In Hotel Rwanda, Paul Rusesabagina a Hutu is a hotel owner who during the 1994 Hutu massacre of Tutsis and moderate Hutus saved the lives of over a thousand people by hiding them in his hotel. While it is an easy choice for Paul to protect his family as his wife and children are Tutsi. Rusesabagina’s moral dilemma lies in what is his responsibility to the human lives in his community. Is it his responsibility to help his neighbors and how far should he go to help them. According the Ethics Challenge in Public Service “Rusesabagina did no harm, so he was not obligated to help anyone but himself and his family”, while this may be ethically accurate, does it make it morally right. He has the means, opportunity and ability to help these …show more content…
Miller sends himself and eight men into enemy territory to rescue the surviving son so that he can be sent home to his mother. While most of the men question their mission and the purpose of risking their lives to save one man. They still subscribe and adhere to the Kantian principles of following the law. Even though at the end they are successful in securing Private Ryan and getting him home to his mother. The question remains was he worth it. Was the Captain morally right in ordering the eight men to risk their lives for one man, just to make himself feel better? Was his choice made worse by the fact that he knew these men had been trained to follow orders, even to their own detriment? In my opinion Kant’s theory is once again shown to have a negative impact on people. In Hotel Rwanda it is used to excuse inaction by the U.N troops and in Saving Private Ryan, the soldiers, training to follow the rules of their leaders is used to send them on what is essentially a suicide mission for the sake of one man, who could be dead. Captain Miller practiced egoism theory in that he did what would make him most happy and that was getting Ryan home, but in doing that he seemed to dismiss the fact that his actions were going to cause heartbreak for many more