What she said, only forcefully.
In the “baby crawling towards the button” scenario the person who would be on the receiving end of my .357 slug would be the dumbass who wired all the world’s nukes to a single red button. The baby did nothing wrong and I’d rather go out of this world at peace with myself for not having killed an innocent child than live with myself for killing a baby.
Enjoy,
Steven
BTW, threatening the children of an extremist who is so dedicated to his cause he’d actually send his friends on kamikaze missions to take out a few thousand random Americans(as opposed to the President, military, or lawmakers) sounds like a very good way to justify his stance and harden his resolve to die opposing the US.
Enjoy,
Steven
I re-read the other replies here. You guys cheat. Answer the reakin’ question. 
Would you torture someone’s child to save the lives of millions of innocents.
The baby doesn’t push the button, an observer does.
If you saw a baby nearing a line on the floor, and you knew that when the baby crossed that line someone would push the button, would you kill the baby? To save millions of lives?
There are no “outs” in this dilema. Baby or millions. No, you don’t get to kill the “somebody” who has the button.
Me? no. Wouldn’t even have to be a baby.
Diogenes the Cynic I think you are being a little hard on torben, he wasn’t suggesting that millions of lives are at stake in the current situation of Mr. Mohammed’s children. He was asking about a terrorist like Mr. Mohammed but in a scenario where millions of lives are at stake. It’s quite conceivable that a terrorist (of any nation) might plant a nuclear device in a well populated city (in any country). The authorities capture the terrorist after the device has been planted, and the terrorist can be easily identified as having been in contact with the device (left over radioactivity …). How far should the authorities go to gain the information from the terrorist as to where the device is hidden.
I believe there would be nothing physical you could do to me to make me confess the bombs location if I were the terrorist, but if you threatened my Nephew or Niece I might crack. If you made me believe that my Nephew or Niece were being tortured or harmed, and convinced me the harm would stop if I talked I think I would talk.
First of all, I’d have to know for an incontravertible fact that it was either the lives of millions, or the lives of these innocent children. If I did know, then I would condone it, although I would hate myself for it. Look at it this way: If you torture and kill the innocent kids, they die. If you don’t, then millions of people just as innocent, including lots of little kids, die.
If I just thought that it might save millions, I couldn’t do it. But I would certainly make the terrorist think that I would. Thing is, that may not do any good. The terrorist would just think that his kids would go to heaven and be with Allah and boff 72 virgins, or whatever.
What I would do would be to take the promise of afterlife bliss from the terrorist. Tell him if he doesn’t speak, you’re going to kill him, shove a fistful of bacon up his ass, and bury him in pigskin, thus assuring his eternal damnation. That could make him think twice.
Jeff
I’m against torture for the many reasons already mentioned.
Bippy and others have a point about faking torture. For example, what if we faked a video of someone beating KSM’s nephew and showed it to him? I could go for that. Pretending to torture someone is not the same as doing it, right?
Exactly. This reasoning makes our hypothetical more realistic. There is no reason to legalize torture for extreme cases which the system would have no problem dealing with already. Or, if millions have been saved, cult hero status in prison would be the worst outcome. Then, in a few years after early release for good behavior, come out and spend the rest of your life giving speeches and going on talk shows.
I can’t believe that since 9/11 there have been so many threads considering a torture policy seriously. It’s one thing to turn a blind eye in the event of the nighmare worst-case scenario, another to grasp for justifications for torture as a normal means of acquiring information.
Would that work? Would Allah really reject a devoted muslim for actions, not his own, such as you describe?
Oh please, not that again.
zuma-Please stick to the topic. There are plenty of bigoted racists threads here to vent at the US.
Hate to break it to you but the US is not a race. Anyway, I was merely commenting on the type of message torturing children would send out, which is completely on topic. :wally
What about if you had to torture a terrorist’s child in order to save hundreds of children from being tortured? Personally, I think the less children tortured the better. But I know I wouldn’t be able to do it.
In real life applications NO, but the fear of such activity could be used.
In order for the US to maintain the moral high ground and maintain the respect it has worldwide it has to act in such a way.
Priceguy - I agree with shijinn. There is no way I would kill the baby and there is no way in which such a thing would be acceptable.
Hmm… must remember to post after reading all replies…
Some of you guys write really good stuff!
Guys, guys, guys. It’s not a big red button, it’s a lever.
And the baby’s name is Nate.
Better Nate than lever!
No, because you are assuming the terrorist would bend to your demands when faced with the torture of his own children. A terrorist who is dedicated to the destruction of The Great Satan would gladly sacrifice himself and his family to further his goals. It would be a mistake to attribute your own values to your enemy.
What they’ve both said.
NO!
I still say no. You have no right to take the life of an innocent, no matter what you gain by doing it. I know I couldn’t bring myself to torture a child. And if there were somebody with me who could, I think I’d use my hypothetical .357 slug on them instead. It’s just too horrible.
IMHO, of course…
About the nuclear baby… did I say it was going to happen? I just hate categorical imperatives. They never ever hold up. Ever. I can keep making up scenarios (a deranged man tells you to kill the baby or he will kill the baby, you, your wife, your children, your pet penguin and the entire population of Tasmania) until one is accepted, but that’s not the point.
Let’s get it as mechanistic as possible: either you kill the baby, or millions of other people die. Simple binary situation. If you won’t kill the baby, you’re a total and utter egoist, ready to sacrifice millions to buy yourself a little peace of mind.
No, I disagree. If you wont kill the baby you are a person of sound moral and ethical character.
If, on the other hand, there were two bombs - one that was going to kill a million people and another that was going to kill a baby, and you had to decide which to disarm first, knowing you could probably only do one - then naturally, the million people come first. But the scenario where you have to take action and actually kill the baby on purpose…
Nope. Nuh-ah. Sorry. Ain’t gonna happen.