September 11 2001, a day America world woke up to a tragedy that resulted in a loss of many lives and property in the attack of the World Trade Center on the September 11 2001. The iconic building that stood strategically in New York came crushing down after the two passenger planes intentionally crushed into them. When the attack was happening and after it, the reaction was evidence that it was truly a terrorist act. Still, the questions “Who?” and “Why?” were unclear. To analyze the ethical issue here, which is the problem in our case, we will use the 7 step in ‘The Prescribed Ethical Decision Making Model’ which helps explain the ethical perception of a problem
The perception on the ethical problem
What if on that morning you were standing right outside the World Trade Center taking coffee, before you start another normal long day in the office and all over sudden a plane comes crushing into one of the towers; what would your reaction be? The first thought that comes into our mind as humans is of an accident. This model had taken into consideration the first perception of the situation whether right or wrong it was, when the second plane ran into the second tower and everyone was shocked wondering that this could not be an accident it was purposed to be.
Describing the situation
The model points out that in such tragedies, accidents, or incidents the interpretation comes in fragments or distorted fashion. As seen above the incidents present adapted shock on the happening and never give the actual picture. Rather the incident gives us time to judge by what we have seen. The first crush: one could ask where the pilots were, and didn’t they have communication radars in case of the unclear weather. The first reaction to any situation is to try to convince ourselves of what is actually happening by description of what one can see. It was evident that the USA was under attack. Mr. George Bush, who was the President in that time, thought at first that it was an accident. Maximum help has been committed to the accident site, and the next message he received was ‘America is under attack’. Surprisingly, even after being informed, he did not move out from the class full of kids reading a story in the book, to attend to national issues.
Defining the problem/ethical issue
Now why would a plane be flying so low and why would the pilots did not see the building and, maybe, try and sway the plane out of the towers way somehow? Defining the problem as it happens according to the ‘The Prescribed Ethical Decision Making Model’ possess a lot of uncertainties and conflicting loyalties. After the attack, a jet was seen flying around the towers ablaze, yet all airplanes including defense forces had been halted. The time laps between the first hit and the second. There was no coincidence at all.
‘Either do this or do that’. - We tend to think that the government was aware of this attack and would have stopped it. George Bush’s administration was said be know about the attack but did not know where or how. In defining the alternative, we try as if the situation could have been saved from happening. Due to the past experience, the Muslim community was immediately blamed for the attack. Through in-depth research, we have found that George Bush’s administration had hidden motives on Iraq, hence, allowed a staged attach to get into Iraq. As normal human beings, these ethics of identifying alternative tend to look for solution that could have saved the scenario from occurring; and the government would have only that it had its own agenda on the same.
Projecting probable consequences
What did actually happen on September 11, 2001? Using the Projection Probable Consequences, we can pick out several alternatives identified above but this time integrates all alternatives from different existing sources to get the most definite solution. In our case, September 11, 2001 incident was one that had all sort of press releases, information from analyst, political positions which gave their part of the story. The Bush administration had everything to do with the September 11 attack. From the media we see plans for a training practice on a probable air attack. Then all over sudden the attack happens as planned by the Air force training on the day the training was to begin. The probable consequence is that the same planners are the same implementers
Selecting an alternative
Most of us saw it happen though never knew more about who and why. In this model, we tend to take side by believing an alternative idea or suggestion brought about by a third party. In our case the different scenarios of the happening on the September 11, 2001 are diverse and from numerous media sources we could freely choose what to believe about who and why. The media provided many controversies expressing the fact that government was involved, knew about the attack, and warned all dignitaries not to board flight on that day.
State of resolution
Using the state of resolution model, we see that a resolution is reached when we discover an alternative that provides an acceptable balance of our duty consequences, satisfaction of our need for decision- making. Here the judgment is narrowed, hence much of the perceptions for example the government being involved. It is clearly evident that George Bush had knowingly contributed to this terrorist attack by hidden motive to control the Middle East and their oil resources. Since then they staged war on terror immediately before understanding the actual scenario and set out combats in Iraq.
In conclusion these are the steps in a fully systematic self-conscious ethical decision making process. In the case study the proven truth was that, first, it was a pre- meditated attack and second there were one prominent cause and responsibility to this attack. George Bush and the administrative government had intention for oil exploration in Iraq; hence, they staged terrorist acts and framed Osama Bin Laden who was incidentally receiving medical care in Dubai at the time of the attack.