Scribd
Upload
1K views2 pages

Ethical Dilemma: To Shoot or Not?

The document discusses a hypothetical scenario where an airliner with 200 passengers is losing control and heading towards a densely populated area, which its impact would kill thousands. As president, the choice is whether to shoot down the plane before impact. The response is that shooting down the plane would be killing 200 people, which is morally wrong. An alternative proposed is to shoot the left wing of the plane to shift its trajectory to a less populated area, which could lessen casualties. These types of scenarios are difficult because there is no unambiguously right choice, and any decision would require weighing different moral considerations and outcomes.

Uploaded by

Enna villanueva
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
1K views2 pages

Ethical Dilemma: To Shoot or Not?

The document discusses a hypothetical scenario where an airliner with 200 passengers is losing control and heading towards a densely populated area, which its impact would kill thousands. As president, the choice is whether to shoot down the plane before impact. The response is that shooting down the plane would be killing 200 people, which is morally wrong. An alternative proposed is to shoot the left wing of the plane to shift its trajectory to a less populated area, which could lessen casualties. These types of scenarios are difficult because there is no unambiguously right choice, and any decision would require weighing different moral considerations and outcomes.

Uploaded by

Enna villanueva
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd

Enna Katriel C. Villanueva Journal no.

St. Maria Goretti 2nd Quarter

An Airliner carrying 200 passengers is losing control and hurling down towards a
densely populated area in the Makati business district. The plane’s impact is bound to kill
thousands of lives. There is no time to evacuate the area. If you are the president and you are
given the choice to shoot it down before it impacts in its area of trajectory, would you shoot
down the plane?

My answer would be no. I would not shoot the airline carrying 200 people for my morals are
“killing is bad”, and “indirect killing is bad”, and both are bad because those two are the exact
same thing so I’m kind of the bad guy in the story. And I suppose letting people die is also the
same thing as killing, as it’s like turning a blind eye on someone being murdered in the ally
way instead of screaming for help and stopping the crime, action, murder fiasco you just
ignore the poor human meeting deaths face. That’s a no-no.My answer is no, because it like
the trolley dilemma all over again, and in that philosophical, hypothetical situation, question
there is no right answers and it is said there isn’t supposed to be one, so how am I going to
make the right decision when there isn’t even one. So explaining my indecisiveness, am I
allowed to turn things around on that question, and make my own rules. Let’s say I am the
president in real life and this airliner is plummeting down on these unsuspecting merchants
and civilians, is my only choice is to shoot the airliner, killing 200 passengers because it’s too
late to evacuate the area, can’t I like shoot the left wing of the airliner so it shifts the trajectory
and crash to some area that’s not filled with bustling human life. And the wounded or hurt are
lessen with that choice. These kinds of question really put you to the edge and make you
question everything you’re going to do and that puts you in a crisis. To follow yourself or for
the better of those around you. Kill a few save a million, kill the million for the few are worth
more than a million, don’t kill and all will suffer, don’t kill and some will suffer, or better yet the
batman saying "I won’t kill you, but I don’t have to save you." Meaning not killing and not
saving. The question rattles the mind for answers, and I ultimately answered no.

You might also like