One's own righteousness

[!mitationRust]

Scenario: OBL warns US of plane attacks on skyscrapers.
Scenario: Minutes before the massive destruction of 9/11; jet fighters are scrambled. (You know where I'm going with this)

[Option#1] Sit in your self-righteous chair and do nothing (High-jacked plane shall stay on course).

[Option#2] You can give the go ahead to engage and destroy by sacrificing children, women and men to save the life of thousands.

[Negative]

It's called The Sheriff's Dilemma in philosophy, and it's one of the toughest problems ever...

In the old West, a young girl gets raped and murdered in a small town. The citizens ask for an arrest, and the sheriff delivers. Only: the sheriff knows his suspect is innocent. Riots all over, citizens demanding for the sheriff to hang the suspect. Should the sheriff hang the (innocent) suspect in order to prevent riots with possibly hundreds of dead citizens?

I wouldn't want to be the one to give that order, unless I would be 100% sure that the plane would indeed kill more innocent people when striking its target than there are innocent people on the plane... but you never can be 100% sure...

Is it right to kill innocent people in order to protect innocent people? Do you judge that by how many innocent people are on "either" side? Do you count children twice? Do you count people who have stolen candy in high school less?...

[Egaladeist]

Hi Imitation,

If it's only minutes before...how many minutes?...if we're talking enough that the plane wouldn't end up killing that many anyways by diving into several buildings rather than crashing into one...shoot it down and hope no one else dies in the process...

If we're talking about the planes still being in the heart of NY...or would end up there anyways, by virtue of momentum...then chances are that many are going to die anyways so take your pick!

No one expected the buildings to collapse...that was the ' unknown factor '...if they had held up, then the loss would probably be less than a few hundred...so...without that knowledge on hand it would be better to let it crash...than take the chance of killing many more on the street and as a result of debris and crashing into several other buildings on the way down.

Playing Monday night quarterback...I'd say shoot...but if we didn't know that the buildings were going to collapse...I'd say let em' crash, expecting a much less loss of life.

Eg

[Striek]

The trouble with this dilemma is that we, as humans, are conditioned to belive that there is *always an alternative to the killing of innocents. Our thought processes cannot accept the possibility of a solution which includes this, since the killing of the innocent is not a solution.

The difficulty lies in realizing that there is indeed, no third option.

That being said, in thw Twin Towers scenario, I say shoot. Everyone on the plane is dead anyway. It's only a question of whether that happens before or after they crash into the towers.

[Relyt]

Faced with only those two choices - exercise prejudice to provide the best possible outcome.

This is a classic example of the “Judgmental Decisions” folks in some occupations are required to make in a less than a few moments. Personal emotions, upbringing, religious beliefs, etc., cannot be taken in to account by the individual(s). He/she must rely on their training, experience, the facts presented in those few seconds, and the different scenario based events they have rehearsed over and over in their mind.

There is a line cut by a razor that divides the “hero” from the “zero”. When the fog of the event has passed, both the hero and zero alike must account for their decision. We will always judge the zero harshly, however we must notably reward the hero(s) for making the best choice.

There was a third option that was exercised only on one of the 3 planes. That particular plane was full of hero’s. They said, "not today *******s!" They gave their lives to save others. “Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends.”

cheers

[RoadClosed]

Everyone on the plane is dead anyway

That is the reality of this scenario. Jet fighters can force movement of aircraft by lowering their landing gear and bouncing the wings. Give em a few nudges and jam their guidance systems. If the hijacker does not comply the people are dead anyway. They will be killed in a crash or executed to meet some demand. If it's over a populated area then shooting it down is worse. Let it crash. Force it into a river, a field? If the target they are going for is high value/importance, like a nuclear plant, a hydroelectric damn, the pentagon - shoot it down and take mass casualties in the fallout of the debris and then an uncontrolled crash versus a single target the plane would hit otherwise. Too many variables but in all, the conclusive reality is, they are already dead at that point AND the measures to prevent hijackings take a front seat. Profile, finger print, list high risk targets, close borders etc....

[vanman]

Whichever way you choose,never forget the most important one to ask for help.. GOD!Without him all is lost!!

[gothic_type]

Of course that assumes that you believe in god. That is your personal belief.

ac

[Egaladeist]

Whether you believe in god...a god...many gods...or no god...you cannot believe that god prevents tragedy...that simply is not the reality.

Eg

[d0ppy]

I've always believed that there are no innocents. Only people who were in the wrong place at the wrong time.


And of course, the good of the many outweighs the good of the few.