Quantcast

Is it morally permissible to torture one innocent person to save the lives of hundreds of innocent people?

Dave The Canuck 2012/04/15 19:41:53
Related Topics: Torture, Life, Person, Live
Yes
No
You!
Add Photos & Videos
Add a comment above

Top Opinion

Sort By
  • Most Raves
  • Least Raves
  • Oldest
  • Newest
Opinions

  • Kat ♪ ~BTO-t-BCRA-F~ ♪ 2012/04/25 13:44:11
    No
    Kat ♪ ~BTO-t-BCRA-F~ ♪
    Morally no.
  • strange_armour 2012/04/25 13:40:41
    Yes
    strange_armour
    If it works, do it.
    talk or die
  • JayLynx 2012/04/20 18:43:58
    No
    JayLynx
    I do not agree with ANY kind or any reason to torture someone else.
  • David (oYo) 2012/04/17 10:34:15
  • bonnie.mutchler 2012/04/17 04:19:20
    No
    bonnie.mutchler
    +1
    Innocent or guilty, no one has the right to torture another person. It is already proven information gained that way is not reliable, since someone in pain will say anything to make it stop. Besideswhich who are we torturing? I like how people say hell yeah torture those terrorists, but what if you were on the other side and were considered the terrorist, would it be okay then? You now a lot of the world consider Americans terrorists since we attack sovereign nations who have done nothing to us.
  • ajracestables1 2012/04/17 00:57:54
    No
    ajracestables1
    +1
    I don't see how torturing one person could save other people in any situation.
  • tinaluwho 2012/04/16 21:05:22
    No
    tinaluwho
    +1
    It's not morally permissible to torture any INNOCENT person!
  • Andy 2012/04/16 18:39:02
    No
    Andy
    +1
    Who is to decide who is the ONE??

    Jesus did it by choice... jesus on cross
  • ticlo7 2012/04/16 15:38:01
    No
    ticlo7
    +2
    Never leave anybody behind; we should fight together, not sacrifice each other.
  • James Rowntree 2012/04/16 15:06:51
    Yes
    James Rowntree
    I say Yes... because if someone has information that could save the lives of many innocent people but refuses to help, they are NOT innocent...
    By definition, you don't need to torture an innocent person, because they either know nothing to justify torturing them, or they would willingly tell what they know to save others.
    Example... I would happily torture a terrorist who knew details of a terrorist plan to bomb New York and kill many innocent people... and by extension... if necessary, I would torture the terrorists family too... they don't count as innocent.
  • Dave Th... James R... 2013/05/18 05:02:46
    Dave The Canuck
    The innocent might not necessarily have the information. The sight of the innocent being tortured might terrorize the guilty person into giving the information.
  • jenkiez 2012/04/16 14:49:33
    No
    jenkiez
    +3
    What good is it to torture an "innocent" person? What benefit would the torture get? An "innocent" person will have NO knowledge that would save the other 100.
  • Barbie 2012/04/16 11:28:51
    Yes
    Barbie
    Yes
  • Lady Whitewolf 2012/04/16 10:27:06
    No
    Lady Whitewolf
    +2
    who the hell want to be tortured?
  • Alice Evie 2012/04/16 10:09:20
    No
    Alice Evie
    +2
    of course not! its like saying sucrifice one person for the "greater good".
    that person is like everyone else too. and even if they are not, it IS STILL moraly wrong no matter what reasoning others give!
  • KoAm 2012/04/16 06:46:47
    Yes
    KoAm
    +1
    When all else fails and you know for a fact that the person has foreknowledge of a terrorist attack ... yes.

    Particularly in the case of an individual for whom the protections of the Constitution or the Geneva Convention do not apply. That would include most, if not all, terrorists.

    That sort of "torture" is entirely different than torturing someone just to be sadistic, or to punish, or because they've dissented against the government.

    Unfortunately, many liberals don't see that difference.
  • Pedro Doller ~Inc. 2012/04/16 05:10:53
    No
    Pedro Doller ~Inc.
    I guess the question should read, should torturing 1 guilty person be OK. With this question having 101 Innocent people the combination could be changed to torturing 50 Innocent people to save 51, or take it to the limit and torture 100 Innocent people to save one. It is implied that at least 100 are doomed anyways.
  • Dzeeng 2012/04/16 04:59:10
  • Frank 2012/04/16 04:47:31
    No
    Frank
    +3
    No one should be tortured especially an innocent person.....
  • lolvampirebookworm 2012/04/16 04:34:44
    Yes
    lolvampirebookworm
    +1
    Yes depending on your code of ethics. If you are an egalitarian then you want the majority to be happy but If you live by a different set of ethics then you would think hey thats okay. Personally Im in the middle all human life has value. If it has a beating heart or if it can breathe then it is valuable
  • Ken 2012/04/16 04:32:39
    Yes
    Ken
    +1
    But is it acceptable to torture 2? 3? hundreds? This is a very slippery slope.

    Once you have dealt with the question of how many people can you torture per person you save, you next need to deal with the reliability of the information collected under torture.

    In the end, most people who study ethics conclude that torture is ineffective for gathering reliable information and costs the torturer more than the tortured. Bottom line: societies which torture people cease to exist and societies which refuse to practice torture thrive. You only need to look at the American experience to recognize the truth of this statement.
  • Bob DiN 2012/04/16 04:29:29
    No
    Bob DiN
    +2
    Jesus was the only miracle.
  • Andy Bob DiN 2012/04/16 18:40:50
    Andy
    Amen
  • Bob DiN Andy 2012/04/16 20:18:05
    Bob DiN
    Agreed!
  • Laura Densmore 2012/04/16 03:34:45
    No
    Laura Densmore
    +2
    This is probably because I think torture is worse than death...if it were a death I would save the hundreds. I'd rather in this case be one of the dead hundred than the tortured one.
  • LesWaggoner BN 1 2012/04/16 03:19:16
    Yes
    LesWaggoner BN 1
    IF YOU CAN GUARANTEE THE SAVING OF "HUNDREDS OF INNOCANT PEOPLE".
  • Shirley 2012/04/16 02:41:37
  • Mrkando 2012/04/16 02:40:05
    No
    Mrkando
    +3
    It is morally reprehensible to torture anyone, guilty or not. There are ways to obtain information without the need for torture. There can never be any justification for it ever.
  • TrudyGirl 2012/04/16 02:30:15
    No
    TrudyGirl
    +5
    Torture is never acceptable.
  • Dave The Canuck 2012/04/16 02:14:07
    Yes
    Dave The Canuck
    +1
    But only if it was the only way to save the hundreds of people and I knew torture would be effective. I would also try to obtain the innocent's permission to torture them. If they refused, I'd leave them alone. If they accepted, I would inflict the least amount of pain possible to save the hundreds. Maybe also ask them to fake being in extreme pain.
  • Dave Th... Dave Th... 2014/07/24 18:58:18
    Dave The Canuck
    I change my mind. No innocent should ever be tortured, and it wouldn't be very fair to the hundreds of innocent people if they got saved BECAUSE of an innocent's torture; many of the hundreds would probably rather die.
  • Earthly Resident 2012/04/16 01:25:57
    Yes
    Earthly Resident
    +1
    oh that's a touchy one. i guess sometimes the ends justify the means, depends on the ends i suppose, ir we are talking about real lives at stake then i'd have to say yes. but if we are talking about some fanatical speculation issue like "let jesus save ur soul, halleluiah!!" then hell no.....

    if there is no logical reason, then torture is out of the question period. say u want to extract information from a captive terrorist, don't beat him up, just give him some alcohol or something, they'll open up
  • Jakedog 2012/04/16 01:21:03
    No
    Jakedog
    +4
    One word NO!
  • Pat 2012/04/16 00:52:27
    No
    Pat
    +4
    Torture is wrong. And besides, what good would it do to torture an innocent person? Or one that has no information? Seems useless to me.
  • Vitalani 2012/04/16 00:46:29
    Yes
    Vitalani
    +2
    The needs of the many.
  • cupcakes 2012/04/16 00:39:05
    No
    cupcakes
    +3
    BECAUSE WERE NOT THE PEOPLE FROM A 1000 YRS AGO
  • Jakedog cupcakes 2012/04/16 01:22:01
    Jakedog
    +1
    I would settle for we are not the people of 6 years ago!
  • cupcakes Jakedog 2012/04/16 01:31:45
    cupcakes
    WAT HAPPENED 6 YRS AGO
  • Jakedog cupcakes 2012/04/16 01:39:01
    Jakedog
    We tortured enemy combatants by water boarding them and who knows what else>
  • cupcakes Jakedog 2012/04/16 02:02:58
    cupcakes
    THAT MAKES SENCE BUT I STIILL BELIVE THIER DOING IT

See Votes by State

The map above displays the winning answer by region.

Living

2014/10/25 22:32:59

Hot Questions on SodaHead
More Hot Questions

More Community More Originals