majority rules!

In yesterday's English class, we were presented with a dilemma indifferent to other circumstances: would you sacrifice the life of one person in place of many? Whichever context this may be found in, most people (if not everyone) would adopt a utilitarian perspective. It is a selfish act to choose a lesser number over a great one, unless you are affected by personal factors such as familiar relationships, etc. 

Literature provides great examples of conflict in which morality is questioned, such as The Quiet American by Graham Greene. Based on the first Vietnam War, the character of Pyle attempts to resolve the conflict between the French and the Vietminh by creating a "Third Force". Heavily influenced by the musings of his literary idol York Harding, he believes that radical movements (such as bombing of Rue Catinat) is worth the price of the 'greater good'.

The character of Fowler, on the other hand, chooses to be degage- a term meaning detached -as a reporter for a British journal. This choice prevents him from having to make extreme and personal decisions (which he then later on has to make).

"One has to take sides...if you are to remain human"     -Mr Heng

Finding out about Pyle's idealistic plots, his neutrality comes at an end by setting up his murder. In doing so, he had not only condemn Pyle to death, but had also taken away Phuong (woman of the love triangle)'s chance at a 'normal' life with Pyle. But is it really worth hurting one person (and killing another) to save a greater nation from a radical revolution? Or did Fowler also break his morality by killing one person for 'the greater good', just as Pyle did with the bombings (for the better Vietnam)? What do you guys think? :)