spooky3 Posted January 25, 2011 Author Share Posted January 25, 2011 only because it would be to a "ethnic" ... Really not necessarily. Here's another example for you then... A German bankers son was kidnapped (in 2004 ?), the kidnapper was caught after taking the money, would you torture him to find the child? (In reality a Police chief threatened to, the child had already been killed but they got the body. However under German law the Police chief was prosecuted and found guilty) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LardyBoy Posted January 25, 2011 Share Posted January 25, 2011 No of course they shouldn't. It's utterly the wrong thing to do. As is terrorists planting bombs . But it dosnt stop them doing it , does it ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
taxman Posted January 25, 2011 Share Posted January 25, 2011 As is terrorists planting bombs . But it dosnt stop them doing it , does it ? That's because they are terrorists d'uh! Are you saying that if one group of people does something wrong it means everyone else can do something wrong as well? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
matsalleh Posted January 25, 2011 Share Posted January 25, 2011 No of course they shouldn't. It's utterly the wrong thing to do. So what do you do,just sit back and let 300 people die? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spooky3 Posted January 25, 2011 Author Share Posted January 25, 2011 From a similar current thread... (concerning the actual featured programme) It's a subject I've recently taken an interest in as well Chris, one of the arguments against utilitarianism that I've come across is that it can justify actions which are often thought immoral. If it could be shown for example that the hanging of a totally innocent person would have the effect of lowering violent crime by acting as a deterrent and therefore provide more happiness for the majority a utilitarian would go along with this by saying it's morally the right thing to do. P.S. Next episode is on at 8.30 on BBC4 tonight! (1. The Moral Side of Murder) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andygardener Posted January 25, 2011 Share Posted January 25, 2011 The problem with the ticking bomb type scenarios is that so many certainties would have to be established to justify the use of torture that if you had sufficient knowledge to cover them all you'd likely as not know where the bomb was anyway. For example, you'de have to know without doubt the person was behind the attack, you'd also have to know beyond doubt that he knew the exact location of the bomb and that you'd exhuasted all other options to detect the bomb with or without him divulging the location. If there was a situation where all the boxes were ticked and the only option was physical violence against a man who was definately behind the plot and definately knew the location of the bomb and no other means of saving the 300 lives was avilable and if I extracted the information violently we could definately act on it and save the 300 lives then would I use violence? Yes, and in that scenario where lack of temporary violence against one guilty man will definately kill 300 innocents it would be the only moral action. However in real life I doubt such a scenario has actually occured, it's the sort of thing that makes good telly but has very little relevance to the real world. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harleyman Posted January 25, 2011 Share Posted January 25, 2011 Yep! Thumbscrews, hot pokers, eye gougers, testicle wrenchers, knee drills whatever works and if it doesnt death by drowning in a barrel of pork fat Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Halibut Posted January 25, 2011 Share Posted January 25, 2011 You round up the terrorist's nearest and dearest. Even terrorists have people they love. You dont torture the terrorist but tell him that if the bomb goes off in the plane then his nearest and dearest will be shot in front of him. Every man has a vulnerable point And if he doesn't tell, do you actually do such an evil thing? Is that sort of behaviour fitting for Americans? It certainly isn't for Britons. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
discodown Posted January 25, 2011 Share Posted January 25, 2011 The basic dilemma is those who choose to live as outlaws shouldn't expect to seek protection from the law. But as a society do we want to lower ourselves to the levels of those who terrorise us? The answer is I don't know. We live in a complex world where politics plays a part and the lives of little people (from governments viewpoints, not mine) don't really matter. I guess what it boils down to is would you be willing to torture someone to get that information and how reliable is information obtained under torture? If you torture someone long enough and hard enough they'll tell you absolutely anything, that doesn't mean its true, besides which in this scenario you only have an hour. What if you kill him accidentally or he holds out? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harleyman Posted January 25, 2011 Share Posted January 25, 2011 And if he doesn't tell, do you actually do such an evil thing? Is that sort of behaviour fitting for Americans? It certainly isn't for Britons. Dont kid yourself. M.I.6 have plenty of people who would do the same. There are some who have to always do the really dirty work and some who will always condemn them morally. Would you feel the same way as you do if your wife, mother or any member of your family were aboard that plane? Just let the terrorist be? Torturing may be evil but as they say evil begats evil Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.