincible ignorance. They firmly stood by their respective principles, even reaching the point of holding mutinies & drawing guns against each other on-board the submarine just to assert their stance on the matter. An otherwise normal routine became a difficult conflict due to the presence of firm conflicting beliefs. 3) Was it right to close the hatch? Based on the concepts of volition & double-effect, it was right to close the hatch. Had the crew member not been hit in the head by a loose submarine part, the situation would have been tackled differently. But as such, there was no more life at stake, or had he even been still alive after getting hit, rescue was already impossible. The act of closing the hatch conformed with the guidelines of the concept of doubleeffect, because the safety of the rest of the submarine crew (good effect) preceded the

entrapment of one crew member (most likely dead) in the flooded chamber of the submarine (bad effect). Furthermore, the number of other lives at risk provided sufficient reason for the act to be done, and undoubtedly, the agent acted with honesty. Likewise, volition does not hold the surviving crew member responsible. There was no evil that could be done to an already lifeless body, & not closing the hatch would have resulted in even more deaths. 4) How would utilitarianism tackle the decision of the captain to shoot everyone until he obtained the launch codes? Utilitarianism would have approved of the captains threat to shoot everyone in order to obtain the launch codes. While it is true that the captains pleasure would be increased (by being able to follow military orders) at the price of the displeasure of those he threatened to shoot, it must be remembered that utilitarianism places ones own happiness before others. The captains desire to obtain the launch codes was not a mere fabric of obedience to authority, but was also brought about by his mindset that obtaining the codes was a matter of life and death for the United States. True to the principle of utilitarianism, the captains actions were dictated by the aim of preventing pain or evil to the community under his consideration his own country which he swore to protect. Killing his own comrades can still be conformable to the principle of utility, since the end would ultimately mean the augmentation of the communitys happiness.