Torture 1 terrorist to save 300 lives?

[Alex C.]

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.

 

I ticked no on the poll, but I think this post actually sums up my feelings a lot better!

[Phanerothyme]

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.

 

This point will go unheeded. As will the rest of your post, more's the pity.

 

Let the yammering continue.

[bullerboY]

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.

You speak for yourself,its good enough for me!!:suspect:

[mj.scuba]

Depends what you define as torture. Some people would define shouting in their face as torture.

[webmarshall]

torture 1 terrorist to save 300, what if you son or daughter was 1 of them 300

[Kaimani]

as usual, andygardener, you make a good point, eloquently. and i agree with what you say.

 

i would like to factor one more thing, though, that i think plays more of a part than people accept. 'vanity' or 'pre-guilt', not sure what to call it. i mean the crippling and scary as hell idea that the plane will go down, or whatever, and, regardless of what you know, or believe, you won't have done all you could have done to save them. you want to know that you couldn't have done anything more to save even the one person, or one more person. and the torture is usually the inevitable end. as much as everything else going on, the fear of any 'blood on your hands' can be a powerful motivator. for that reason i think i would torture.

of course, the likely situation is the terrorist's son, nephew, friend etc coming on the next plane of bus to avenge the terrorist's death and my son, nephew or niece waiting with the electric wires.

[*Wallace*]

Oh just torture him he knew what he was getting into when he made the choice to kill innocent people,hurt one scumbag to save many ? no contest.

[Halibut]

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

 

Which is a very good reason not to do it isn't it?

[Halibut]

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.

 

Another one here who thinks you've said it very eloquently. In fact, the scenario you pose in the last paragraph hadn't actually occured to me, but I'm sure in those circumstances that would indeed be the right thing to do.

[Kaimani]

Which is a very good reason not to do it isn't it?

 

true. and no matter how hard it is to relate to or even accept a great many 'terrorists' do have their own horror stories of situations in which them and theirs were 'tortured' by whomever they feel they're fighting. easy to say from the other end of a notebook, but torture and immediate-result-reactions have been proven over and over to make the situation worse. for all the gains of the Geneva conventions etc the danger is that of a downward and backward spiral to the dark ages.