[lit-ideas] Must torture always be defended?
- From: Eric <eyost1132@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Mon, 03 Apr 2006 07:08:12 -0400
Omar: The only argument that could
legitimately be made in defense of torture is the
"ticking bomb" argument, i.e. that innocent lives will
be saved if the information is obtained quickly.
That's the famous example, often used as a segue
to discussions of why torture is impractical. But
I wonder if torture in that case has to be "defended."
You wrote the phrase, "in defense of torture." If
you DON'T torture the person who planted the
"ticking bomb," isn't that morally wrong?
Put more generally, if you have reasonable grounds
to believe torture has a chance to save many
lives, you have limited time to act, and you do
NOT torture, isn't your failure to act morally wrong?
You could have saved the population of London.
Instead of trying all available means to find
where the ticking bomb was located, you refused to
torture, and the population of London was killed.
In that case, wouldn't your refusal to act have to
be defended?
------------------------------------------------------------------
To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off,
digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html
Other related posts: