Libertarians' Perspective: The Unjust Death of Abdurahman
Libertarians strongly believe that every citizen deserves the right to live without torture and murder. In case the government performs an operation which infringes on an individual's freedom it should come out openly and justify the move. The death of Abdulrahman who was a U.S citizen 16 years of age as a result of a drone strike by the American forces was an unfair imposition of the death penalty for the sins he did not commit. It is believed that his father was a known terrorist and had been killed. According to Libertarians, the crime was already paid by the death of his father who also died as a result of the drone strike. The Libertarians could, therefore, conclude that the death of Abdurahman was unjust since he was innocent. The government added that the right to life for Abdurahman was cut short by sins committed by his father. Despite the terrorist ideologies of the father he was to be free without being exposed to the drone strikes which took his life. Even though doing this made majority happy as it portrayed the government's commitment to fighting terrorism, it was an enormous violation of justice.
Utilitarians' Perspective: The Just Death of Abdurahman
Utilitarian on the other side concludes that the death of Abdurahman was just. To them, it was providing well for the majority. Even though he was innocent, there were chances of him following his father's footsteps to join the terrorist act. They support the like father like son principle. Utilitarians believe that the best thing to do is anything that produces the greatest happiness to the majority which is making it look like protecting the citizens of the U.S. they argue that the cost was painful, but the benefits are enormous in providing security for the Americans against future terrorists' actions.
My Agreement with Libertarians' Judgment
In this scenario, I wholeheartedly agree with the Libertarians judgment. They insist on the role the government plays in providing protection its citizen's rights, in this case, the right to live. Abdurahman never deserved to die. It was his father who committed the crimes, and there is no clue apart from family linkage could bring him closer to the offenses. The government imposed civil injustice to the boy without any compelling reason for it. The killing of Abdurahman downplayed the equality order. In this killing, the government could not justify the reasons for the move. Utilitarians say the government move to kill the boy was to show their commitment to fighting terrorism while according to me; this was a desperate move by the state. I wonder why they could not arrest him if in case they were sure of his involvement in criminal activities and prosecuted him in courts. This move shows they did not have any substantive evidence of their allegations. In observing human rights, everyone deserves an opportunity to be heard but not treated with outright murder.
Flaws in the Utilitarian Objective
The main utilitarian objective is providing the best thing for the greater majority. It is okay when some people get hurt while the majority becomes happy. This theory can be well applied in the free market environment. The market provides an opportunity for both winners and losers, but in the long process, minority suffers as many prosper. This sounds harmful when applied to the human situation. Sacrificing the life of the opposition to provide happiness to the majority is undoubtedly a bad idea.
