Would you allow the torture... (Deep thinking required, reader discretion advised)

[Blue-Spheroid]

I used to agree with you Blue, but have since lost my conviction. It just seems that condemning someone who has committed no wrong because they were unlucky enough to be the wrong person at the wrong time is just...wrong. As far as I'm concerned, this question has all wrong answers. Damned if you do, damned if you don't, damned if you can't decide. I wouldn't be able to live with myself no matter what choice I made.

I believe there is a right answer. Assuming that you know for a fact that harming a single (or few) innocents will save thousands or even millions of lives, the only right choice is to make the sacrifice.

You say that you would feel guilt at having been the cause of the harm to an innocent life, however, in the this type of scenario, your choice not to act would cause the deaths and sufferings of many, many more; you'd still feel guilt, maybe more so. Since people will suffer no matter what you do, the only right decision is to minimize the suffering by taking the path where the fewest people are harmed. If you are concerned that you would feel responsible and "wouldn't be able to live with" yourself, you can consider the guilt and suffering you will incur as part of the sacrifice you are making; if you let your guilt hold you back, you are essentially saying that your peace of mind is more important than the lives of millions.

Finally, the whole guilt premise is a misguided way of looking at the decision. In reality, the person making the choice is NOT responsible for the outcome. The terrorist (in the OP's example) is the one who is responsible. By his acts of terror, he started a chain of events that could only end with pain and suffering. You (or the decision maker in the scenario) have not caused anyone to be hurt. All you can do is reduce the suffering by deflecting it from the very many to the very few. You should feel good about having saved thousands of lives if you make the sacrifice. The lesser pain that is inflicted was caused by the terrorist and not you.

All of the above only applies if there are really only two choices (hurt a few or let countless more die). The reality is that most scenarios would have other options. It may involve paying a ransom or conceding a political or strategic advantage. In those cases, it may be appropriate to look for other ways to stop the killing. However, if the choice ever is as simple as the one in the OP's scenario, the answer is simple as well.

 

[freestuff]

I believe there is a right answer. Assuming that you know for a fact that harming a single (or few) innocents will save thousands or even millions of lives, the only right choice is to make the sacrifice.

You say that you would feel guilt at having been the cause of the harm to an innocent life, however, in the this type of scenario, your choice not to act would cause the deaths and sufferings of many, many more; you'd still feel guilt, maybe more so. Since people will suffer no matter what you do, the only right decision is to minimize the suffering by taking the path where the fewest people are harmed. If you are concerned that you would feel responsible and "wouldn't be able to live with" yourself, you can consider the guilt and suffering you will incur as part of the sacrifice you are making; if you let your guilt hold you back, you are essentially saying that your peace of mind is more important than the lives of millions.

Finally, the whole guilt premise is a misguided way of looking at the decision. In reality, the person making the choice is NOT responsible for the outcome. The terrorist (in the OP's example) is the one who is responsible. By his acts of terror, he started a chain of events that could only end with pain and suffering. You (or the decision maker in the scenario) have not caused anyone to be hurt. All you can do is reduce the suffering by deflecting it from the very many to the very few. You should feel good about having saved thousands of lives if you make the sacrifice. The lesser pain that is inflicted was caused by the terrorist and not you.

All of the above only applies if there are really only two choices (hurt a few or let countless more die). The reality is that most scenarios would have other options. It may involve paying a ransom or conceding a political or strategic advantage. In those cases, it may be appropriate to look for other ways to stop the killing. However, if the choice ever is as simple as the one in the OP's scenario, the answer is simple as well.

Same answer if the person they had to torture/kill was your dad/mom/wife/kid?

 

[Blue-Spheroid]

Same answer if the person they had to torture/kill was your dad/mom/wife/kid?

The right thing to do would not change. What may be different, with your example, is whether I'd be strong enough to do the right thing.

I believe that the sacrifice of a few for the many is the only morally as well as logically correct choice. However, none of us can truly say how we'd actually react if faced with this type of decision in real life. I hope I'd be able to do the right thing but I hope even more I never have to find out.

 

[rhuarc29]

You say that you would feel guilt at having been the cause of the harm to an innocent life, however, in the this type of scenario, your choice not to act would cause the deaths and sufferings of many, many more; you'd still feel guilt, maybe more so. Since people will suffer no matter what you do, the only right decision is to minimize the suffering by taking the path where the fewest people are harmed. If you are concerned that you would feel responsible and "wouldn't be able to live with" yourself, you can consider the guilt and suffering you will incur as part of the sacrifice you are making; if you let your guilt hold you back, you are essentially saying that your peace of mind is more important than the lives of millions.

Very well put, but you misunderstood me. I would feel guilty no matter what decision I made, but that wouldn't in itself influence my decision. I find it abhorent that I would utilize the power of life and death over an undeserving individual because some extremist is trying to prove a point. It's a principle, not a consequence that has me undecided.

Although, your arguments have reaffirmed why I once supported your view and why I borderline support it now.

 

[rhuarc29]

Example:

They made that decision with the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki (although nobody directly tortured anyone, and the violence was at a distance - out of sight, out of mind). They say it saved at least a million lives if a massive land invasion was undertaken instead.

Good example. To this day, still one of the most highly controversial military acts by the US. I have a strange feeling that the poll numbers in this thread are fairly close to what people back in 1945 thought as well.

 

[oil&gas]

Okay, I don't get why a few posters think it's such a stupid hypothetical. Sure, you and I personally will (most likely) never face such a situation. But is it such a far-cry to assume that somebody, somewhere, at some point in time may be placed in a similar position where they must choose between harming the innocent for the "greater good" or refusing to harm an innocent no matter the consequences? I'm sorry I didn't use a more realistic example in your opinion, but I'm sure there are several real-life examples that might satisfy you.
....................................................................................

There is this movie 'The day of the jackal' (1973 version) which has
a chilling sequence of an informer who might know the identity of
Jackal being tortured to death by the French police. The story is
likely fictional but I think I can relate to it and put myself in the
same shoe of the torturer. The same cannot be said of the
movie your question based on. As I understand it the
torturer in the movie was actually set up such that the torturer
knew the tortured must have told the truth (about the bombs planted)
and that he has no alternative but to torture the innocent to save
millions of innocents. Such scenario might pass as an original plot
for a movie but too contrived for a serious study of
human nature which seems to be what you are interested in.

Real life examples such as the bombing of Hiroshima discussed
in other posts might seem to serve your purpose. But I doubt that
the decision making involved could be associated with the
kind of predicament you have in mind. After the atomic bombs were dropped
Harry Truman in a meeting with J Robert Oppenheimer was furious
at the remark of the leading scientist of the Manhattan project that
revealed his regret about the bomb being used to kill innocents. Truman
had to tell Oppenheimer that the blood was in the hands of the U.S. president
not Oppenheimer's. After the meeting Truman called Oppenheimer a SOB
before his associate and according to other source a cry-baby scientist.

This is not to suggest that Harry Truman was a bloodthirsty
president (which he was not) in ordering the atomic bombing.
I too believe that the atomic bomb actually ended up saving more
lives than it killed. But Truman's decison was more likely made
out of strategic rather than humanitarian consideration. And he
certainly felt no regret about having to kill.

Military history of civilization is abound with examples of war
waged for the good of humanity. Even though many such wars
resulted in massive destruction of human lives you will not likely
find any cases that suit you.

 

[rhuarc29]

Military history of civilization is abound with examples of war
waged for the good of humanity.

As written by the victors. Most often the people who write this history have a biased perspective of what is "good", since it is their own actions they are justifying...er, I mean documenting.

 

[rhuarc29]

i have no problem with torture if the person is guilty but condoning the torture of an innocent child is something that cannot be done...so the answer to that is yes. i would rather let millions die that torture an innocent child

That is also the view the movie took.

 

[red]

So you would let millions die rather than torture one innocent child of a terrorist?

yes i would.

 

[landscaper]

the big problem with torture is determioning if the answers being given are the correct answers or are the answers the victim thinks the torturer wants to hear. Apply enough pain and you can get the Pope to confess to sex with the Vienna boys choir.

The only time torture will work is if there is an independant way to verify the answers, that then becomes an effec tive interogation technique. Torturing two people and comparing their answers is one way to do it.

As to the moral question. ( that is what the pol was about i believe) I don't have a moral problem with the process as long as it is done in a manour that produces the results, in the movies case I would not allow it because there was no way to cross check the answers family being killed in front of him or not. The other prerquisite is that the people doing the torture must by of the country being attacked, no sending the person overseaqs for somebody else to do the dirty work, in a perfect world the person giving the order is the one who does the work

 

[HetroGuy]

So you would let millions die rather than torture one innocent child of a terrorist?

The reality is that the millions would die because you can't differentiate if he is saying something to stop the torture or speaking the truth - so what do you think a suicidal terrorist will choose ? [This is purely in regards to getting valid information - not in the sadistic pleasure in seeing a terrorist chewed slowly into little pieces without caring what he says between screams]

Reminds me an article I read concerning the witch hunts in England where they would torture to get confessions and the names of other devil worshipers. In a manuscript smuggled out of one of these prisons, the guy forgave the people who named him a devil worshiper because he had to do the same thing to some of his neighbours to stop the pain of torture.

 

[emerging44]

From a morality or ethical point of view, there is never any justification for torture. To argue that there is requires somebody to believe that there is absolute right and absolute wrong in the world. We all know there is not. Torture is morally reprehensible and it reduces humanity to its most atavistic level.

 

[Bob Roberts]

The hypothetical becomes much easier if you simply presume complete certainty of information. If you are 100% certain that the individual knows where 4 nuclear bombs are hidden and are 100% certain that torturing him/his wife/his kids/his dog/whatever will produce the information necessary to find and deactivate the bombs, then torture becomes relatively easy (for many of us) to jusitfy.

In the real world, you never have such certaintly. As has already been pointed out, in the real world, you may have in custody, someone who may know where bombs are located, who may be able to tell you where the bombs are and who may be compellable by torture to do so. So...how much certainty would it take to justify torturing someone's children? Especially given, (as again has been pointed out) the fact that torture produces unreliable information. If you actually assume a "ticking bomb" scenario and the torture victim tells you where each of the bombs are ... how long does it take to verify that he is telling the truth? Do you keep torturing after being told where the bombs are in order to be "really" sure you were given accurate information? What happens if the victim gives you new locations? Do you keep torturing?

 

[Bob Roberts]

Oh ... and hello by the way.

 

[afterhours]

From a morality or ethical point of view, there is never any justification for torture. To argue that there is requires somebody to believe that there is absolute right and absolute wrong in the world. We all know there is not. Torture is morally reprehensible and it reduces humanity to its most atavistic level.

I am not sure what is your morality or ethics, but from my humble point of view if you are given 30 seconds to choose between your kids being tortured or some Joe Schmoe's kids being tortured, it would seem that this choice is all of a sudden a pretty damn easy one

 

[emerging44]

I am not sure what is your morality or ethics, but from my humble point of view if you are given 30 seconds to choose between your kids being tortured or some Joe Schmoe's kids being tortured, it would seem that this choice is all of a sudden a pretty damn easy one

Only if you are an immoral and/or unethical person. Also, introducing a time limit (30 seconds) doesn't change anything other than help you justify your immoral and unethical position.

You need to ask yourself a few questions:

is it OK to torture someone to death to save somebody else?
if you answer yes, you need to ask why is the person whose life is being saved better/more valuable than the person whose life is being lost.
Repeat this question by replacing "someone" with "a man", "a woman", "a child", "my wife", "my children". And replace "somebody" with different numbers. The answers don't change, do they unless you adopt a selfish approach to the whole issue. You could always argue that an Afghan's life is worth less than a Canadian's life in order to justify torture of detainees in Afghanistan but again you are heading down the same slippery immoral, unethical slope.

Just one other point: introducing sentimentality into the debate does not strengthen the argument.

 

[afterhours]

Only if you are an immoral and/or unethical person. Also, introducing a time limit (30 seconds) doesn't change anything other than help you justify your immoral and unethical position.
.

So what would you pick then?

 

[flubadub]

Just saw the movie. Its pretty stupid and requires suspension of belief on a number of levels.
1. that an ex-cia agent turned muslem terrorist would want to be caught.
2. that someone smart enough to build nuclear bombs wouldn't be smart enough to hide their family away first.
3. that even though he planted a bomb in the city in which the torture happens, he stops the torture to save his kids (knowing they would die with the fourth bomb anyways)
4. that torturing someone's kids will produce more reliable results then torturing the person themselves.

torture is for scaring a population, not for getting information. Its used by dictators to scare the opposition into disappearing, under threat of torture.

 

[ZonaFucker]

Apply enough pain and you can get the Pope to confess to sex with the Vienna boys choir.

Talk about unintentional comedy...I like how you make this out to be such an outlandish proposition.

 

[wet_suit_one]

Just saw the movie. Its pretty stupid and requires suspension of belief on a number of levels.
1. that an ex-cia agent turned muslem terrorist would want to be caught.
2. that someone smart enough to build nuclear bombs wouldn't be smart enough to hide their family away first.
3. that even though he planted a bomb in the city in which the torture happens, he stops the torture to save his kids (knowing they would die with the fourth bomb anyways)
4. that torturing someone's kids will produce more reliable results then torturing the person themselves.

torture is for scaring a population, not for getting information. Its used by dictators to scare the opposition into disappearing, under threat of torture.

Your first point rings a bit false. Not willing to be captured, but willing to fly themselves into building or blow themselves to bits... Huh?