Phew, way too long with no new posts. My apologies.
There's been lots of stuff brewing to discuss and I'll try to mention just a few things.
First, check out this article on FoxNews regarding Brittish pilots and the possibility of suicide missions against terrorists.
This raises an interesting question, of course.
Are suicide "Kamikaze" missions ever morally permissable? It seems we can imagine some crazy scenario where it certainly seems like the high stakes consequences would demand such a thing.... but does it feel to anyone else that at such a point we've already lost? That we'd be playing "their" game, as it were? Moreover, isn't whatever argument one could come up with for us doing suicide missions essentially the same argument terrorists presently use for suicide bombings? (They believe the stakes are that high, only option, etc., etc.).
Does that bother you?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
9 comments:
I'm unsure if it would be permissible for a commander to actually order a pilot to do that, but if the situation called for it, I would probably volunteer. Take, for example, what the British commander suggested: that a hijacked plane was going to be crashed into a building and many will die if you don't do anything but you're plane has a weapons malfunction so your only options are to do nothing or crash your plane into it. It's an extreme case, but it's something I've thought about and it's part of what I signed up for - to defend those who can't defend themselves, even if it means sacrificing my life. I know I'd be killing the innocent people on the plane, but they would die when the plane is crashed into the building anyway, so the guilt isn't on me, it's on the hijackers.
But I'm still stuck on whether or not a commander could/should actually order that...
With something like this i think that it is important for people to truly realize and understand the difference between sacrifice and suicide, b/c I dont think anyone could say that jumping on a grenade is immoral. but with topics of life and death, especially suicide, i don't think any commander should or would be able to make such orders. That kind of a decision would be left up to the pilot. thinking of it as strictly a kamikaze mission, i dont think such an action would be moral becuase it does not pass the doctrine of double effect, but what if you knew that if you didn't stop the terrorist vehicle then it would blow up and kill a bus full of innocent children or your fellow soldiers. in that situation it becomes more like the situation of jumping on a grenade. As for the action itself, the decision would be up to the pilot, because no matter what the commander told them to do, the consequences will rest on the pilot. In conclusion, i personally would like to think that a mission of sacrifice is morally permissable, but a commander should never be given the ability to order such an action.
I think ordinarily our society turns its nose up at the thought of suicide missions. I think most members of the greatest generation were rightly disgusted by Japanese suicide pilots and citizens carrying bamboo sticks to attack machine guns. I also think most people today are bothered by the thought of someone strapping a bomb to themselves to attack military or civilian targets. However, is a suicide mission necessarily wrong? I think it would be terrible to be asked to do such a thing, but if it meant saving thousands of people, I think it must be considered. The passengers on flight 93 were on a suicide mission. Sure, they figured they would probably die anyways, but they had no way of knowing for sure, and they still risked agregious harm on the plane. We ask secret service agents to step in front of a bullet to save one person, is it hard to beleive trading one life for thousands. If I were a commander and had no other choice, I would highly consider ordering a pilot to fly at another plane.
I think a commander ordering a pilot to crash his plane would be a tough call, but I think the pilot would be willing to sacrifice himself to save many others. As for what society would think there was the medal of honor winner that expended all his ammunition and then proceded to try to ram the enemy out of the sky. His efforts saved several carriers from being attacked while all of their planes were away. The single pilot was there only because his plane was malfunctioning and his commander sent him back. I think the fact that he won the medal of honor by his actions shows that our country thinks in certain cases sacrifice is not only morally permissible but commendable. As for the commander I think he should explain the severity of the situation to the pilot and then be able to order the pilot to stop the enemy by all means available. This leaves it up to the pilot in order to make the final decision of whether or not to sacrifice himself.
It is definitely not the same argument terrorists are using. The report specifically said that they would not be kamikaze missions. Kamikaze missions were when the intent was to fulfill a suicide role...filling a plane up with exsplosives and crashing it into something is much different than using a plane with no ammunition left to thwart an enemy's attempt. In no way would we be following the terrorists thought process. They rely on tactics that purposefully target civilians which is something that we should never lower ourselves to. Rooster31 puts it well, a commander should tell his pilot to use all available means to thwart the enemy, it is the pilots decision on how to interpret that.
Here you would have to look at the doctrine of double effect. I don't think it is morally permissible for pilots to intentionally kill themselves by flying into terrorists. HOwever, if they intended to stop the terrorists and their death was an unintended effect, say they planned to eject moments before impact etc. then it would be ok for them to attempt such maneuvers.
Professionally, I do not think it would ever be ok for a commander to order his pilot to crash his plane. By becoming service members, the public entrusts that we will do what ever we can to keep the people safe. Yet, at the same time, the people also trust that we will not begin to blatantly begin expending people’s lives. One could bring up the argument: it would be the only we could accomplish the mission. With America’s technology, I do not believe that to be the case. We could even try to make the argument today saying that the only to know for sure that we hit the target is for the pilot to crash his plane into the building. Yet, we do not do this. One could also mention that there are plenty of missions that men go on today that might as we be called suicide missions for the level of risk they entail. But, going back to the second principle in the doctrine of double effect can help to clear up this issue. Under the second principle, the evil of dying can be foreseen but not intended. Therefore, it may be ethically sound to send someone on an incredibly dangerous mission as long as that person is not the means for the mission.
Regarding the situation of flying an airplane into a car driving with a taliban commander in it, it is a ridiculous thought. A fighter pilot is a very expensive and lethal weapon which could better be used on other missions. By flying into a car with a taliban commander you are taking yourself out of the fight for good when you could be much more useful if you lived to fight another day and much more useful to the war effort. When it comes to flying into another plane, it is at the discretion of the pilot and depends on the situation. If the plane is a 747 that is headed for a heavily populated area then it may be warranted to sacrifice yourself for the good of the others.
I do not think thta kamikaze missions should ever be permissable. During World War II when the Japanese were doing exactly this, they were desperate and attempting to do everything they could to not be defeated. If you are in such a position that throwing soldiers away is more worthwhile then keeping them alive, you have already lost the war. It is better to accept your loss than simply throw away lives.
Post a Comment