Will you sacrifice 200 people to stop terrorism?

Question

There was an airplane and it was hi-jacked.It had 200 passengers on board.The hi-jackers demand for the release of their associates who where imprisoned.To show that they mean business, they shoot the youngest of the passengers and drop the body unto the concrete.If you are the president in that country what would you do?Will you sacrifice the 200 passengers say most of them are children?

Answer 1

first of all, it wouldn't be the leader "sacrificing" these people even if he refused the terrorists' demands. The terrorist would be a murderer. So don't pretend otherwise. If I find out you are a terrorist I will "sacrifice" you in a second. The president would not be culpable for the passenger's deaths in any way. Also if the said captured associates were members of al-qaeda, they would likely kill many more people as soon as they were released. So depends upon the potential damage these hypothetical prisoners could do to society. If it were Bin laden or Al Zarqawi. . . I would say let the plane crash!!!

Answer 2

Your arguement is flawed, and flawed arguements lead to flawed answers. Its better to break down the arguement into sections.

1. Terrorism, like anything else, is not a single act, it is a chain of consequences. Therefore, giving into the terrorists will only embolden them to continue their activities. At the same time, letting the 200 passengers (whoever they may be) die is no guarantee of any beneficial action, and you may have created 200 families for whom hatred and mistrust now have a foothold.

2. The use of violence in order to solve problems is, at best, a limited solution, and a dangerous one (as the example shows). People are not turned away when violence is shown agains them; oftentimes they instead up the violence ante. How often has it been proved that killing a person prevents others from doing violence, or using violence?

3. Any government essentially exists to serve the broad majority middle of their population. Extremists cannot be satisfied because their views are essentially in the minority, and therefore the conditions of their happiness would inconvience more people than they would help. At best, extremists can only be satisfied rarely, but any progress and changes MUST be done within the framework of the government.

4. Every innocent that an 'evil' person kills converts a minimum 100 people away from their cause, for one realizes one cannot do good by committing evil. Their acts therefore work against their cause, and only benefit mine.

5. However, in so much that I have a debt not to negotiate with terrorists, as President I have an equal debt to honor the undue sacrifice of the victims and their parents. Such recognition immediately after-the-fact lets the families know that I have not taken my decisions and duties lightly, and that the burdens (and the consequences) MUST affect everyone, not just the victims and their families. If I make the decision to let people die, then I must accept the responsibility of watching them be buried.

Answer 3

In that scenario, it is the hijackers that are intent on murdering 200 people, not the President who is sacrificing them.

The question facing the president is "How many people will be killed by releasing the imprisoned associates?".

Surely, you can't place the responsibility for the 200 innocents' deaths on the president when the hijackers are the ones intent on murdering them.

Answer 4

we have sacrificed 1000s of soldiers to try and stop terrorism. What is another 200.

Answer 5

I would not give in.. As sad as it is.. Giving in only will bring more terrorists/hi-jackers..

Answer 6

yes...
but....
givn 2 conditions:
#1. You are on that plane.

#2. They will land in my country after all.

Answer 7

No