The 1972 munich olympics hostage situation was a high-tension moment, full of dangerous surprises and strategies to deal with the situation that did not work out for the best. among the strategies was the idea to kill the leader of the terrorists so as to disrupt the terrorist plot and to allow a good outcome in which the hostages would be saved. in the situation, it was also entirely possible that a terrible outcome might occur in which all would die. the situation was an emergency. the german legal system might eventually take the terrorists and their leader to trial, but first there was the need to end the hostage situation. the account in our text ends with, "but it was the lesser of two evils."respond to the following as utilitarian ethicists: how shall we reason through to the decision of the law enforcement authorities at the 1972 munich olympics? how are we to balance protecting people versus allowing people to participate in and enjoy an event? after all, doing away with events entirely would be easier in terms of safety, but most people would say that that "solution" is worse than the problem. also, how does one approach dealing with threats in ways that do not alienate or marginalize groups of people? the olympics bring this to the forefront, as it brings people together from literally all over the world in what is intended to be a welcoming environment.