In this blog post, we delve deeply into the ethical dilemma of whether it is acceptable to sacrifice one person to save many, and into human nature, through the lens of the film ‘Unthinkable’.
The film Unthinkable depicts the conflict between a terrorist suspect who planted a bomb capable of killing millions and the individual torturing him to uncover the bomb’s location. The movie focuses on whether it is justifiable to disregard the terrorist suspect’s human rights to save the lives of the many, exploring this through the conflict between two characters: Brody and H. H is an expert in brutal torture, willing to use any means necessary to uncover the bomb’s location. Meanwhile, Brody, sharing the same goal, attempts to persuade the suspect through legal procedures. However, even as the torture continues, the suspect remains silent.
Ultimately, H kills the suspect’s wife and proposes an unimaginable method: torturing the suspect’s children. H proposes showing the suspect his children suffering to extract a confession. This suggestion, coming from H who had been torturing with near-madness, horrifies everyone. They face a grave dilemma: should they protect the lives of many by threatening the lives of innocent children?
When the children are mentioned, the suspect becomes agitated, increasing the likelihood he will reveal the bomb’s location. But the question remains: is it right to disregard the human rights of an innocent wife and children simply because the suspect’s rights could threaten multiple lives? Moreover, it wasn’t even certain if the bomb the suspect mentioned actually existed. Ultimately, H’s proposal is accepted, and the children are brought in. As H prepares to begin the torture, the suspect…
The film’s central theme is the conflict over whether the minority can be sacrificed for the majority. Yet, no clear answer exists for such a question. While many film commentaries discuss this theme, they haven’t yielded new interpretations. The primary conflict lies in the clash of opinions between H and Brody, but this conflict arose precisely because H’s extreme choice existed as its backdrop. It was H’s decision that provided the opportunity to contemplate this issue.
If a decision was made to threaten the suspect’s child to save millions of lives, the next crucial question is who would carry out that action. Whether Brody’s opinion was right or H’s method of locating the bomb was correct is no longer the main issue. If H hadn’t existed, who would have taken on that role? This situation made me deeply contemplate the question of “who would act.”
I came to believe H wasn’t simply a madman. H was someone who took medication to suppress his self-loathing, someone who stained his hands with blood for the sake of saving many lives. He didn’t seem like a psychopath, but rather someone who took responsibility and sacrificed himself. This choice couldn’t have been easy for H either. Yet because H stepped forward, the others could focus on weighing the lives of the many against the rights of the few. Yet when it came time to actually carry out the torture, no one stepped forward. Their finger-pointing at H’s madness laid bare human selfishness. The same goes for how they sought to shift all blame onto H once the incident was resolved.
Of course, H’s actions are open to various interpretations, and I wouldn’t defend them as absolutely right by my own values. But how should we evaluate the actions of someone who, to save thousands of lives, endured immense mental and physical strain and got blood on their hands?
While the film presents an extreme fictional scenario involving human lives, connecting it to our daily reality isn’t difficult. The question of who should sacrifice first when action is needed frequently arises in our society too. A prime example is the dilemma of who should step forward to expose collective corruption or resolve community problems. Even if it’s not a situation where sacrificing a few saves the many, the conflict over the necessity of action and whether to participate has always existed in communal societies. Psychology calls this the bystander effect, describing the phenomenon where responsibility becomes diffused in large groups, leading no one to act.
Of course, the nature of action varies depending on its purpose and outcome, but how courageous can humans truly be when their own sacrifice is involved? Avoiding sacrifice isn’t something that should be unconditionally condemned. After all, everyone instinctively wants to minimize their own sacrifice. Yet, throughout history, humanity has progressed through the sacrifice of the few. Humans belonging to a community always live thanks to someone’s sacrifice.
My focus on the practice of action began with self-reflection. One day, I started noticing my own selfishness when confronted with problems within my community. When I hesitated to sacrifice, witnessing those who boldly stepped forward made me recognize my own limitations. I was someone who reaped the benefits of positive change without participating in the problem-solving process, yet blamed others when negative outcomes occurred. I rationalized it as not that I didn’t participate, but that I couldn’t, merely protecting myself.
Seeing characters like H in the movie, or people stepping forward to solve problems in daily life, made me reflect on myself. I always hoped someone else would be the H, expecting someone else to shoulder all the responsibility while I stayed in the background.
We all know the happiness we enjoy today is the result of sacrifices made by a few in the past. No one can force sacrifice, but we must consider whether we will merely watch the happiness gained through others’ efforts. Through this opportunity, I will reflect on myself and deeply contemplate the practice of action. And I want to expand this thought to pose a question of self-reflection to all of us. Are we truly growing into beings who can put a bell around the cat’s neck? When others step forward first, am I truly prepared to help them?
