Magically, you travel back in time to September 10, 2001, to a soundproofed room where all the 9/11 hijackers are sound asleep. You have a gun, a silencer, and plenty of rounds(bullets) left.The hijackers haven't done anything yet. Do you kill them? Why or why not?
I think this scenario needs a little bit of a narrative to explain how I see this particular case going down, here we go:
I awake in a daze. My 7x7 tiny attic bedroom has been replaced by a large warehouse style room. I scan around me and try to assess what-the-shit is going on. That's when I realize I have a badass-looking-spy gun, or something. Across the warehouse I see a faint light and walk towards it. I see several figures sleeping in bunks, one of them must have heard my footsteps. The figure rolls slowly over and faces me. The face of Moohamed Atta; eyes closed, he's still asleep. I look at the other bunks and identify Marwan al-shehhi, Ziad Jarrah and Hani Hanjour. There's a calender on the wall, 10 days into September struckout, with a fat red circle on the 11th. The year is 2001.
Some people would see a philosophical paradox, how can I shoot all these buttheads if they haven't hurt anyone yet? How can I not? I know what they're going to do the next morning. I know what I have to do. I've played enough call of duty to be a crack shot, so I kneecap everyone of the hijackers in an instant before the wienies wake each other. Next, pick up a phone (LANDLINE, ugh. 2001 SUCKS!) and call up every government agency that will listen. I leave an anonymous tip and make my way to the closest sports bar and start askin' around for a bookie. I then place bets on every major sporting event in the next 12 years(SEE: BACK TO THE FUTURE PART II). I become a millionaire playboy. The end.
All kidding aside. This is an interesting ethical dilemma; I feel like this quandary illustrates the concept of preemptive war. For example after the 9/11 attacks the US engaged Iraq "because of the threat of WMD's". In this situation the government felt at the time that there was a substantial threat from Iraq. Despite that there was not enough intelligence or proof, the siege of Iraq was sanctioned and acted out. Did these actions stop a potential threat? We don't know. In the hypothetical scenario of the 9/11 hijackers we are entirely certain that these men will attack, however, the issue remains that they had not committed any crime before the attacks take place. Now, how can you scrutinize someone on something that they have yet to do? I believe that there is no ethical or just answer to this situation.*
(*IF your only options are to execute several people that are still technically innocent or let them live. However, if there are other options available such as wound them or turn off their alarm clock so they don't make their flights or something like this; nonetheless I think the intent of this prompt is to analyze the scenario as describe in the preceding paragraph.)
In this scenario you are left with two ways which it can play out. You can execute several innocent people to stop an attack that ends in tragedy. Or you can let the situation play out as it inevitably does so that these men will go on to be guilty. There is no correct answer. Many would go with the visceral reaction of shooting the hijackers before they are actually guilty however this contradicts the very entity that you would be trying to protect, it would be ethically screwed! On the other hand many would say you should let the hijackers go because they have not yet committed a crime. This is also ethically beat because in this situation you are 100% certain that these men will go on to commit violent acts. Now, I feel that the parallel drawn from this prompt is the question "if you can stop something bad from POSSIBLY happening by doing something that is unethical, is it worth it AND is it just?". In this context I would say no. If I were answering the prompt literally then I would say it would be beneficial to many to eliminate the hijackers preemptively.
So there's no right answer to the prompt - if taken literally. Damned if ya' do, damned if ya' don't. If you over analyze it (like I did) and examine the implications of the prompt which would be the question, "if you can stop something bad from POSSIBLY happening by doing something that is unethical, is it worth it AND is it just?". I think there are too many variables in this concept to appropriately answer.
Sorry for the late post.
This is how I feel right now also:
No comments:
Post a Comment