Swordfish and Utilitarianism; Halle Berry is hot

Swordfish is a terribly shitty hacker movie somewhat justified by the inclusion of a Halle Berry topless scene. Unfortunately when I watched it last weekend on TBS when nothing else was on Halle Berry was wearing a CGI Bikini in the afore mentioned scene, thus mitigating any quality the movie might have had. Despite the shitty, shitty nature of Swordfish, though, it does contain a utilitarian argument between Vincent Vega and Wolverine which has been bugging me.

Van Helsing: How can you justify all this?
Danny Zuko: You're not looking at the big picture Stan. Here's a scenario. You have the power to cure all the world's diseases but the price for this is that you must kill a single innocent child, could you kill that child Stanley?
Curly McLain: No.
Vinnie Barbarino: You disappoint me, it's the greatest good.
Leopold: Well how about 10 innocents?
Terl: Now you're gettin' it, how about a hundred - how about a THOUSAND? Not to save the world but to preserve our way of life.

This quazi-philosophical interlude in the otherwise miserable movie adeptly portrays the two primary Utilitarian questions: Is Utilitarianism correct? How do we discern the greatest good?

Is Utilitarianism correct?
Looking at Utilitarianism in the context between Vinnie Barbarino and Wolverine I do not think there is a way to side with Wolverine and so deny Utilitarianism. If one could cure all the world's diseases by sacrificing one innocent child the obvious response is that, yes, the action is justified. The only argument against this position is that the value of the child's life is somehow greater than the value of the lives of every other human being which is, mathematically, nonsense. If the value of human lives is cumulative then certainly fifty lives are more valuable than one; it's just math. If the value of human lives is not cumulative, if fifty, one hundred, one million human lives are as valuable as one human life then it is the responsibility of one who maintains this position to support their asinine claim. If one were to attempt to bypass a discussion of "value" and rather claim that something else is the subject of our concern then, again, it is the responsibility of one who maintains this position to not only define that seemingly imaginary quality but also justify it.

Of course, the value conversation in the above portrayal assumes that there is a finite value to every human life which is equal for all humans. It is entirely possible that, say, Ewan McGregor is more valuable than Hayden Christensen (I watched Episode III last weekend, too), depending on the criteria by which we assess "value".

Admittedly, some biased discussions of human value can lead to problematic conclusions (zomg nazis), but I think that if we define our terms correctly and act in an objective manner we can assess the value of different groups of human beings based upon abundant sets of criteria and so formulate answers to the utilitarian question of "greatest good to the greatest number" in terms of the value of that greatest number.

How do we discern the greatest good?
I think this is where Utilitarianism fails. Good is subjective and allows for interpretation on the part of every individual. Additionally, good is notoriously unpredictable. Was today's Chinese earthquake good? The kneejerk response is, "Noes! Deth r teh bad!" But when we consider global population problems, food shortages, the utility of the particular people who died, the repercussions of their deaths, the architectural information gained by the collapse of buildings, the humanitarian concerns this event might draw attention to, etc. we're left with a terrifically complicated question which will take years to answer. In truth we may never know whether the Chinese earthquake was good or bad. Certainly we can maintain a position of "People died so it's bad." But that is simply moronic.

I like Utilitarianism not necessarily for itself but rather for the conversations the idea sparks. It's fun to talk about human value, good, and utility if only because these are fundamental questions of humanity which excite and compel concerned individuals. So while Swordfish is a fucking terrible movie it does provide an opportunity for a discussion of Utilitarianism which somewhat makes up for the lack of coherent plot, character development, and the ridiculous license that movie takes with hacking.

And, of course, Swordfish provided us with Halle Berry boobies, which are awesome.