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
|
|
|||||
|
40 votes
|
|
41% | ||
|
58 votes
|
|
59% | ||
Top Opinion
-
Sister Jean 2012/04/15 19:48:08
Jesus did it by choice...
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.
that person is like everyone else too. and even if they are not, it IS STILL moraly wrong no matter what reasoning others give!
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.
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.
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