Utilitarian Approach to the Issue

Utilitarian approach to the issue requires that the various courses of action available and the consequences for each action be studied in detail and the benefits or disadvantages tabled such that the course of action that can produce the biggest benefit is chosen thus benefiting more people.

In this issue the actions that followed and the event discussed are as under: The United Airlines Flight 93 was the last of the four hijacked planes to go down in the United States on 11 September, 2001 crashed killing 44 persons -- 40 passengers and crew and four terrorists. The myth created over the incident runs that the passengers hearing the news of the other hijacked planes on mobile phones stormed the cockpit and forced the plane down. There were alternate versions that the U.S.

military brought down the plane; or even a bomb went off aboard and this was denied. The fact that the location of U.S. Air Force jets, at Andrews Air Force base near Washington at 9.35am -- precisely the time that Flight 93 turned almost 180 degrees off course towards Washington also lent credence to the doubt of a shoot down.

(Carlin, 2002) Assuming that there was no shoot down but the plane was crashed by the passengers and the terrorists, the alternates namely bringing down the plane by shooting it has to be examined. The shooting of the plane is discounted after the congressional submission of the events. (United States Government Printing Office, 2001) Arguments: From the point-of-view of the terrorists, the aim was to create scare and terror and inflict maximum damage to the lives and property of those the terrorist organization considered as enemies.

The individuals who carried out the terrorist act, as in this case the downing of flight 93 were already been prepared to die. To the terrorist in the act his or her life has no value. From their stand point the plane had to crash in a populated place causing maximum damage and consequently chaos.

The passengers of the plane have a right to travel safe and be considered in an action that would take their lives and if an alternate was available to destroy the terrorists but save their lives that would be the best alternative. However such an alternative is ruled out in this case. The second is to shoot down the plane, thus killing the passengers, terrorists and seeing to it that the plane crashed with minimal damage to the city below.

In other words protect the key installations that the terrorists tried to destroy with the act. The questions then are threefold: 1. Does taking actions like shooting down planes that deviate from flight plans make it possible to protect the vital.