Here is your scenario. In this scenario, the “end” is “dead terrorists” The terrorists were killed to stop THOSE TERRORISTS from killing and/or terrorizing again. That was the “end” of the means of “bomb[ing] them”
You can, in fact, accomplish the same “end” by capturing them. At that point, torturing them does not help you accomplish the same “end” because you have already accomplished it. You would be torturing them for no reason.
If you would like to change your scenario to something that torture MAY help, or COULD BE justified, I invite you to try again.
Senior leaders of nationstate combatants are also basically planners/facilitators. Your entire argument also applies to them. Do you see making the same torture exception for military officers and senior non-commissioned officers that get captured?
Come on torturers! If you’re willing to be brave enough to torture someone you should be brave enough to admit it and stand trial for it. I’m looking at you Cheney
I agree. But I don’t know if setting a “higher bar” is substantial. (Interesting to note that public support for torture has apparently gone up in recent years, which is the opposite of what I would have expected.)
No, I like my scenario just fine, thanks.
You’re not torturing the terrorists for “no reason”. You’re torturing them to stop the plans they’ve been involved in planning from coming to fruition, or the terror groups they’ve been involved in building from continuing to function.
From a purely moral standpoint, yes. From a practical standpoint, no.
The reason for many Geneva Convention rules and the like is because if one side does it the other side does it too, and a lot of people suffer and no one gets an advantage.
Hypothetical. * With respect to the * to save my own life (or anyone else’s) quoted above.
Your 8 year old daughter has been kidnapped. She’s being held in an abandoned refrigerator. She has 10 minutes of air left. You have the kidnapper tied in a chair before you. It’s just you and him. He refuses to tell you where your daughter is being held, other than it’s only 5 minutes away. The kidnapper won’t talk. You have a butane torch. The phones are out, you can’t call for help. You have 5 minutes to save your daughters life. You’re the only option left for her.
Whose life is more valuable, you daughter’s or the kidnapper’s?
I never rushed a fraternity, but I’m pretty sure it doesn’t involve standing for hours at a time on broken feet and legs, or dying of hypothermia while chained to a floor. Your college might’ve been a lot rougher than most, though.
I’m fairly certain you could spot an abandoned refrigerator that lay within a circle encompassing all points 5 minutes away from you without wasting time torturing a human being.
Well, you *think *you’ve got the kidnapper, anyway. At least, that’s what the criminal the cops arrested months ago told you in exchange for a lighter sentence. He might actually be an innocent bystander or someone your informant doesn’t like, but hey, what’s a few innocent lives when your daughter’s only got minutes of air?
Luckily you’ve got a basement full of potential kidnappers- eventually you’ll find the one who knows where your daughter is, right?
Speaking solely for myself, I would torture, murder, and otherwise destroy someone to protect my child in that hypothetical.
I would nonetheless still consider my actions to be repugnant, cowardly, and morally indefensible.
Thank Kdapt that situation will never arise.
There’s no “gotcha” here. I know that I am a weak, emotionally-driven, and deeply flawed human being. I know that I would compromise my ethics and my morality in some situations. But I strive to be better than that, and I want my fellow citizens and the government we have established to be better than that as well.
I’d like you to explain how torturing someone stops plans that OTHER PEOPLE are carrying out. Especially when, as has been stated numerous times by people more knowledgeable than me, any information garnered through torture is highly suspect, and probably worthless.
also, if your scenario had started with the point of killing the terrorists, it might have made a better discussion point.
Meh. A scenario where you’re overwhelmingly sure it’s the kidnapper is plausible. And for myself, cowardly or not, I’m gonna do what it takes to get my daughter back. At which point I’ll turn myself over for prosecution.
There’s a reason why we don’t set up laws such that parents of rape victim may legally murder the rapists. Our justice system is supposed to be impartial, and parents aren’t that.
