Abstract
The paper discusses the problem of moral responsibility for difficult decisions in the sphere of politics on the example of a former regulation of aviation laws concerning shooting down a hijacked plane. The text analyzes a sentence of the Constitutional Tribunal on the matter, especially the issue of the right to live and the concept of human dignity. A comparison is made between Mill’s utilitarism and Kantian deonthology as two opposing moral philosophies. In the end a hypothesis is made that state authorities should be held morally accountable by the public for their choices, even should that accountability result in their condemnation or the loss of office.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callMore From: Zeszyty Naukowe Uniwersytetu Rzeszowskiego. Seria Prawnicza. Prawo
Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
