[Avodah] PIKUACH NEFESH

[Richard Wolberg]

R' Micha wrote: (IOW,
"...it is about how people act more than outcomes.)

I totally agree; however, outcomes indicate how people act. So that if someone willingly allows two thousand people to die because they refuse to shoot down a plane that they know is going into a building and it is certain everyone in that plane will be killed, then IMHO the people have acted irresponsibly and the blood of the two thousand are on their hands.

OTOH, if the scenario were that the people were not going to die and by killing them you saved a million others, then I fully concur with the rest of the logic, even though others would disagree.

I know the argument you may use is that HOW DO YOU KNOW THOSE IN THE PLANE
WERE GOING TO BE KILLED ANYWAY? We are talking hypothetically. But if you
didn't know, then I would take your position. I'm saying if you know 100%
that the innocent victims in the plane are going to all be killed (via
the plane crashing into the WTC) and thousands of more innocent victims
will be killed, then the responsible action would be to destroy that
plane before it does a lot more damage. If there were a plane with
innocent people piloted by terrorists were going to drop a bomb on the
White House, there is no question it would be shot down ASAP. Is the
president's blood any redder?

R' CM wrote: 
> Of course you are right, they were all doomed. But we only know that with
> certainty with 20/20 hindsight. Prior to these events we had no certainty
> that the passengers were all doomed. The air force might have talked the
> hijackers down or some passengers could possibly have survived the crash
> (not likely in hindsight but a possibility that could have been possible
> without the benefit of hindsight) or they could have missed their target
> (the inexperienced novice terrorist pilot was piloting the plane).

You are absolutely correct and I addressed that issue in my response
to R' Micha. I was speaking theoretically and hypothetically. However,
let me ask you THIS scenario. There were two planes that crashed into
the WTC. (Again theoretically) if it was established after the first
plane crashed that a second one was following (and through radio contact,
etc.) there was no doubt the second was going to do the same, would you
have a problem with shooting it down prior to the crash? Or I'll even
make it easier. They see the plane headed right toward the Towers and we
have advanced technology to push a button which will blow up the plane
prior to the crash -- would you say that is issur also?