rocketdodger
Philosopher
- Joined
- Jun 22, 2005
- Messages
- 6,946
I'm not guessing. I know the rule. You don't. You're speculating.
Of course I am speculating, because you refuse to answer my questions. What else can I do? If you don't want me to speculate then stop dodging the issue and answer.
Really?
Under the applicability of Article 1.1 of the Basic Law (guarantee of
human dignity) it is absolutely inconceivable to intentionally kill
persons who are in such a helpless situation on the basis of a statutory
authorisation.
http://www.bundesverfassungsgericht.de/en/press/bvg06-011en.html
Yes. Thank you for posting that link. It illustrates clearly what you have been refusing to acknowledge:
1) The court was not considering the hypothetical you propose, where the plane is certain to crash into a skyscraper. Instead, it was considering realistic situations:
In addition, this happens under
circumstances in which it cannot be expected that at the moment in which
a decision concerning an operation pursuant to § 14.3 of the Aviation
Security Act is taken, there is always a complete picture of the factual
situation and that the factual situation can always be assessed
correctly then.
2) The court made a distinction between action and inaction:
By their killing being used as a means to save
others, they are treated as objects and at the same time deprived of
their rights; with their lives being disposed of unilaterally by the
state, the persons on board the aircraft, who, as victims, are
themselves in need of protection, are denied the value which is due to a
human being for his or her own sake.
3) The court might have reached a different conclusion if the hypothetical was stronger I.E. something like a nuclear weapon on board headed towards Berlin:
For in the area of application of § 14.3 of
the Aviation Security Act the issue is not the defence against attacks
aimed at abolishing the body politic and at eliminating the state’s
legal and constitutional system.
Care to add anything, herzblut?