It’s an impossible scenario, a phony choice. Even so I’d say fuck the millions. I ain’t gonna torture no baby.
Peace of mind has a lot going for it. If everyone acted in a way destined to give them “peace of mind,” then they would tend to act in ethical ways. I can only applaud that.
Julie
ataraxy22
I have a guy called William James here who’s asking nicely if you’ll stop taking his philosophy in vain.
In a pragmatic world, by every understanding I have of the word pragmatic (and I’m a pragmatist, I think I should know), the ends and the means are both judged by the same criteria: “what difference does it make?” Your claim above shows a blissful ignorance of the meaning of the word.
xenophon41
To be honest, the US already pretty much has this reputation in a number of countries, whether it’s justified or not.
mangeorge
Read my lips. Torture. Doesn’t. Work.
All these hypotheticals are spiralling out of control here, people. Let’s try and reign this down to reality again. In the real world, just like with other forms of law enforcement, national security, intelligence and the like, it’s not me or you or Boppo the Clown doing the torture. It is an agent of the Government who’s doing it, be they a member of the Judicial System, the Police Force, the FBI or CIA or MI5/6 or the Kremlin or any Army, Navy or Air Force you want.
The question moves beyond “would it save lives?” (and if you want an argument as to why it wouldn’t, see the other torture thread), and becomes “can they be trusted?”
It is my contention that no government, no matter how trustworthy, can be trusted with torture, for the simple reason that even if they were trustworthy (and I wouldn’t trust any US, British or French administration in the last two thousand years with torture, especially those that did use it), you’d have to be really damn certain that the NEXT government could be trusted with those powers as well, and all the ones after that.
We spent something along the lines of three thousand years prising torture out of the hands of those in charge. Give it back to them to save a measly 100,000 lives? Yeah, if you’re sure that the powers you give won’t cause even more deaths in the long run.
What’s that? You trust the US Government to never abuse its power? OK, that’s your choice - but make sure you let people know who you are so that we can assign a responsible adult to supervise you when you step outside.
Priceguy
Yeah, but you go too far down that road and you end up losing sight of the issues. It is entirely possible to produce a hypothetical situation so far out, so mindblowingly impossible, so skewed to get the answer you want, that people will go “Ok, in that situation, I’d do/not do action X”. At that point, you either admit that their response to the hypothetical situation has nothing whatsoever to do with the issue at hand, or you go “hah, that means you admit that there are times when you’d do the opposite of what you’ve just said, therefore you’re a hypocrite”, thus exposing yourself as another jerk who can’t argue. Either way, whatever comes out of the hypothetical situation has no bearing whatsoever on the issue people are discussing, and is, at best, an amusing sideline, and at worst an irritating distraction.
For example:
Now, you’ve already loaded the question totally in favour of the answer you want to get. Operating within the universe of your hypothetical, sure, we’ll all give the answer you want to give. However, the fact that in real life there is no such thing as a simple binary situation renders this situation useless as a guide to actual behaviour of actual human beings in actual real actual life. Unless some decision I make will have a concrete effect, that is will make a difference on me if I answer it one way as opposed to any other way, I don’t see why I should waste my time, especially if its so obviously loaded like this.
Oh, and what the other people said 
Hey! I said no. Without qualification.
So you did. Sorry.
My only point was that you should never say “oh that’s wrong, always, under every circumstance, there’s no way ever it could ever be right”. Bull… shit.
And note that some people said that they’d prefer that the millions died. That’s egotistical. And… well, words have yet to be invented for what it is, but it’s it, all right.
Some people believe that to be the case, though. If I may draw an example from another thread, what about rape? What about molesting infants? If you had to anally rape a five year old to save the world, would you do it? I wouldn’t. Does that make me egotistical or selfish?
I am amused and troubled to see people here elevating the life of one baby over the lives of millions of babies. I have my doubts about whether any reliable information can ever be gotten by torture, but in the spirit of the OP, I would say yes, I would support such action.
Similarly, if the babie is cralling towards the red button, I would shoot w/o a moments hesitaiton, and probably would not loose any sleep over it, secure in the knowledge that I did what I had to do to save the lives of a million more innocent people.
Forget the baby. I wouldn’t even execute a 50 yr old fat guy.
Not even if you gave me one of those new .50-cal S&W pistols.
No, they’re elevating their own mental well-being over the lives of millions of babies. They don’t want a guilty conscience. If it were really about the baby, they’d shoot.
I am amused and troubled to see people so eager to kill a baby that they would make up some fantastic scenario to justify it.
Aha! We have discovered the decadent imperialists’ weakness. My baby army shall sweep down from the clouds unopposed. Rhum Runner can’t kill them all!
Seriously though, I can say right now that if I had a choice of tying off one of two safety lines- one saves a baby the other saves a busload of 30 yr olds- then the baby goes over the cliff. If I had to knock the baby over the cliff to get to the safety line I fear I would try to avoid it so much that everyone would die. I prefer to leave those kinds of decisions to the moment of truth.
As I posted in the other thread about torturing aliens, I think the following quote from A Man For All Seasons is appropriate:
Sir Thomas More: “This country is planted thick with laws from coast to coast. Man’s laws, not God’s. And if you cut them down–and you’re just the man to do it–do you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then?”
You have got to be kidding. This is your response? Has anyone said they were eager to kill a baby? Anyone? Have you stopped beating your wife?
“Have you stopped beating your wife?”
If I do, millions will die.
Anyway, it was when you said this;
“Similarly, if the babie is cralling towards the red button, I would shoot w/o a moments hesitaiton, and probably would not loose any sleep over it, secure in the knowledge that I did what I had to do to save the lives of a million more innocent people.”
that prompted my reply.
Maybe I misunderstood?
Maybe “eager” was a little strong. Substitute “ready”.
These threads are always written by the uninformed who seem able to justify any action by removing it to the lofty realm of hypothetical questions. The problem with torturing anybody comes when we decide who will apply the torture and how much.
Maybe we should tie the kids to a table and have the CIA put out cigarette butts on their chests. That’s a favorite in Somalia.
Or perhaps we should lie them down on a concrete floor and have men in boots walk on them over and over again, digging in the heels? In Haitian prisons, that was a specialty.
Why don’t we tape them having their hands or arms cut off? That was very effective in Sierra Leone and Rwanda.
Maybe we could blindfold them, then suspend them by their heels over a concrete floor…from time to time, we let the rope go just slack enough so that they don’t quite hit the floor…or maybe the do. Algerian military prisons like that one.
I’m sure the OP will be glad to apply any of these to a ten-year-old child to save the world. I just require that he do it IN PERSON. No proxies; no video tricks; the OP has to show up wherever the kids are being kept and volunteer to apply any ONE of the above methods to a fourth-grader. If it’s moral to do, then YOU do it.
My purpose here is to cause every person who says that “torture can be morally justified under certain circumstances” to grasp, preferably by running to the toilet and vomiting, what this actually means. I want you to be sickened. I want you to be revolted. REAL torture, not this bulls**t hypothetical “pressure” cannot be justified, ever.
Myself, I would rather perish in a nuclear explosion then apply one lit cigarette to a little girl or boy. I work in New York City; I worked across the street from the WTC on 9/11/2001. I still believe
----Only love can conquer hate----------
----Give peace a chance-------------
----Thou shalt not kill-----------------
I’ll do it. Given the choice between torturing one child and seeing a million others die the moral thing to do is to torture the one so that the others may live. See J.S. Mill On Utilitarianism
mangeorge, obviously this exercise is a bit ridiculous, but sacrificing millions for the life of one child is an amoral thing to do. I know, this invites all sorts of line drawing, but I view it as a cop out to simply say that recognizing the morality of a heinous act in one case will lead to heinous acts in all cases. The “wife beating” comment was directed to your eager comment, but thats moot now.
How many of you would be baby killers / child torturers have any kids of your own? If you do (which you obviously don’t or you wouldn’t have your heads so far up your asses on this question) would you be willing to torture or murder yor own kid to save this hypothetical million assholes?
BTW, if you are not a parent, then I have no interest in your answer to my hypothetical. My question presumes that you have the life experience of being a parent. If you haven’t had that experience then you can’t really answer it with any emotional credibility.