Several days into the stand-off, the Kenyan military began to fired rocket propelled grenades (RPGs) into the mall in an attempt to stop the terrorists and bring an end to the stand-off. The RPGs created huge holes in the walls of the mall. On the third day of the stand off, three floors of the Westage collapse entirely. Although an official investigation of the collapse has not yet been conducted, it is highly likely that the RPGs weakened the mall structure and caused the collapse.
My favorite ethical dilemmas to examine are not the theoretical scenarios used in ethics classrooms and universities; they are the real-life, ethical struggles that people are forced into because of difficult situations such as this attack. This decision was the Kenyan military's to make, and the options they were presented with were difficult: use the RPGs to attempt to subdue the terrorists and free the hostages while risking a collapse that may kill hostages anyway, or hold off on the RPGS and risk a longer stand-off that may put more hostages in peril.
The Kenyan responders decided that the RPGs were necessary even facing the potential collapse and loss of life it could be responsible for. As of now, it is not confirmed how many, if any, lives were lost as a direct result of the collapse, but what is for certain is that the attack has ended and many lives have been saved as a result of the overall actions of these responders. Exactly how may of those lives can be attributed to the RPGs and the collapse will never been known for sure.
In a way, this kind of dilemma reminds me of the railway switch operator, in which a runaway train is headed towards five people, and the only way to save them would be to divert the train onto another track that happens to have another person who would be killed. In that scenario and in the Westgate mall scenario, a deliberate choice had to be made to risk some to potentially save more. It's interesting to me that most people would choose to save the five people in the train scenario, and I wonder if those same people would make the choice to fire the RPGs at the mall.
ReplyDeleteThis dilemma, as Rohan points out, is fundamentally one of a utilitarian versus a deontological framework. The primary tenants of utilitarianism entail a calculation of how to save the most lives. In the case of the railroad switch operator, they would have to put the train on the tracks towards the one person, as the calculation is 5>1 determines the course of action that should be taken. Yet under a deontological framework, there is no ethical action that can be taken, since that framework stipulates that the only ethical option is to not inflict a loss of human life. The railroad problem would therefore be fallicious under this framework.
ReplyDeleteIn the case of the mall bombing, if it means the terrorists' ability to inflict further casualties within the mall would be impaired, the right decision would be to shoot the RPGs. Yet the collapse of the mall was a somewhat unintended consequence. When it comes to decision-making and cost-benefit analysis, the potential results of decisions are never as clearly seen as they could ideally be.