Question

respond to the following as utilitarian ethicists:

1. How shall we reason through to the decision of the law enforcement authorities at the 1972 Munich Olympics?

2. How are we to balance protecting people versus allowing people to participate in and enjoy an event? After all, doing away with events entirely would be easier in terms of safety, but most people would say that that "solution" is worse than the problem.

3. Also, how does one approach dealing with threats in ways that do not alienate or marginalize groups of people? The Olympics bring this to the forefront, as it brings people together from literally all over the world in what is intended to be a welcoming environment.

Answer 1

1. Since the Munich hostage situation one of its rare kind, full of precarious surprises, strategies were formulated to deal with the unwanted situation to attain the best results. However things turned out otherwise. One of the strategies formulated was to disrupt the terrorist plot by killing their leader, which would have weakened their stance. The climate at the time was not favorable and it was thought that allowing the terrorists to leave with the hostages would have ended up more catastrophic and that was not acceptable. It was also known to the police that they will kill other members since those who had resisted were already killed. Negotiations had failed and the ambush to neutralize the terrorist also failed while leading to the final shoot out. There was lack of equipment as well as training with regard to the handling of the grave situation; however besides the weakness police tried their best to save the people taken hostages.