On 15 th April during the annual Boston Marathon, two homemade bombs were detonated near the finishing line. In the coordinated attack, the two bombs went off 14 seconds and 190 meters apart. 3 people lost their lives while hundreds were injured. The attack was carried out by 2 terrorist brothers Tamerlan Tsarnaev and Dzhokhar Tsarnaev. The former was killed in a gun shootout with the police while Dzhokhar was captured 12 hours after the shelter in place request was lifted. Hours after the attack, the then Governor Patrick Deval issued a shelter-in-place request that placed Watertown and the wider Boston in lockdown. The regions public transport system was shut down and in the following three days, nearly 1 million greater Boston residents hided to the request to shelter in place.
The governor had a difficult decision to make. One was to put an entire city in lockdown and inconvenience thousands of people but keep the residents out of harm’s way and the other was to let people continue with their everyday lives a indicator that terrorism will not cower people from their everyday activities but create loopholes for the terrorists to escape. The governor was to be judged on the outcome of his decision. Surgically shutting down public transportation in and out of Boston was nearly impossible; asking the people to shelter in place was one way of enabling transportation shutdown. It was possible that the suspects may have moved beyond Watertown which necessitated a widened lockdown. While the public would have been the eyes and ears during the manhunt, it was also clear that the perpetrators were armed and willing to hurt people thus necessitating the lockdown. In the end, the Governor’s decision was sound; the success far much exceeded the inconvenience caused.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
Ethical decision-making refers to the process of evaluating and choosing among alternatives in line with ethical principles. For Governor Deval, one key success factor of his decision was dependent on selecting the right tool. In deciding on a case-based decision analysis, the Governor analyzed the issue based on available information and the likely outcomes of his decision. “Making good ethical decisions require a trained sensitivity to ethical issues and a practiced method for exploring the ethical aspects of a decision and weighing the considerations that should impact our choice of a course of action” (Markkula Center for Applied Ethics, 2015) . Ethical considerations in the Governor’s decision are reflected in considerations on what a surgical shut down of the public transportation system would mean to the people while carrying on with their routine activities. The second perpetrator was captured 12 hours after the shelter in place request had been lifted. The Governor’s decision was short term. There was an understanding that placing the entire city on lockdown could not be sustained for long despite the second suspect not being captured yet. This is an indication of careful consideration and practice of common good.
The decision was beneficial to the people, and to the police officers conducting the manhunt. There was the risk that the public may fail may hid to the shelter in place request. However, going forward with the decision was necessary because the value of his actions is compared to the consequences. The decision was a major call; it was one that needed moral conviction that it was the right one among the available alternatives. The range of possible outcomes arising from the decision was predictable. One important factor of consideration was being able to win the people’s trust. The cooperation of nearly 1 million residents of the greater Boston was sign of the people’s trust and a show of good citizenship. These actions were strong indicators of approval of the Governor’s decision. It is the characteristic of ethical decisions to build and sustain trust, responsibility, good citizenship, respect, and fairness.
The ethical implication was in the successful outcome of the decision. The ethics triangle takes into account, virtues, principles, and consequences (Dutelle & Taylor, 2017). The outcome was in the best interest of public security and a win against terrorism which justified the decision. Decisions are considered effective if they accomplish what they were intended to do. The show of trust and good citizenship are also an implication of the Governor’s ethical trust. The fact that the population of greater Boston overwhelmingly agreed to shelter in place despite the fact that it was not mandatory, it is indicative of how strongly the city rallied around itself and the Governor.
The biggest impact was on the residents of Watertown and greater Boston. Others affected were the law enforcers and in part the perpetrators of the bombing. In recent years, no other American city had witnessed a lockdown – the kind imposed on greater Boston. The incident had occurred close to a bus stop and there was the likely hood that the perpetrators could escape by bus. However, shutting the entire public transportation system had far-reaching impact on the people. Thousands on Boston resident depend on public transportation everyday; having the subway shut down paralyzed the city and was equally effective in enhancing the shelter in place request. As a result of sheltering in place, the daily life of the people was interrupted, stores in Boston were shuttered, streets deserted, and anxiety prevailed as law enforcers searched for the suspects.
19000 National Guard officers were brought into Boston. Their work was well cut out: ensure that the suspects do not escape out of the city. The Governor’s decision meant that they national guard when from house to house in search of the suspects. Even in the past major terrorists attacks, the National Guard had never worked in a lockdown situation. The Boston operation was unique, informed by the Governor’s unprecedented decision. The public transportation shutdown affected the attackers in the escape plan. They had tried to escape the city in a stolen car but they could not make it out as a result of the Governor instituted shutdown. In the end, the surviving attacker resulted in hiding inside a boat in someone’s backyard and was effectively arrested.
The key strength of the Governor’s decision was that it was short term. In making this decision, it was the Governor’s hope that the people behind the attack would be apprehended as fast as possible. It would have been impossible to sustain the lockdown for an extra 2 days. Short term decisions work for immediate challenges. Terrorism is not a short term challenge but the goal of the lock down was to capture the attackers. For its weakness, the decision was over dependent on the people. The decision was dependent on the cooperation of the people to shelter in place. On its own, shutting the transport system would have not been an adequate measure.
The shutdown of public transportation system was not wrong but was unnecessary. The alternative would have been to shut down specific lines especially those close to where the attack had occurred. It is the intention of terrorists to cower people into shutting down their lives. While the outcome of the decision was justified, it created heightened anxiety, businesses incurred losses, and innocent people had military officers knocking on their doors. The lockdown of an entire metropolitan was unprecedented. By shutting down specific routes, this would have significantly reduced the impact of the attack on people’s lives. By shutting down an entire metropolitan, people who miles away from the scene of attack felt its impact. Anxiety was spread all over the city of Boston. These are the outcomes that terrorists want to see. The analysis of this study is that the outcome of a partial shutdown would have been the same as the one achieved by the Governor’s decision. However, most ethical decisions exist in a gray area where there is no-clear-cut decision that can be arrived at through quantitative analysis. The common good approach of decision-making requires attention to the common conditions important to the welfare of everyone.
Making difficult decisions in times of crisis management requires consciousness, commitment, and competency. One must have the desire to do the right thing for the benefit of the people regardless of the cost. Moral convictions should override personal interests. Decision makers should be ready to be held accountable for the consequences of their decisions. Evaluating the outcomes of a decision should inform whether one would still make the same decision again if presented with a similar problem. The events in the aftermath of the Boston bombings highlight the importance of public trust to the successful outcomes of a decision. It is okay to make unprecedented decisions in the face of a crisis and highly uncertain circumstances such as the Boston Bombings as long as we are convinced they are morally right and in the best interest given the prevailing circumstances.
We are living in a highly dynamic world where decisions and actions that were effective in a past event may not be applicable in a similar event today. The lesson from the Boston decision is that sometimes it’s wise to borrow from a different decision tool kit altogether (Courtney et al., 2013) . Faced with a public safety situation, the safety of the people should always come first.
References
Courtney, H., Lovallo, D., & Clarke, C. (2013). Deciding How to Decide . Harvard Business Review. Retrieved 13 March 2020, from https://hbr.org/2013/11/deciding-how-to-decide .
Dutelle, A. W., & Taylor, R. S. (2017). Ethics for the public service professional . Crc Press.
Markkula Center for Applied Ethics. (2015, August 1). A Framework for Ethical Decision Making . Scu.edu. Retrieved 13 March 2020, from https://www.scu.edu/ethics/ethics-resources/ethical-decision-making/a-framework-for-ethical-decision-making/ .
