Posted by
Mike on Saturday, March 31, 2007 3:16:44 PM
What would be the implications if government agents having advance
intelligence of a probable terrorist air attack on highrise office
buildings in a metropolitan area surreptitiously intentionally plant
explosives in buildings and then blow up the buildings once the attacks
actually take place? Are the agents in any way culpable for the
murder of civilians killed in the explosions?
This situation may seem somewhat analogous to Churchill's withholding
of information from the British populace during WWII concerning air
attacks on Coventry which were uncovered in advance through Allied
interception of enemy communications unknown to the Germans using
Enigma. The rationale for Churchill's decision was to protect
more civilian lives by not alerting the Germans that the Brits were
intercepting their communications.
In the case of the city buildings, the morality of the acts would
depend on whether the person making the decision to blow them up did so
to protect the lives of civilians which may have been in danger from
falling debris if the buildings were to tumble from the force of the
anticipated airplane crashes and fires caused thereby. The moral
dilemma is that it is never morally justifiable to intentionally kill
someone to bring about a greater good. This is the fallacy of
consequentialism.