It's more than an analytic fact, a logical reasoning. In case of a terroristic assault like the day of infamy 9.11 many innocent people died. But could this terrible act be avoided? For future occurrences like this attack it is discussed wether to shoot those planes down. This fact implicates a lot of ethic problems.
As a matter of fact, the people in the plane will die. Even if they would overhelm the terrorists the chance to survive is incredible negligeable small. So the logical conclusion is to abolish them. The people would die in any case.
But in this way of proceeding isn't considered that there's a big difference between terrorists as the murderer of thousands of people or to be the murderer oneself of an not insignificant amount of people who maybe have family or have to nourish kids.
There are many people who are of the opinion that it is necessary to kill them, and it is the states duty. However, there's noone who want to be responsible. Although it's a very simple thought that carries their point of view. In some countries like for exemple Greece it was already decided that "If a renegade plane, a plane that is not on its proper course over Greece, enters restricted airspace, and does not change course after being warned, it will not reach the target". This statement is from Mr Voulgarakis and from the security briefing in preparation for the Olympic Games in Athens. And it's real: the amount of the casualities in such a case would be minuscule in comparison to the one in the terrrorist's success. So the idea is absolutely justifiable and correct. And, back to 9/11, even if the planes would not be shot down the administration is responsible for the death of the people in the towers. They had the chance to rescue them. Recapitulatory the governance can kill the people in the plane and rescue the ones in the tower or let everyone die.
But this ambivalent topic can't be dicussed from only one side, one point of view. Let's see the arguments which are against this brutal and ruthless way of proceeding.
To begin with, the other point of view deals also with the people in the planes as individual subjects and not as numbers in comparison to other numbers. So you can argue that those people there, the people in the plane and the people who would die caused by the falling airplane, all of them have rights. These rights
are those of the constitution which declares that the state has to save their lives and not to treat them as objects. Nearly everyone of them has a family or is responsible for someone. And even if not, everyone of them is an individual and irreplaceable human. The state doesn't have the right to act like a terrorist even in such a terrible incident like a terroristic attack.
So, in conclusion, I would like to admit that noone has the right to kill anyone else, even with the intention to rescue lives. But it's another thing if the people in the plane decide for themselves to sacrifice themselves and to combat the terrorists.
Another solution would be to vanish the root of terrorism by avoiding war and oppression.
To begin with, the other point of view deals also with the people in the planes as individual subjects and not as numbers in comparison to other numbers. So you can argue that those people there, the people in the plane and the people who would die caused by the falling airplane, all of them have rights. These rights
are those of the constitution which declares that the state has to save their lives and not to treat them as objects. Nearly everyone of them has a family or is responsible for someone. And even if not, everyone of them is an individual and irreplaceable human. The state doesn't have the right to act like a terrorist even in such a terrible incident like a terroristic attack.So, in conclusion, I would like to admit that noone has the right to kill anyone else, even with the intention to rescue lives. But it's another thing if the people in the plane decide for themselves to sacrifice themselves and to combat the terrorists.
Another solution would be to vanish the root of terrorism by avoiding war and oppression.
Wow, you picked a difficult topic! I don't really know which side I'm on... Michele, it's great that you look up so many words, but you have to do that in context. Leo is not always helpful here, because you get to many constructions wrong. You need a good monolingual dictionary!
for further pictures click the link below:
Keine Kommentare:
Kommentar veröffentlichen