Crimson Tide: Closing the Hatch - an essay on Ethics and Morality in Decision-making

ABSTRACT
     From the movie Crimson Tide (1995, starring Gene Hackman, Denzel Washington), the closing of the hatch which resulted to the death of three men in the engineering compartment is morally justified using different theories. Also, how moral intensity can influence decision-making is discussed.

INTRODUCTION
     The aim of this essay is to morally justify the closing of the hatch using Kohlberg’s Moral Reasoning, Utilitarianism, Kant’s categorical imperative, and Doctrine of double effect. Another aim of this essay is to explain how Jones’ model of moral intensity can influence decision-making given the fact that the decision-maker knows the three men very well. These aims are accomplished through the Discussion.

DISCUSSION

1. Kohlberg’s Moral Reasoning
     As the acting CO of the submarine, I will order the hatch to be closed. My decision is based on Kohlberg’s mature stage of moral reasoning. According to Kohlberg, “But as we mature and move through different stages of moral development, we look beyond our individual wants and focus more on the ideals of justice and universally applied abstract principles of morality.” By closing the hatch, the ideals of justice is applied. Hence, it is morally just to save the lives of the many (submarine’s crew) and lose the lives of the few (three men inside the engineering compartment) since there is no other way to save the lives of the many without sacrificing the lives of the few.

2a. Utilitarianism
      The decision to close the hatch is morality justified by Utilitarianism through the outcome of the act. The bad outcome of the act is the death of the three men. The good outcome of the act is that the lives of the other personnel of the submarine are saved. Because of the greater number of lives that were saved, the closing of the hatch yielded the greatest good, and is therefore morally justified.

2b. Kant’s categorical imperative
     According to Kant’s categorical imperative, “Act only according to that maxim by which at the same time will that it would become a universal law”…If it can be universalized, then we accept the maxim, and the action is moral. By applying Kant’s categorical imperative, my maxim of action is “To prevent the death of a greater number of people in the submarine, I will give an order to close the hatch even if three people will die.” If I universalize this, the maxim would be, “To prevent the death of a greater number of people in the submarine, anyone will give an order to close the hatch even if three people will die.” My action is moral and it is morally justified because it passed the test of universalizability --- it applies to any person given the same situation, to give an order to close the hatch to save the greater number of lives in the submarine.

2c. Doctrine of double effect
     This doctrine consists in four conditions that must be satisfied before an act is morally permissible:  1. The nature-of-the-act condition;  2. The means-end condition;    3. The right-intention condition;  and  4. The proportionality condition.
     With respect to the nature-of-the-act condition, the decision to close the hatch is morally justified because the act of closing the hatch is morally good. With respect to the means-end condition, it is morally justified because the death of the three men is not the means of saving the lives of the submarine’s crew. The means of saving the lives of the submarine’s crew is the closing of the hatch. With respect to the right-intention condition, it is morally justified because the death of the three men, although foreseen, is not the intended effect of closing the hatch. The intended effect is to prevent the submarine from progressive flooding which in turn will save the lives of the submarine’s crew. Finally, with respect to the proportionality condition, it is morally justified because saving many lives of the submarine’s crew is at least as good as saving the lives of the three men.

3. Jones’ model of moral intensity
     According to Jones (T. M. 1991), moral intensity is a multidimensional construct consisting
of six issue contingencies which are known as the components of magnitude of consequences, social consensus, probability of effect, temporal immediacy, proximity, and concentration of effect…He theorized that if any component increases, it is
generally expected that the overall level of moral intensity will also increase, and vice versa, assuming all remaining components are constant.
     a. Magnitude of consequences
     Because I know the three men very well, I know the extent of the harmful effects of their death more than anyone else in the submarine. I also know the effects towards the families of the three men, how painful it would be. Although it is a tough decision because I know the three men very well, still I would decide to close the hatch for the sake of saving many lives, which in time if I would know some of them as deep as I knew the three men, that they are equally important as well.
     b. Social consensus
     In my perspective, the moral intensity of their foreseen death is greater than anyone else because I know the three men very well. On the other hand, the social acceptability of my decision, that others will also agree that the rightful decision is to close the hatch, will in a way lessen the moral intensity.
     c. Probability of effect
     Although the moral intensity is greater due to the fact that I know very well these three men and their imminent death and the resulting harm, still I will order to close the hatch given the high probability of effect so that I will protect from harm a greater number of people, thereby also protecting more families from harm.
     d. Temporal immediacy
     The moral intensity is great because of the short time between the closing of the hatch and its consequences resulting in the death of the three men that I know very well.  I will still order the closing of the hatch because time is also critical that if the hatch is closed too late, it will flood the whole submarine and will kill everyone inside.
     e. Proximity
     I know very well and I am very close to the families of the three men, so that the moral intensity is very great but I will not let my emotions interfere with my decision to close the hatch in order to save more people and more families in turn.
     f. Concentration of effect
     As a result of my decision to close the hatch, the number of affected people (even if I know them very well) is less than the number of the submarine’s crew that will be much more greatly affected if the hatch is not to be closed.    

CONCLUSION
     An act can be considered moral or immoral depending on the theory applied. As more theories agree that the act is moral, the more the act tends to be morally justified indeed. Although moral intensity can influence decision-making, it should not be considered to a certain degree so as to compromise the right decision and the right thing to do.