In an article written in the September 17th Boston Metro, it stated that President George W. military pilots to gun down any and all hijacked commercial airliners over Washington if they did not divert their course. Though President Bush's decision appears sensible in some aspects, it holds to be morally wrong in others. .
On the gruesome day of September 11th, when terrorists attacked the World Trade Center and the pentagon, the U.S. military air defense command received information from the Federal Aviation Administration that a U.S. airliner was hijacked and diverting course towards Washington thirteen minutes before it actually crashed into the pentagon. After receiving this information, two F-16 fighter jets were immediately on route towards the hijacked airliner. They took off from Langley Air Force Base in Virginia ten minutes after the air defense command received this notice. However, the two fighter jets were too late and three minutes after take off, the American Airlines Boeing 757 crashed into the pentagon. This and the tragic event of the World trade center left over 5,000 American citizens dead. After these horrific events occurred, pentagon spokesman Craig Quigley stated that the rules, which U.S. military pilots follow, are being reviewed. After much deliberation, U.S. president George W. Bush finally came to the conclusion that the policy, which military pilots follow, would change. If any unauthorized airliners are found to be entering Washington D.C., they would be shot down without hesitation. .
Though the decision that president George W. Bush made has some merit, does it necessarily make it morally right? It is understandable that it is an incredibly difficult situation to face and the decision he came up was as equally challenging however there must be another solution. Is taking the lives of the few honestly worth saving the lives of the majority? In a utilitarian point of view, this course of action would seem morally right.