Comment Paper 5: Individual Responsibility

            When questioning the morality of targeted killings, it is important to look at the potential threat of the target, and if that threat warrants the targets urgent death. Though I at first did not know if the targeted killing example involving Al was morally justified, after completing the article I now agree with Phillip Montague’s position that the members of a joint agency are all individually responsible for their actions if they are producing the same beliefs and desires.

            Although the terrorist Al was hunting down (a bomb maker) was not an immanent threat himself to the United States, he is still ultimately a major contributor to the potential death of an innocent life, and is there for individually responsible for the deaths that he is going to cause. Despite the fact that the terrorist is not himself pushing a button and detonating the bomb, he is helping the bomber complete the task of wreaking destruction on those desired. However, it is important to note that in Montague’s example they knew for a fact that this terrorist’s bombs would be used against the United States. This information is key because targeted killings should not be performed merely based off of assumptions. In order to be justified, I believe there must be profound evidence that the “terrorist” is guilty of contributing towards potential United States deaths.

            Montague used a fantastic example, which described two individuals jump-starting a car. Despite the fact that they are doing it together (one starting the ignition, the other connecting the dead battery to a live one) they are both individually responsible for having the car start. In similar fashion, a man who creates a complex plan to assassinate a political figure is still responsible for that political figures death, despite the fact that he may not have pulled the trigger himself. After all, the minions that execute these tasks are rarely as dangerous as the minds behind the operation.