Harming the innocent vs. Giving in to terrorist demands

Great Debates
1

Hi everybody, I’m new to this board and whats brought me here is a school assignment. I need help!! See, my teacher is allowing us to quote people as evidence and I would love to use your thoughts and ideas if you’ll agree to that. Of course you’ve be given the proper credit, because I’ll be quoting you… Anyway, what I need is for anybody who is willing to support any or all of the following contentions. By the way, I’m arguing the negative side of the resolution… so basically I’m saying that harming innocent people is not preferable to giving in to terrorist demands.

Contentions:

1.) Utilitarianism is morally wrong.
2.) Society is based on individualism.
3.) The sanctity of life should be the basis of decisions.

I especially need support for those last two so please, even if you dont agree, could you find it in your hearts to help a poor desperate girl out? Thank you so much for opening up my post and even considering this!! If you’d like to help, please e-mail me at PaulBirman@aol.com. Thanks! Take care :slight_smile:

Glitter

2

1.) Utilitarianism is morally wrong.
Ok, gimme a minute here to look up that word…
In this case, I can’t say it’s wrong. I mean, if you’r not judging something by its over all usefulness, what can you judge it by (and usefullness msut reall be applied well here- not just in a material sense)

2.) Society is based on individualism.
Since you need more help here, I’ll be happy to provide it, of dubious quality though it may be.

Straight from the dictionary:
so·ci·e·ty (s-s-t)
n., pl. so·ci·e·ties. Abbr. soc., s., S.

The institutions and culture of a distinct self-perpetuating group.

I’m going to assume you’re talking about this here definition of society (there’re 5 others at dictionary.com) One cannot have culture without, and in any instance of “culture” or “society” there must be varied thought and hence individualism. Hey, it’s not long, but I wanted to get my point across in an easilly quoted format.

3.) The sanctity of life should be the basis of decisions.
You’re saying that all decisions should be based around preserving life? I agree and don’t agree with this. In the short term, I most whole heartedly disagree- don’t save 10 hostages so the terrorists will escape and kill dozens more later. In the long term, however, this is the right policy. Let’s go back to that hostage situation; there, there are three things that can happen. 1, give in to the demands. We’ve already ruled that out, it’s really not an option. 2. Attempt a rescue- this could well work, but in the event it doesn’t, your hostages may well die, as will your rescue team. Or you can do nothing. 1 Hour goes by. Bam, one hostage dies, another hour, another hostage. Eventually, you have x dead hostages, but the terrorists will not hurt anyone else. Ever.
So, yes and no, the basis of life must be kept in mind (things to consider: abortion, and is death the only thing you had in mind here, or would ruining one’s life also be considered?)

~Dan
“What am I to do?”
“I thought you came here to kill me, not ask my advice.”

3

Utilitarianism (the greatest good for the greatest number) is a valuable method of analysis but only in certain circumstances.

However one ethical principle that overrides utilitarianism is that you are morally responsible for your own actions, regardless of the consequences. If you choose to kill another (except as consequence to defending yourself) you are still a murderer regardless of the utilitarian consequences.

Catapultam habeo. Nisi pecuniam omnem mihi dabis, ad caput tuum saxum immane mittam.

4

Utilitarianism is NOT morally wrong. While I appreciate and respect individualism, there are bigger fish to fry, so to speak. Giving in to terrorists will only serve to encourage that behavior in the future. As it stands now, terrorists very rarely get what they want. The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few – or the one. If I have to die at the hands of a terrorist to avoid the government caving in, so be it. Naturally, the terrorist should be found and punished for his actions, but never should he be rewarded for engaging in such extremism.

If a rescue is at all logistically possible, I would appreciate it. However, I wouldn’t want six Navy Seals to charge into certain death over little old me.

Blessed are the Fundamentalists, for they shall inhibit the earth.
*

5

If terrorists know their demands will NOT be met, no matter what, they won’t make them. So, no more hostages, many more saved lives in the long run.

6

Utilitarianism is a moral system in itself; it’s not “morally wrong” except in comparison to a different system. Utilitarianism’s basic principle is usually stated as “The greatest good for the greatest number”; another common interpretation is “The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few or the one”, as Breckinshire stated. Our society is not based solely on individualism, but a mix of many principles, certainly including utilitarianism.

I’m not sure you can come up with a blanket rule regarding what to do about terrorists and their demands; there are too many variables:
What are the demands? They might be for us to kill their enemies (or to turn over their enemies to be killed as punishment) Or they might be far more reasonable demands, not worth losing lives over.
How credible is the threat that hostages will be killed, or harm done to the public?
How likely is it that the terrorists will honor their end of the deal if the demands are met?
How likely will a rescue attempt, or military operation succeed?
Each situation has to be handled according to the circumstances.

7

Hi, I just wanted to remind everybody that if you’re interested in helping me out, I need you to support my contentions, whether you actually agree with them or not. I just need a concise, smart sounding sentence. I will of course quote you, I just need you guys as evidence, if you’re willing to help. Please feel free to debate this, but I posted in hopes of getting something to help my side, not the other one! :slight_smile: Anyway, if you’d please help a student in great need out, it’d be GREATLY appreciated! Thank you so much! Oh, and since I will be quoting you, I need your full name. You can e-mail that to me at PaulBirman@aol.com if you’re not comfortable with posting it on here. Thanks again! :slight_smile:

8

I can’t help you much but how about this line of reasoning:

If police are working undercover or have someone under surveillance and believe a serious crime is about to be committed by their subject, such as murder, they are required to intervene, irregardless that it may blow their operation. I don’t know the law about this but it seems to be a fundamental of police work - the police cannot stand by and permit a serious crime against a person to happen.
By extension one would think the police would do anything, promise anything, or give anything they can to a terrorist or terrorist group to stop the imminent murder of a hostage. “No negotiation with terrorists” is a political policy decision, so what you have is political intervention in police procedure.
Logically, the police priority is to save lives and, in theory, they should give in to terrorist demands in the hope that they will save lives. They should then be able to capture the terrorists in due course. For terrorist fugitives and the police, it’s a small world. Save the lives by any means and bag the terorists another day should be the decision. BUT politicians intervene - ONLY in the case of political terrorists. Not with bank robbers holding hostages, or kidnappers. Political policy interferes with fundamental police procedure only in the case of politically motivated terrorists holding hostages. This is arguably wrong.

How’s that? Some help?

No need to quote me, I graciously authorize you to analyze and re-word my argument and pass it off as your own thoughts. It’s only an English class.

This is not my personal opinion, it is an attempt to help with a line of reasoning.

9

Ok, I’ll give it a shot:

All societies are composed of individuals. “Society” does nothing; it is the individuals that make up society that make all the decisions. You cannot speak of the rights of society; you can only speak of the rights of individual people. It is the greatest countries–the greatest “societies”–that have allowed the greatest amount of freedom and protection of individual’s rights. We cannot turn our backs on the rights of individuals because of the false construct of “the needs of society”.

10

I posted this an hour ago and it never came up on the board. Since this is an urgent request I am going to repost.

When police are on an undercover, sting, or serveillance operation, it has always been my understanding that they cannot stand by and let a serious crime such as murder take place. Even if it means aborting a police operation the police must intervene to save a life. In the case of political terrorism political policy has intervened in a fundamental police principal - to save lives. Rationally, the police should do everything in their power to save innocent lives and capture the terrorists at a later date. It’s a small world for both the police and terrorist fugitives. The right thing is to save lives. Politics do not intervene in police procedure in the case of armed robbers taking hostages or kidnapping for ransom. Why then does political policy intervene in the case of political terrorism? It is a police matter and should be administered by the police.

This is not my opinion, it is assistance with a line of reasoning. Hash it over, re-word it, and present it as your own thoughts. You don’t have to quote me, it’s only an English class.

11

testing testing 1 2 3, I’ve been posting to this (twice) and my posts aren’t appearing.