Morality test.

[Kosez]

In criminal law it is forbidden to kill one person in order to save another. Or to kill one person in order to save hundred, or thousand. One cannot be an arbiter when it comes to human lives.

 

[CaveDweller]

Given that this attack occurs every ten years or so, it seems we have foolishly failed to make diplomatic arrangements for counter terrorist operations with our neighbouring countries. I trust the next election is going to be hard to win.

I voted the first option because I'm assuming relations with this country are good.

 

[Sidhe]

One thing people seem to be forgetting is that you're not only preventing this terrorist attack, but the next 3 or 4+ terror attacks these people will commit, not to mention any more their followers will be inspired to commit through their leadership. And avenging the deaths of all previous terrorist attacks.

Actually we're just being moral. I'm afraid destroying 3000 people in cold blood is murder, even if it does save 12000 lives it's till the act of the enemy as someone else said. Morality isn't based on arbitrary numbers, it is wrong to murder indiscrminately full stop.

And the situation is unrealistic there is never only one solution in the real world. So it's kind of moot.

 

[mdwh]

Besides, if those underground people don't do their part in irradicating terrorists, they might as well be accomplices.

In this scenario, we've accepted that the Government, even with all its resources and intelligence, is unable to do anything apart from carpet bombing an entire town. In that case, it seems ludicrous that random civilians are somehow able to do something about it. And even if they could, they have no legal authority for such vigilante action.

 

[mdwh]

One thing people seem to be forgetting is that you're not only preventing this terrorist attack, but the next 3 or 4+ terror attacks these people will commit, not to mention any more their followers will be inspired to commit through their leadership. And avenging the deaths of all previous terrorist attacks.

Firstly it's rather unlikely that an entire terrorist group would get all together, such that they could all be eradicated like that.

As for followers, surely it's at least as likely that these will go on to commit future attacks, if the country takes action? In fact, such an act is likely to encourage future people to turn to terrorism (they won't even view it as terrorism, and with good reason - an aggressive country has killed innocent civilians, so they in turn respond to that).

 

[Dark Ascendant]

This is a tricky situation. If I bomb the town, I save my own people, and kill the terrorists. But I'll have declared war on a neighboring country and murdered innocent people to do it. The long-term effects are bad for my country.

If I don't bomb the town, my people will die, the terrorists will be killed and the people of the town will live. The long term effects are that my people may get wind of this one day and I'd better seek asylum before I'm facing a lynch mob.

#2 sounds better for my country in general with all the information this scenario gives me. It's still not an easy choice to make.

Who has the guts to fall on his sword? Can anyone answer that?

 

[Sidhe]

This is a tricky situation. If I bomb the town, I save my own people, and kill the terrorists. But I'll have declared war on a neighboring country and murdered innocent people to do it. The long-term effects are bad for my country.

If I don't bomb the town, my people will die, the terrorists will be killed and the people of the town will live. The long term effects are that my people may get wind of this one day and I'd better seek asylum before I'm facing a lynch mob.

#2 sounds better for my country in general with all the information this scenario gives me. It's still not an easy choice to make.

Who has the guts to fall on his sword? Can anyone answer that?

You mentioning swords reminds me of the tale of Damocles and the sword touching his head held only by a horse hair. One might argue that any leader is faced with such a situation, it is never a matter of falling on you sword but the sword falling on you, and like the sword of Damocles the whole situation is legend. I think it's quite appropriate to this morality tale though

In your example the cure may be worse than the disease, as I mentioned about inciting fundementalist anger. It really is a Damocles sword situation.

 

[ybbor]

Actually we're just being moral. I'm afraid destroying 3000 people in cold blood is murder, even if it does save 12000 lives it's till the act of the enemy as someone else said. Morality isn't based on arbitrary numbers, it is wrong to murder indiscrminately full stop.

And the situation is unrealistic there is never only one solution in the real world. So it's kind of moot.

Whoa! where did that come from? I never said there was a right answer (I know there isn't; don't put words in my mouth), and as I said before I've second guessed myself many time during this thread.

I never said you weren't being moral. Everyone in this thread is attempting to be moral. What I can't bring up a point without being accused of calling everyone else wrong?

 

[Smellincoffee]

If the town is deserted, I'd fire off a message to the government and blow up the tunnels -- not waiting on permission, just letting them know what's happening if they happen to hear any explosions.

 

[Sidhe]

Whoa! where did that come from? I never said there was a right answer (I know there isn't; don't put words in my mouth), and as I said before I've second guessed myself many time during this thread.

I never said you weren't being moral. Everyone in this thread is attempting to be moral. What I can't bring up a point without being accused of calling everyone else wrong?

hehe sorry I didn't mean to sound confrontational there I was just trying to explain what morality should say.

 

[dh_epic]

I'm sorry to keep asking questions like this, but do they have any resources that an embargo against us could damage our economy if I bomb the town? If yes, then I will take the lumps and deal with the terrorists afterwards, if not, I bomb the town regardless of size.

This is a fair question. Assume something in the middle. They're not a top trading partner, but your economy WOULD take a hit without their trade.

That's not to say that your actions on their country would certainly bring retaliation... but you'd better be so sure that the morality of your actions is obvious enough that they can understand why you had to react suddenly.

I'm actually surprised at the number of people who say they would only bomb the town if it were uninhabited. To me, I tend to focus on the greater good because everything else is so arbitrary. You can definitely say that 1000 dead is more good than 3000 dead.

I really don't understand the people who would kill more than 3000 foreigners to save 3000 of their own. But, in my opinion, this is the impact of Nationalism. My lives are worth more than your lives.

 

[dh_epic]

wow this is a good thread. Reading everything has made me second myself so many times.

@DH: it seems to me the country you're setting up is kinda like a slightly stronger Canada to the US in terms of its military and political position?

One thing people seem to be forgetting is that you're not only preventing this terrorist attack, but the next 3 or 4+ terror attacks these people will commit, not to mention any more their followers will be inspired to commit through their leadership. And avenging the deaths of all previous terrorist attacks.

I'd say they're not necessarily stronger than Canada, but it's more about the popular will to thwart any attempt to occupy their country. And, if your actions DID provoke war, it wouldn't be one without casualties on your side.

(That's not to say it WOULD provoke war.)

Something else to keep in mind, for the sake of the scenario, it's basically set up in such a way that if you don't get them now, you'll still be able to get them right after their next attack. So you can assume no more than 3000 pepole will die -- at least at the hands of this particular group of terrorists.

 

[Norseman2]

Killing innocent people to keep other people from killing innocent people is ridiculous. What justification is there for killing the murderers if you yourself are a murderer. There are only two ways this could be justified. Either the town is uninhabited, or there's been an agreement beforehand with the people of that town that if it will save more lives than it will kill, then it's ok to use such tactics. If everyone in the line of fire has already consented to sacrificing themselves if it will save more lives than it would cost, then it would be ok.

 

[CIVPhilzilla]

I'd bomb it. You do not let terrorists get away when you know where they are. We already made that mistake with Bin Laden.

 

[ybbor]

Something else to keep in mind, for the sake of the scenario, it's basically set up in such a way that if you don't get them now, you'll still be able to get them right after their next attack. So you can assume no more than 3000 pepole will die -- at least at the hands of this particular group of terrorists.

hehe sorry I didn't mean to sound confrontational there I was just trying to explain what morality should say

you said yourself that there is no one solution. There is no "moral" answer. Either you let 3000 people get killed or you kill some other amount to save them.

 

[Sidhe]

you said yourself that there is no one solution. There is no "moral" answer. Either you let 3000 people get killed or you kill some other amount to save them.

Morally speaking murder is wrong absolutely, there is no argument morally that can make a numerical consideration of outright murder, was my point.

The question is moot, there is no situation that would fit this in any world I know, so you just take a moral stand and hope that that's enough? Probably not, but I don't tend to enter discourse on arguments that aren't relavent to the real world, unless I need to make that point.

Norseman2 has the right of it.

 

[Brighteye]

I'd need to know whether I had any treaties or commitments to that country, or in the international arena in general, that bound my country to respect the lives of these foreign citizens.

If we do have such a treaty, then I'd only order the bombing if the town was uninhabited, and I'd offer to fund the clear-up.

If we didn't have such a treaty, I'd say it was merely a practical decision, not a moral one. Would I create more terrorists? That would depend on the nature of the country I was bombing. If we didn't have such basic treaties as the sort of thing I've mentioned with a neighbour, I'd say that it probably would create a lot of bad-feeling, since they feel so ambivalent to us that we haven't even arranged such treaties. What with the lost trade and so on, I still wouldn't bomb the place unless there were only a couple of people there.

 

[toh6wy]

Okay, I'm assuming for simplicity's sake that I have a choice between these two options and their implications:
- Bombing the town has a 100% chance of causing the death of all people in that town (all of which are civilian foreigners) and all terrorists underneath the town, as well as the complete and utter destruction of the city's infrastructure
- Not bombing the town has a 100% chance of causing the death of exactly 3,000 of my own civilian citizens this year, followed by the deaths of all of the terrorists involved
If the town has less than 3,000 people, I would bomb it. Then at least I won't have made martyrs out of the terrorists (as they would have if they successfully attacked my citizens and then were killed), and fewer civilians will have died. The world may hate me for it, but I would do my best to show foreign nations my reasoning and what little choice I had - try to inspire some empathy, that is. And also send plenty of aid to the country I bombed.
If it were more than 3,000 people, though, I would not bomb the town, because I would still minimize civilian casualties. Also, although I would make martyrs out of the terrorists, I think if I did bomb the town, the international (and domestic) outrage would be too much, especially if it was significantly higher than 3,000 in the town.

[edit]Oh yeah, treaties and existing diplomatic relations and all that stuff. Err, I don't really feel like adding that factor in. I guess you could say that I assume that all of this is completely neutral.[/edit]

 

[Tycoon101]

Kill the city no matter how many people are in it.

If you eliminate the terrorists then you are free to do whatever actions you feel are necessary to stop them.

But the question should be: how have they set off these bombing in the first place? Why hasen't your spy network been able to kill them beforehand?

 

[MrCynical]

Very simple piece of maths here, presented with a completely fixed situation where all parameters are known. Is population of foreign town less than 3000? If yes, then destroy it. I value a life neither more or less for it being that of a foreigner, and hence save the maximum number of lives possible.

In practice though the situation could not be treated like this, due to the lack of certainty. It is uncertain the attack would succeed in destroying the terrorists, and for that matter that it would kill everyone in the town. The attacks could not be relied on to always succeed at such regular intervals. There really ought to be some less brute force attempt to have dealt with the terrorists after the third attack.

Presented with the static situation above, I consider the route that saves the most lives best. In the uncertin situation that would actually exist though, it would not be the appropriate course of action.

Kill the city no matter how many people are in it.

If you eliminate the terrorists then you are free to do whatever actions you feel are necessary to stop them.

By logical extrapolation you are therefore saying it is alright to blow up the planet to stop the terrorists. Causing destruction on a scale the terrorists can only dream of causing in an attempt to stop them is moronic, but unfortunately looking more prevalent in reality. This is one of the depressing side effects of the effort to make terrorists appear a larger threat than they actually are.