Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/12/84; site mit-hermes.ARPA
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!allegra!mit-eddie!mit-hermes!jpexg
From: jpexg@mit-hermes.ARPA (John Purbrick)
Newsgroups: net.legal
Subject: Re: Re: Is air piracy ALWAYS inexcusably evil?
Message-ID: <2331@mit-hermes.ARPA>
Date: Tue, 19-Mar-85 12:53:31 EST
Article-I.D.: mit-herm.2331
Posted: Tue Mar 19 12:53:31 1985
Date-Received: Wed, 20-Mar-85 06:21:58 EST
References: <4260@ucla-cs.ARPA> <9278@brl-tgr.ARPA> <9311@brl-tgr.ARPA>
Organization: The MIT AI Lab, Cambridge, MA
Lines: 21

Isn't this just another question of the type "Is it moral to commit an evil
act in order to avert an even more evil event?" ie, stealing food if you're 
starving. Many people would probably condone the guy's action if he were an
innocent victim of a government we disapproved of--suppose someone on the run
from the Iranian government hijacked an aircraft (it has happened, more than 
once)? Does that make a difference? Could it be that we have different
reactions to escape attempts by someone we see as "innocent" versus someone
who is "guilty"?

Here's another case for you: a few years ago, an East German border guard
defected to the West--not an unknown occurrence--but in this case he shot
two of his comrades on the way. The East Germans said he's a murderer, send
him back, but he said since the guards had orders to shoot him, he was 
justified in shooting them first. The dead men hadn't attacked him, but if he
tried to escape they would have done so, a claim of pre-emptive self defense.
Unfortunately, I don't know what the West Germans did in this case.

			John Purbrick
			decvax!genrad!mit-eddie!mit-hermes!jpexg
			jpexg@mit-hermes.ARPA