Bασανιστηρια- Τicking bomb scenario
Δημοσιεύτηκε: 08 Οκτ 2018, 12:28
The scenario
The 'ticking bomb' problem
The problem that even the most virtuous people face when thinking about torture is whether there is ever a case when a good result produced by torture justifies the evil act of torturing someone.
It's often illustrated by a version of the 'ticking bomb problem', which asks us to put ourselves in the position of a senior law officer facing a situation like this:
A terrorist group states that it has concealed a nuclear bomb in London
The authorities have captured the leader of the group
He says that he knows where the bomb is
He refuses to reveal the location
Torture is guaranteed to produce the information needed to ensure the authorities find and make the bomb safe
In fact torture is not guaranteed to be useful in producing accurate information, but please just accept this premise in order to focus on the points of principle
Is it ethically acceptable for you to have him (or his family) tortured to find out where the bomb is and thus save thousands of lives, or is it unethical to torture him, no matter how many die as a result?
This is not, in fact, a particularly realistic scenario but arguing through this problem can illuminate many of the issues involved in torture. It's important to acknowledge, however, that the problem may not be solvable in the terms in which it's stated above.
An answer which focuses on the reality of the ethical situation might say that:
it is unethical to torture the terrorist
it is also unethical to let your moral principles condemn thousands of others to an avoidable death
so in this case there is no ethically acceptable course of action - whatever you do is morally wrong
it is understandable (but still wrong) for the interrogators to torture the terrorist in this case to save lives
sometimes an ethically wrong act can be forgiven - in this case because it is a perfectly intelligible human choice to make
By the way: It's important to understand that this answer does not justify the decision to torture, nor does it argue that we are justified in choosing the least bad option. Instead it should be interpreted rather differently - here are a couple of ways of doing it:
Torturing the terrorist is unethical and can't be justified, but it can be understood, and it can be forgiven
Τorturing the terrorist is unethical, but in those circumstances it is the 'right thing to do'
This is not intellectually satisfactory but it does acknowledge that hard cases can't always be solved in a neat way.
Νομιζω ειναι ενδιαφερον θεμα προς συζητηση.
The 'ticking bomb' problem
The problem that even the most virtuous people face when thinking about torture is whether there is ever a case when a good result produced by torture justifies the evil act of torturing someone.
It's often illustrated by a version of the 'ticking bomb problem', which asks us to put ourselves in the position of a senior law officer facing a situation like this:
A terrorist group states that it has concealed a nuclear bomb in London
The authorities have captured the leader of the group
He says that he knows where the bomb is
He refuses to reveal the location
Torture is guaranteed to produce the information needed to ensure the authorities find and make the bomb safe
In fact torture is not guaranteed to be useful in producing accurate information, but please just accept this premise in order to focus on the points of principle
Is it ethically acceptable for you to have him (or his family) tortured to find out where the bomb is and thus save thousands of lives, or is it unethical to torture him, no matter how many die as a result?
This is not, in fact, a particularly realistic scenario but arguing through this problem can illuminate many of the issues involved in torture. It's important to acknowledge, however, that the problem may not be solvable in the terms in which it's stated above.
An answer which focuses on the reality of the ethical situation might say that:
it is unethical to torture the terrorist
it is also unethical to let your moral principles condemn thousands of others to an avoidable death
so in this case there is no ethically acceptable course of action - whatever you do is morally wrong
it is understandable (but still wrong) for the interrogators to torture the terrorist in this case to save lives
sometimes an ethically wrong act can be forgiven - in this case because it is a perfectly intelligible human choice to make
By the way: It's important to understand that this answer does not justify the decision to torture, nor does it argue that we are justified in choosing the least bad option. Instead it should be interpreted rather differently - here are a couple of ways of doing it:
Torturing the terrorist is unethical and can't be justified, but it can be understood, and it can be forgiven
Τorturing the terrorist is unethical, but in those circumstances it is the 'right thing to do'
This is not intellectually satisfactory but it does acknowledge that hard cases can't always be solved in a neat way.
Νομιζω ειναι ενδιαφερον θεμα προς συζητηση.