Ethics of sacrificing a planeload of people in a Hijacking

Great Debates
1

I didnt want to “hijack” this Thread coz I think it may violate FAA regulations :smiley:

Anyways, a poster there started my brain to work. It hurts now but before it goes back into its regular state of stasis, he supposes that Air Marshalls are not going to be needed (much) because passengers and pilots will not allow another 9-11 to happen. They might opt to crash the pplane before allowing terrorists to do their deed.

As a father of children who will be riding with me most of the time along with my wife, this presents some conflicts in interest that I must resolve under great duress in a very limited amount of time. Would I sacrifice my life, my family’s life and the lives of all the people onboard just to stop a terrorist hijacker?

I might not hesitate to risk my own life to stop a hijacking but I will think long and hard about risking my family. The other people I may not care much for but why are their lives less than the people down below that we are now expendible (remember the Air Force will send planes to shoot us down if need be)

Is it morally right to kill innocent people (in a plane) to stop a terrorist plot?

2

It is morally right for the state to provide adequate protection to its citizens.

3

It seems that in these days of ‘kill em all and let god sort them out’, the chances of surviving a hijacking are not so good. If you operate on the premise that you are all going to die whether you do anything or not, then I guess it becomes a question of whether or not I am going to be serving the greater good by possibly jeopardizing the rest of the passengers.

If I do nothing, then (based on my previous assumption) I’m surely going to die. If I take action, perhaps disaster can be averted somehow. If by my action I precipitate the death of all, and in my mind it was going to happen anyway, then I would be morally justified in my own version of reality.

Now my head hurts and I’m going to lie down.

4

Is it?

Am I now just going to totally depend on the state to provide me with protection from all enemies foreign and domestic?

Am I just going to sit back and bitch about how the state did not do its job when a hijacker takes over the plane I am riding in and wait for something to happen?

should I just sit and watch some insane yahoo take us to oblivion just because the term “adequate protection” is legally blurry and therefore not germaine to the situation in hand?

is it really morally right to depend on others to do for you what you can do for yourself?

5

That’s one of the basic reasons for the ‘State’ to exist at all.

Now, let us consider the goals of a terrorsit: To cause terror, as much as possible by destroying our sense of safety in our everyday life, in essence to bully the population at large into demanding, or at least permitting, the terrorist’s political goals to come about. Now, if they were going to kill just the passengers and crew of the aircraft, then they’d just bomb it, or otherwise cause it to fall out of the sky. So, if the terrorist doesn’t crash or bomb the aircraft into oblivion immediately, then they have some other purpose… Could be to hold hostages to force various governments to do their bidding, could be something more sinister. So how do you tell the difference? The terrorists could lie through their teeth about their eventual goals, after all. So, you establish lines of safety, and allow them to do what they want, as long as they stay outside those lines of safety. If they cross the line, you kill them. And you kill everyone on the aircraft, and hope you can live with the nightmares afterwords. The lines of safety are something that have to be thought out carefully, because you never want to pull the trigger prematurely, but at the same time, there is a moral imperative to prevent the terrorists from making the situation worse than it already is, say, like plowing an aircraft into a stadium full of people, or a hospital, or even another gov’t building.

This won’t, of course, stop terrorists from hijacking aircraft for the sole purpose of goading us into shooting them down ourselves. That is, after all, what terrorists do. Better by far to stop them on the ground.

6

Whoa there. The State has an obligation to provide for the security of the People. That’s pretty much part and parcel of the contract. It’s not “depend[ing] on others” when the State consists of “we, the people.”

No one said anything about depending solely on the State.

7

If the goal of the terrorist is to crash the plane into another WTC, the number of people killed on the ground will greatly outnumber the number of people killed in the air. And if there is good reason to suspect that the plane will be used to kill people on the ground, then of course everyone on the plane will die as well. So it is a matter of saving people on the ground while letting people on the plane die, or letting people on the ground die while the people on the plane die anyway. Either way the people on the plane die.

Lets say we are in a situation where fighter jets are scrambled and can shoot down the passenger jet at any time. The jet is headed for a major metropolitan area. How much time do we give the passengers to retake the plane before we decide to shoot it down? Not very long. The only reason the 9/11 passengers didn’t rush the hijackers immediately is that they didn’t expect that they were being used as bombs. The old model was to play for time, and eventually the hijackers would make a mistake. But now we know this isn’t effective, if the only goal is killing people.

If the passengers don’t take control of the plane, they will all die, either when the hijackers crash the plane or the military shoots it down. If the military doesn’t shoot the plane down, they will all die anyway, and perhaps lots of other people will too. The only way out is to take back the plane, or to not allow it to come under the control of the hijackers in the first place. If someone holds a box knife to the throat of my child, and orders me to stay back, my child will die anyway when we crash. I have no incentive to stay back. I’m not risking my child’s life to stop a hijacking, I am taking the only action that can possibly save their lives.

8

Er, my last post was not addressed to Tranq. Sorry for any confusion.

9

No problemo. :slight_smile:

10

Actually, a very good question.

I figured, after 9/11, that we had pretty much seen the end of hijacking as we had come to know it.

I mean, if I am on a plane, and a gaggle of Arab-looking guys attempts to take over the plane using box cutters and nail clippers, I would be very surprised if the passengers did not rise up in a righteous wrath and beat the living crap out of the hijackers.

My point here is that Americans no longer trust ANYONE to be rational in a hijack situation. There is none of this “Everyone stay calm and we’ll get out of this okay,” nonsense.

From now on, whenever a plane is hijacked, everyone on board is going to be thinking, “This is it. Where will they crash us? White House? Statue Of Liberty? The Baldwin Brothers’ mansion?”

In short, any hijacker who is not equipped with some sort of firearm and lacks the combat ability of Jackie Chan is going to have his ass ripped off and handed to him.

And supposedly, it’s harder than hell to sneak a gun aboard a plane these days. And even Jackie Chan is going to have a tough time dealing with fifty crazed people fighting for their lives in close quarters aboard an airplane. That is, unless he’s filming one of his movies, in which case he’ll kick ten or twenty butts before leaping out the escape hatch and improvising a parachute out of his jockstrap or something. But I digress.

The question presupposes that someone – me, for example – is going to be in a position to MAKE that decision. Is it morally right for me to crash a plane and sacrifice my children, or X-Slayer’s children, or whoever, and thus deny terrorists the opportunity?

Depends. MOST things depend.

First of all, if I am fairly certain that the plane is doomed, no matter what, then I feel a certain moral imperative to do what I can to minimize loss of life. Sorry about your kids, Slayer, but I’m going to bring her down in some Pennsylvania cornfield. Actually, I’d try to land her safe, if I could, but, again, I may not be in a position to make that decision.

…but therein lies the rub. Let’s say we’ve got a gaggle of terrorists with, say, Buck knives. Fairly dangerous weapons, and easier to kill someone with than a box cutter, sure. Let’s say they’ve promised that no one will be harmed if we all sit tight and do as we’re told, and stay out of the way.

What now?

Well, that’s when we get to play it by ear.

The people aboard the plane that DID crash in a Pennsylvania field were content to sit tight… until they discovered what was happening with several other planes around that same time. Then they made a decision to stand up and do something about it, rather than allow themselves and their aircraft to be used as a murder weapon.

…and I find their decision pretty hard to fault.

Sure, maybe the terrorists on THAT plane had changed their minds. Maybe they were looking for a safe place to land and surrender themselves. Maybe they had decided to take the plane to Cuba, instead.

…but the fact remains: we can no longer afford to take a terrorist’s word for much of anything any more…

…can we?

11

Lets not forget, when Richard ‘Goofy-Looking’ Reed tried to spark up his shoes, it was a a pair of Frenchman (granted, one was a huge basketball player) who led the charge to pummel the living snot of him. Goes to show that the idea of ‘Total Passenger Resistance’ is not restricted to Americans alone.

I have heard thrown around on the news the idea that the next hijacking will be on an international flight that has has a stopover in the US, so that the potential hijackers will not need visas (since they never get off the plane). Somewhat irrelevant, I say. Certainly no plane full of Westerners is going to allow Arab terrorists to take over, since in the passengers mind, that will surely lead to death.

12

After what we saw on September 11, my husband made a decision that if faced with a hijacking situation, he would not hesitate to do whatever he could to ensure that the plane was not used as a giant weapon. Whether or not the kids and I are on it. I concur.

Interestingly, when I saw the thread title, I immediately thought it was a debate about El Al! IIRC, after the incident at Entebbe (I spelled that wrong, didn’t I?), Israel made a decision to never negotiate with terrorists who hijack planes- they would simply blow up the plane with the hijackers on it. I don’t see many Israeli airliners getting hijacked (which is good, considering airplane hijacking was invented as a way to screw with Israel).

If my family is going to die on a hijacked plane regardless, I don’t want our inaction to result in the deaths of thousands of other people.

13

I strongly dislike all this talk about x people will die if I take choice A, and y people will die if I take choice B. If x is greater than y, I will choose B. Bullshit–if I may be so bold.

If someone tries to take control of my life, I will contest it with every tool at my disposal–all my mind, body and will. If my SO and children are on the plane (or boat, or in the house, or…) does NOT matter. I will NEVER surrender my right to live my life as I choose.

Compulsory reading: “The World of Null A” by A. E. van Vogt.

Sophie’s choice: choose one child or the other.
My response: No, I will not choose. If you kill either or both it is YOUR evil that killed my children, not my choice. (And you had better kill me as well, because I will do everything in my power to be sure that you NEVER have a chance to do such a thing again.)

Hijacker’s ultimatum: Do what I want, or I will kill this person (crash this plane/whatever).
My response: No, you will not control me. I will do everything I possibly can (attack in person, encourage an uprising, crash the plane myself) to thwart your intentions.

I will never give in to threats. I would hope (should I ever be in such a situation) that my example will inspire others to decide what is important to them before they have to make a life-or-death decision.

Note: This is not in the vein of “don’t give up your pocketbook.”–if someone wants the money you have on you, give it to them. Then report them to the police.

[happy face]Flame away![/happy face]

14

Do we really want the State government in all it’s wisdom to have a mandate from that we’ll accept anything if it is for our protection?

Or can we make them only do that with airliners? I feel that is for another thread.

Almost all pilots I have talked to will not sit and wait, but will try to stop the hijack and TRY to land or at least crash gently, it is sort of ingrained in us. :wink:

What Tanq said::::::::::::

The problem is on the ground, not in the air.

The comment about NEVER playing the terrorist game is also very valid but the average American will almost always risk the many to save the few. It’s kinda how we are.

I think using aircraft as weapons will take a completely different form than we are talking in this thread and the ( I’ll do this and that ) although good for us to think about is largely meaningless. We have to be in the situation and see what we do ( which is sometimes completely different than we thought ) and unless there is rigorous training and evidence of others doing the same, visions of personal heroism are usually faulty.

Remember, the pilots are the first ones to the accident site. They’ll be trying real hard to survive. Just try to help them as best you can.

15

:rolleyes: Everyone thinks they’re Passenger 57 when they’re on the ground.

I would much rather have a TRAINED and armed(?) air martial on board than trust my survival the the chance that the passengers and I could organize and retake the plane.

And is there any moral reason to not shoot an aircraft down before it plummets into a city?

16

So you are really unable to distinguish between the fact that the PRIMARY REASON for a state to exist is to protect its citizens (what OTHER primary reason would there be) and that citizens may also participate in their own protection?

Do you REALLY believe that it is IMMORAL for police and armies to exist for our protection? Do you really believe that it is IMMORAL for the police to do their job?

17

Is there no difference at all between insisting that the state live up to its fundamental obligation to provide protection (as the President SWEARS to do) and meaning that we’ll let the state mandate anything at all?

Am I the only person not so stupid as to be unable to see a middle ground?

18

I think it’s important to note the very interesting progression that hijacking has undergone.

Since the “first” passenger plane hijacking in 1948, most hijackings followed a similar pattern: an individual or small group of individuals comandeered an aircraft usually in order to achieve some sort of a practical goal. Most of the time that goal was for the hijacker to leave one place and be transported to another for political reasons; other times it was for criminal purposes.

In the late '60s/early '70s another objective became common: placing the passengers at risk in order to extract political concessions from a national government. These hijackers were attempting to reach a wider audience through the publicity garnered by the act itself. Passengers found themselves in even greater danger, but docility and cooperation were still the best way to avoid getting hurt.

For most of the history of aircraft hijacking it was the passengers who were the political footballs to be kicked around in a hostage situation.

But now that it has been so dramatically shown that a passenger plane is also an extraordinarily deadly weapon which can be used for political purposes, the entire game is changed. Using a plane as a weapon reaches a far wider audience and generates far more publicity than mere hostage taking.

Hostages are only hostages so long as they know that there is a chance for survival if they cooperate with the hijackers. This new hijacking tactic makes passengers intended victims rather than hostages.

An aircraft hijacked in flight is no longer all about the lives at stake aboard the plane. The entire equasion has been flipped on its head: passengers once knew that when a plane was hijacked cooperation and docility were the best path toward survival; now passengers know that cooperation and docility can be fatal. Moreover, the burden is now placed upon the passengers and crew (including air marshals) to defend themselves and a potentially much larger number of others on the ground.

Al-Qaeda’s plan was so brilliant because it relied upon two basic premises: surprise, and more importantly, deception. Crashing a plane into a building was a surprise–something for which we were not prepared. But it only worked because in three out of the four flights the passengers and people on the ground were deceived into thinking they were working within the traditional hostage framework. The deception didn’t even last through the conclusion of the operation, as the crashed plane in Pennsylvania demonstrates.

Should someone ever try this trick again you can bet that the hijackers will also attempt the deception tactic again, perhaps by broadcasting typical hostage-taking demands and possibly even coercing passengers to corroborate that false information, in order to buy time for the plane to reach its intended target. We cannot allow ourselves to be deceived again.

I think the Israelis already hit upon the ethical solution. Passengers in a hijacking situation are like Schroedinger’s cat: both alive and dead until they leave the plane–or the wreckage. (At least, I think this is the sort of hostage policy that Israel pursued, for example at Entebbe. Unfortunately I can’t find a cite for this yet.)

But unlike the quantum cat whose fate is randomly determined, passengers and crew are now the ones best placed to control their own fate in a hijacking. If they cannot regain control of the plane themselves, I think the passengers must be considered inadvertant and very unfortunate components of an armed weapon. If they fail to regain the plane they are for all intents and purposes already dead. The question becomes, “who else are they going to take with them, and what do we do about it?” Shooting down that plane may be the safest and most expedient solution.

I need to add that this new policy is likely to lead to tragedy. Someday some damned fool hijacker is going to want to take a joy ride to Cuba, the passengers on the plane are going to realize it and play ball with him, and we’re going to shoot their poor asses down because we won’t know for sure what’s going on inside the plane.

The unfortunate answer, as best I can see it, is that as a result of September 11 (or maybe even Tom Clancy), more people are endangered on the ground than there are in the air, so the hijackers must be prevented from taking control of the plane, or failing that, the plane must be prevented from causing catastrophic damage on the ground. The passengers aren’t hostages anymore. They are victims-in-waiting unless they can avert the disaster themselves.

19

Where is the line between a policeman or a soldier using lethal force and a civilian doing it? If I shot a man thinking he was going to blow up something, I would be hauled off to court and asked to explain myself. I was doing “the state’s job” which is clearly written that I am not allowed to do. I cannot take the law into my own hands.

Now take that situation up in a jet and am I now the law? Am I constitutionally and morally within my rights to “take the law into my own hands”? I will be judge, jury and possibly executioner up there and I am now protectorate of a hundred lives including my own. I get to decide (along with several other brave fools) whether or not to sacrifice people that I can see to safeguard others that i will never see.

Yeah its moral for police and armies to exist, but its immoral to think they can be everywhere and do everything. This thread is all about the “middle ground” Its where adequate protection ends, the citizenry must take over, right?

So what if I kill a guy in a plane for yelling he has a bomb in his shoe and when we land there wasnt one? Is everyone on the ground going to tell me, “you should have left that up to the state”? Where exactly is the middle ground?

…damn i hijacked my own thread… someone shoot me!

20

Slayer, you ARE allowed to use deadly force in self defense, or the defense of others. Yes, you surely will be called upon to explain and justify your actions. In clear cut cases you will not be prosecuted. But if you shoot someone and claim you THOUGHT they were a terrorist then you might find yourself explaining your story to 12 of your peers.

If they buy your story then you walk out a free man. But if you made a mistake, or acted in an unreasonable manner, you can be punished. As it should be. But you certainly CAN use deadly force in certain limited situations, and clearly one of those situations would be if you reasonably felt your life or the lives of others were in immanent danger.

If you kill a guy for yelling he has a bomb in his shoe, people will ask if you acted reasonably. Did he actually have a bomb in his shoe? Did you have good reason to believe he had a bomb in his shoe? Were there other ways of stopping him that did not involve deadly force?

The mere fact that he didn’t have a real bomb does not mean that your self defence argument is unreasonable. If someone has a fake gun, it is reasonable to believe the gun is real. People have been acquitted on self-defense grounds when they shot someone who was reaching for a comb, or a phone. The real question is whether your belief was reasonable. If the prosecutor believes you, you are free. If not the case goes to a jury and you convince them. If you can’t do that, then you are in trouble. But it seems to me you have several layers of protection.