A Moral Dilemma...

[RedStarOverChina]

A madman who has threatened to explode several bombs in crowed areas has been apprehended.

Unfortunately, he has already planted the bombs and they were scheduled to go off in a short time.

It's possible that hundreds of people may die. The authorities cannot make him divulge the location of the bombs by conventional methods.

He refuses to say anything and requesrs a lawyer to protect his fifth amendment right against self-incrimination.

In exasperation, some high officials suggested torture, This would be illegal, of course, but the officials think its never the less the right thing to do under this desperate situation.


I'm quite puzzled by this. I'm usually strongly against torture. My grandfather was a chief detective and he once said that only idoits torture suspects.

What do u think?

[New Tolerance]

I wouldn't try torture, they usually don't work anyways.

However, since we are acting in self-defense, which is a situation in which even killing is justified, then why shouldn't we use torture?

[Iepilei]

In that instance, I'd suggest the use of drugs to draw the information out.

[FriedFrog]

Damage one mans life to save hundreds?

If I was only absolutely sure that it would work, I don't see what the problem is in using it.

I'm sure this is a decision that people often have to make and, if it were to go public, would the peoples reaction be for it or against it?

Like you say, it's a very difficult question...

[Roses in the Hospital]

I wouldn't have a problem with damaging one life to save hundreds. Utilitarianism may not be a flawless ideology, but in situations like this surely it's applicable...

[commiecrusader]

I wouldn't object to the use of torture. What's the problem? I think damaging one life to save hundreds is definitely worth it.

[dso79]

Torture should never be used; it’s unethical and ineffective.

Read the article that I posted in the politics section earlier:

Torture is a Problem, Not a Solution (http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article7813.htm)


Many experts on interrogation believe that torture is actually one of the least effective ways to gain accurate information.

[I've Defected]

You can't trust any information released through tortore. He is most likely to lie and make up a location.

if he won't give the information after interrogation, hes not likely to tell you after torture.

[FriedFrog]

Torture should never be used; it’s unethical and ineffective.


Ineffective, maybe. But, imagine that torture would force the information out of the bomber, whats more unethical?

Hundreds dieing, or torture of one man?

And, I think if the right person did the torturing, it could be quite effective. Unfortunately, there are experts in this field ...

[Dyst]

We should be experimenting with alternative "torture" methods, such as drugs, as someone mentioned.

If we really needed the information we could ofcourse subject the person to endless hours of The Bachellor, The Bachellorette, The Bachellor II, The Bachellorette II, etc. However, that might end the person before we are able to recieve the info tho.

[FeArANDLoAtHiNg]

Not to change the subject, but...

If its just "hundreds" of people that would die, it can't be that large of an area. And if you have the time to torture the guy and withdraw information, you certainly would have time to evacuate the area, wouldn't you?

[RedLenin]

Thats actually the best thing to do. Torture should never be used. No matter what, it is never justified. Torture is coercion at its strongest. Evacuation would save both the hundreds of people and the man who planted the bombs. There would be no death and no torture. It amazes me how quick people are to advocate torture in certain situations. Torture is never justified under ANY circumstance.

[enigma2517]

You don't know what areas to evacuate thats the point. Its either they die or they find and defuse the bomb...no alternative.

Whats wrong with coercion when its used in self-defense? So you want a revolution? Guess what, if it happens, somewhere down the road you'll have to take up arms. For what purpose? Defending the ideals that will ultimately bring people more justice. If you're going to kill others (many of whom are not your sworn enemy, simply confused lackeys of the state) then whats wrong with not even killing but simply coercing a person who is not AT ALL innocent and is willing to hurt numerous others.

The real question is of course...where do you draw the line. I can't answer that one well enough.

[deathordeath]

I personally think you could use some damn good mind tactics, bring in the family of the guy. With today's special effects I'm pretty sure you could make a tape of somebody shooting his wife in the head or something of the sort. I know it sounds childish but it breaks no law and could be quite effective.

As far as the drugs go, slip it in a drink, do whatever you need to but it's feasable.

[RedStarOverChina]

The real question is of course...where do you draw the line. I can't answer that one well enough.

this is the central theme of this issue...i mean, if torturing one person to save 100 is fine, how about torturing 10 to save 100? how about torturing 99 to save 100?

If we allow one case of torture, 10,000 more will follow...because we can justify torture too easily.

[Hodgeh]

Originally posted by [email protected] 24 2005, 11:07 PM

The real question is of course...where do you draw the line. I can't answer that one well enough.

If we allow one case of torture, 10,000 more will follow...because we can justify torture too easily.
Right... the slippery-slope.


If you hope to maintain yourself to be of better moral standing; if you see yourself as a person or culture of integrity and true values, then torture merely lowers you to the level of the perpetrator. Use at your own risk.

Should a situation arise like the one above, torture is only justified when results are near-certain. Also, those who authorize the torture need to go on the record and some accountability needs to be established so those responsible may not escape the repercussions should the ability to torture under extreme circumstances be further abused.

[CommieBastard]

The Ticking Bomb Scenario.
Program on channel 4 about it right now that I'm watching.
Interviewer speaking to a CIA agent of 16 years experience.
"is there any specific time that there has been a scenario like this?"
"No, not that I'm aware of"

This is possibly the best argument given for torture, and yet it just doesn't happen.