The 9/11 order

[Redratfish]

Watching documentaries for 9/11, I realize that an order was given to fighter jets to shoot down any civilian aircraft after the first three planes hit. What would the moral ramifications be for this case, if there was say a 5th or 6th plane involved? What if the order was given before the first two planes ran into the tower and the 3rd into the Pentagon?

[DianaCC]

Everyone on board would have been killed as an unavoidable side-effect of preventing more deaths.

[Redratfish]

But would that be an issue of the ends never justifying the means?

[DianaCC]

Originally Posted by Redratfish

But would that be an issue of the ends never justifying the means?

How so?

[TheRealJuliane]

Originally Posted by Redratfish

But would that be an issue of the ends never justifying the means?

No, it would have been a case of trying to prevent more death and destruction, and making a very difficult decision, no different from the President having to send our troops into war.

[Arizona Mike]

There was an article on the news services about one of the pilots sent to intercept Flight 93 (the one that was on the way to Washington when it crashed over Pennsylvania when the passengers fought to regain control). The pilot revealed that they had to scramble so quickly that they didn't have time to arm the interceptors with missiles. She said she made the choice to crash her jet into the cockpit of Flight 93, like a Kamikaze, while it was over a relatively rural area to put it down before it could make it to the Capitol or White House. The hijackers crashed the plane before she could get in range.

She said she planned to try to eject as she hit, but it sounds pretty dicey to try to pull that off in the split second before two fast-moving objects collide.

Talk about a difficult moral decision to make, and not having much time to do it. Commit (likely) suicide and kill the passengers of Flight 93 (who would be likely to die, regardless) to avoid who knows how many more deaths if it makes it to Washington? Plus, even more deaths if the jets crashed in a populated area. What a choice to have to make, on the basis of very fragmentary information (i.e., having to decide if the flight had really been taken over by hijackers - the pilot would have to decide if the flight was taken over by hijackers, or if they had the bad luck to lose radio contact on the day when other hijackings had taken place.)

[Orleans Attny]

Originally Posted by Redratfish

But would that be an issue of the ends never justifying the means?

No. Throughout history, collateral damages has been a natural by-product of war, though terrible. This is one of the great challenges facing civilian leaders and military officers - how does one conduct violent diplomacy in a way that minimizes the effect to non-combatants?

Best answer is don't go to war.

In any event, the hypothetical you pose is far less disturbing than the fire bombing of Dresden or Tokyo, or the nuclear attacks.

In my opinion, it's even far less disturbing than the fact that while Americans are dying of too much food, 2 milion people are suffering a famine in the Horn of Africa.

Pax,
OA

[St Francis]

Originally Posted by Redratfish

But would that be an issue of the ends never justifying the means?

No, it would be an example of the principle of double effect.

[exnihilo]

Originally Posted by Redratfish

But would that be an issue of the ends never justifying the means?

I disagree with this phrase. The ends, or purpose, are always part of what makes something moral. They are not the only factor, but the goal is part of moral judgement. It would never be moral to shoot down a plane for no reason or for your own sick pleasure. It might be moral to shoot down a plane to save lives. The means are the same but the end is different.

Originally Posted by St Francis

No, it would be an example of the principle of double effect.

I agree and it would seem to me this is the same issue as aborting a fetus to save the life of the mother. Can you kill innocent lives to protect other innocents? This case might be more problematic in that the actual threat to innocent lives was less probable. In this case we can assume the intent of the plane's pilots was to do something evil. But I think we must consider the likelihood of actual deaths as well. And that we really dont know. The other plane in DC killed 125 people besides those on the plane. I dont think there is really any way to judge the probability of death to others not on the plane. So the question is can we kill people to prevent the deaths of other innocents when the likelihood of death is so uncertain? It seems the answer almost everyone will give is yes. But determining when is not so clear cut.

[St Francis]

Originally Posted by exnihilo

I disagree with this phrase. The ends, or purpose, are always part of what makes something moral. They are not the only factor, but the goal is part of moral judgement. It would never be moral to shoot down a plane for no reason or for your own sick pleasure. It might be moral to shoot down a plane to save lives. The means are the same but the end is different.

It is moral to shoot down a plane (or other vehicle) which is about to crash into, say, a city. The action is not directly targeting the passengers--you would still shoot down the plane if it were remore-controlled and had no people on it--so the deaths of the people are an unintended side-effect.

I agree and it would seem to me this is the same issue as aborting a fetus to save the life of the mother.

This is ***absolutely not*** the same as performing an abortion to save the lofe of the mother. Performing an abortion *is* directly targeting the person; the death of the unborn child is the intention of the act of abortion.

The related analogy would be treating a medical condituon the mother has, with the treatment causing the unintended side-effect of the death of the unborn child.

Can you kill innocent lives to protect other innocents?

You cannot directly and intentionally kill an innocent person to save the life of another or even many other lives. If someone says to you: "I have my finger on this button which will cause a nuclear bomb to go off in NYC, which I will push if you do not shoot somerandom person on the street down there," you cannot morally kill that person.

This case might be more problematic in that the actual threat to innocent lives was less probable. In this case we can assume the intent of the plane's pilots was to do something evil. But I think we must consider the likelihood of actual deaths as well. And that we really dont know. The other plane in DC killed 125 people besides those on the plane. I dont think there is really any way to judge the probability of death to others not on the plane. So the question is can we kill people to prevent the deaths of other innocents when the likelihood of death is so uncertain? It seems the answer almost everyone will give is yes. But determining when is not so clear cut.

This is a prudential military decision. The only reason so few were killed at the Pentagon was that that section of the building was undergoing renovation. Had that not been the case, or had the plane hit a couple of plane-widths over, many more would have been killed.

Since the plane was being used as a type of bomb, the military could only assume that it would be very likely to cause death if the target were achieved.

[datrysix]

You can try to twist The Ten Commandments but You shall not kill is pretty clear. To the same logic the commandment You shall not steal is that optional to feed yourself. Can we break others if there is a good reason.

[St Francis]

Originally Posted by datrysix

You can try to twist The Ten Commandments but You shall not kill is pretty clear. To the same logic the commandment You shall not steal is that optional to feed yourself. Can we break others if there is a good reason.

Thou shalt not kill uld be more accurately translated thou shalt not muder, were it not for the fact that murder is a legal term which means that not all immoral killing is included.

But we also see that altho God commanded us not to kill, there is no prohibition on killing animals, so we can see that the commandment is not as all-encompassing as it appears. Killing in self-defense, for example, is permitted, and it is on this basis that nations can act in defense of their citizens.

[Orleans Attny]

Originally Posted by datrysix

You can try to twist The Ten Commandments but You shall not kill is pretty clear. To the same logic the commandment You shall not steal is that optional to feed yourself. Can we break others if there is a good reason.

Knowing that there are about a bazillion sources for this, I'm just going to quote the first one that Google gave me:

You shall not murder or You shall not kill, KJV Thou shalt not kill (LXX οὐ φονεύσεις, translating Hebrew לֹא תִּרְצָח lo ti-rəṣoḥ), is a moral imperative included as one of the Ten Commandments in the Torah,[1] specifically Exodus 20:13 and Deuteronomy 5:17.

The imperative is against unlawful killing resulting in bloodguilt. The Hebrew Bible contains numerous prohibitions against unlawful killing, but also allows for justified killing in the context of warfare, capital punishment and self-defense.

LINK
Pax,
OA

[AndyF]

Choosing the best option that serves the common good could lead to such difficult decisions. But has always, nations will be judged on the consistency of principle and purity of state, and deliberate application of double standards will negate any positive it was intended to solve. A wrong committed elsewhere under the guise of the same principal, or obstinate refusal to adhere to instruction from the Messenger of the Word(Church, such has the death penalty) will not justify the taking of the extra lives on the plane.

Deliberate incursions into other sovereign states by sending drones that will target a single citizen but collaterally accepts multiple deaths does not justify the means. Basically the rule in regards to man in regards to negation of all good whilst he is in a state of mortal sin applies to nations has well. Nations formed by the willing contract of individuals, and who collectively invoke from Deity assistance, forgiveness and recognition for acts done in this form could not reasonably expect graces and the privilege is lost and the nation goes it alone.

[St Francis]

Originally Posted by AndyF

Choosing the best option that serves the common good could lead to such difficult decisions. But has always, nations will be judged on the consistency of principle and purity of state, and deliberate application of double standards will negate any positive it was intended to solve. A wrong committed elsewhere under the guise of the same principal, or obstinate refusal to adhere to instruction from the Messenger of the Word(Church, such has the death penalty) will not justify the taking of the extra lives on the plane.

Deliberate incursions into other sovereign states by sending drones that will target a single citizen but collaterally accepts multiple deaths does not justify the means. Basically the rule in regards to man in regards to negation of all good whilst he is in a state of mortal sin applies to nations has well. Nations formed by the willing contract of individuals, and who collectively invoke from Deity assistance, forgiveness and recognition for acts done in this form could not reasonably expect graces and the privilege is lost and the nation goes it alone.

Yes, we accept the UNintended deaths of civilians in a just war (remember that a just war is only just on one side or neither side, but cannot be just on both sides), and we use drones to kill individuals who are fighting against us.

Guess what? We use drones to *save* civilian lives. By narrowing our focus and reducing fighting, civilian lives are saved. In fact, the West is more concerened about and does more to reduce "collateral damage" than any other civiliazation ever has.

So we are being entirely consisten here.