Hmmm…that got me thinking. What if someone had information about the location of a planted nuke, and would only reveal that it was going to detonate in 48 hours and was large enough to wipe out an entire state? How do you get them to tell you fast enough to prevent it? Even if the person was tortured, all they have to do is hold out until it detonates. What a hairball.
If a great many innocent lives are in danger, and the only way they can be saved is by torturing the person who is trying to kill them, how would that be any more immoral than a person killing an armed criminal in self defense?
While “slippery slope” arguments can be justified in some cases, I’m not entirely sure this is one of them.
Should we stop giving police officers guns because ot might lead to them being allowed to shoot suspected criminals on sight?
Should we stop allowing citizens to use lethal force to defend themselves because it might lead to legalization of murder?
Is this in response to me? I’ve never claimed anything of the sort (nor would I).
It’s just a matter of how we (subjectively) view the relative probabilities of these various “slopes” from occuring, and how we then view the amount of harm that said “slopes,” if realized, would cause. In other words, we try – as best we are able – to avoid harm.
This may be more of a General Question, but aren’t there drugs you can use to get information out of people more reliably than torture? Heck, I would start out with plain old alcohol…
Heh heh heh. I’m having this vision of Osama bin Laden, stinking drunk and surrounded by Special Forces. It’s really amusing, so I say we do it even if we don’t get a bit of information.