 Author |
 Post
|
 |
|
Ray Ovac
Joined: May 12, 2004
Posts: 255 (view all)
Poster Rank:
Blabbermouth
User is
Offline
|
Torture: Ethics question
May 23, 2004 - 01:50 AM
|
|
With all of the discussion (very good discussion, I might add) about the abuses of prisoners in Iraq, I remembered a classic Ethics question that I studied years ago. It goes something like this:
A group of terrorists have acquired a thermonuclear weapon capable of destroying a city the size of Tokyo, London, or New York. They have been able to shield the weapon in such a way that unless its location is known that it will be impossible to locate using any known technology.
This group has situated the bomb somewhere inside one of these large cities and it is set to detonate at 6:00 AM on the following day (it is currently 11:00 PM). There is less than 7 hours to find and disarm the bomb. It would be impossible to evacuate any more than about 1% of the population of the city in this short time due to the logistics of moving people out of the city and is further compounded by the fact that a majority of the population is already asleep and would not even be able to be made aware of the problem before it was too late.
A single member of the terrorist group is captured and knows where the bomb is and how to disarm it.
Here is the first question: Would it be appropriate to use any method of extraction (including torture) to gain this information from this prisoner. Assume that it is a given that the terrorist knows both where the bomb is and how to safely deactivate it is he only provided the information. Also assume that questioning (without force) has yielded no results and neither has the use of so - called "truth serum" (sodium pentathol, etc)...which could even be construed as torture.
The answer to the first is either "Yes" or "No".
The second question is this: If the answer to the first question was "Yes", then would you consider the same methods if the town was smaller (population of 100,00)? What about 10,000? What about a small apartment building with 10 people with a large explosive as opposed to a nuclear weapon? What about a single person with the bomb strapped to them but no other humans at risk?
Also, if you answered "Yes" to the first or any of the following questions, then what methods would you be willing to employ (no need to be graphic, just provide a general description of the magnitude i.e. - "Make them uncomfortable through temperature extremes or exposure", "Apply excruciating pain sufficient to cause the subject to lose consciousness" .
I find this an interresting topic because it forces us to consider the value human rights and question the issue of "moral equivalency" (for example: what level of civility are we willing to sacrifice for one man to prevent a greater wrong on so many others?)
I will try to post a poll (I hope that I know how to do it) With just your answer to the first question. Feel free to discuss in greater detail, though, through the forum.
God Bless
|
|
back to top |
link to this post
|
|
Antoine Wood
Joined: Apr 25, 2002
Posts: 88 (view all)
Poster Rank:
Chatterbox
User is
Offline
Gender & Age: Male, 25
Country: Canada
Province/State: Ontario
City: Brampton
|
Tough question
May 23, 2004 - 11:12 AM
|
|
That's such a hard question to answer. It was hard but I said no. Torturing is against my moral code. No one can force you to do something immoral (and I define an immoral acts as one that goes against what you believe in), it's a choice. When given that choice I can't choose to do evil in order to erase that person's actions which are immoral by my standards. And even though it didn't play into my decision the effctiveness of torture over a 7 hour period is doubtful, even if he told you where the bomb was, do you think he'd tell you how to disarm it or how to make it blow. I'm sure I could evacuate more than 1% of the population, in London that's only like 75 000 people, y0ou have to give me more credit than that.... especially late at night nice clear rodes for the military to take control of and organize an evacuation. Planes, ships, hellocopters, buses, trains. I'm sure I could get a fair amount of people out... but not everyone which still leaves the same moral dillema... ahh...
Simply said I don't feel torture is an effective way of gaining accurate information, nor is it worth existing on the basis that you're willing to do anything.
|
|
back to top |
link to this post
|
|
Ray Ovac
Joined: May 12, 2004
Posts: 255 (view all)
Poster Rank:
Blabbermouth
User is
Offline
Country: United States
|
Re: Torture: Ethics question
May 25, 2004 - 01:33 AM
|
|
Antoine:
I agree, it's a tough question and this is why I posed it. Just as an FYI, way back when I studied this subject and had this assignment I had to argue both positions (to use torture and to not use torture). To this day, I really can't say what I would do if faced with this situation. The primary argument, by the way, for saying "yes" was that inaction was as harmful as action. So, by doing nothing you were in, in effect causing the deaths (and probably indirect torture) of many more people. Of course, the main points of the "no" argument related to the philosophies of ethics...that an absolute adherence to a standard of ethics in spite of circumstance is the only way to achieve (over the long term) the desired results for which the ethical standard was put into place. Of course, there were hundreds (as I recall) of arguments on both sides...many of which were good. Let's see what everyone else thinks!
God Bless
|
|
back to top |
link to this post
|
|
Brian
Joined: Jan 22, 2004
Posts: 464 (view all)
Poster Rank:
Blabbermouth
User is
Offline
Gender & Age: Male, 39
Country: United States
Province/State: North Carolina
City: Raleigh
|
Re: Torture: Ethics question
May 25, 2004 - 10:40 AM
|
|
If the terrorist is properly trained he will give disinformation and stall for a little while by telling a few really-good-sounding lies. This way he avoids being tortured and acheives his objective. I have read this is how our special operations people are trained to react if they are captured. If time is of the essence then there would be no opportunity for fact-checking. My point is that torture would be irrelevant in this situation anyway because to properly extract credible information using torture requires time. Calling in a psychic wold be more effective! haha
|
|
back to top |
link to this post
|
|
Laurent Straskraba
Joined: Dec 11, 2002
Posts: 237 (view all)
Poster Rank:
Chatterbox
User is
Offline
Country: Austria
Province/State: Oberosterreich
City: Linz
|
there is only one way as far as i see...
May 25, 2004 - 11:27 AM
|
|
one needs to understand the motive of this action and try to find an offer that will satisfy the interest of the criminal _and_ save the people's life.
if there is no such solution available, what can you do? nothing but to leave responsibility for this where it belongs to. we can only try to do our best...
one thing here is to make the terrorist aware that he will not reach his goal, i.e. to die as a "holy warrior" but will he live his whole life inside prison - without 70 virgins around or any other things he would have in mind as a benefit for his actions. maybe there is even a way to make this person aware that he will work against his own moral values and that he creates suffer to his beloved ones. the first thing ever is try to UNDERSTAND the way he thinks.
anyone in here read the book "getting to yes!" from harvard prof. fisher? i only can recommend this book to everyone thinking about tough decision making.
p.s: may the force be with you hope you understand ...
|
|
back to top |
link to this post
|
|
tom trubee
Joined: May 25, 2004
Posts: 2 (view all)
Poster Rank:
Tongue-tied
User is
Offline
Country: United Kingdom
Province/State: London, City of
City: London
|
Re: Torture: Ethics question
May 25, 2004 - 12:00 PM
|
|
while the featured arguments are of a very good standard and i can fully see their point of view, i am forced to disagree.surley if it impossible to evacuate that many people in that short amount of time every effort should be made to save the lives of the innocent. While it is against morales of a lot of people surley the one man, who happens to be a terrorist, can be allowed to go throught the same amount of pain he is about to inflict if it means lives can be saved.
i know many people will agree but surley they are able to see where i am coming from. personaly i am disgusted by the recent behaviour in iraq. Mainly because this form of torture provides no benefit to the innocents in iraq but merely for the enjoyment of bored soldiers.
tom
|
|
back to top |
link to this post
|
|
Udara
Joined: Dec 10, 2003
Posts: 1055 (view all)
Poster Rank:
Blabbermouth
User is
Offline
Gender & Age: Male, 28
Country: Sri Lanka
|
Re: Torture: Ethics question
June 13, 2004 - 08:20 AM
|
|
Originally posted by BrianK
If the terrorist is properly trained he will give disinformation and stall for a little while by telling a few really-good-sounding lies. This way he avoids being tortured and acheives his objective. I have read this is how our special operations people are trained to react if they are captured. If time is of the essence then there would be no opportunity for fact-checking. My point is that torture would be irrelevant in this situation anyway because to properly extract credible information using torture requires time. Calling in a psychic wold be more effective! haha
Yeah, True!
Udara
|
|
back to top |
link to this post
|
|
Hasan
Joined: Feb 25, 2004
Posts: 96 (view all)
Poster Rank:
Chatterbox
User is
Offline
Gender & Age: Male, 32
Country: Bangladesh
City: Savar
|
negociation
June 13, 2004 - 09:51 AM
|
|
I think we all have to look one thing here. that is the key word, "TIME LIMIT FOR BLAST". In your case, it is just 7 hours to blast. It also depends on who the person is; is he one of the leader of the group, or he is following orders.
In most cases, torture won't work. If you torture, he may give you wrong information, and that won't help deactivation in short time.
The only way to solve it; try to negociate with him(personal). Try to find out what he wants. Not his whole group, just him. Offer him money, safety.
|
|
back to top |
link to this post
|
|
Antoine Wood
Joined: Apr 25, 2002
Posts: 88 (view all)
Poster Rank:
Chatterbox
User is
Offline
Gender & Age: Male, 25
Country: Canada
Province/State: Ontario
City: Brampton
|
Re: Torture: Ethics question
June 21, 2004 - 02:17 AM
|
|
I rethought this question, and though it pains me I'm going to have to say yes, because I realized there was another question at the route of this. Not only the question about whether morals are absolute or should be bent for gain or to avoid loss, but there is also the question of duty. As the person making this decision, my personal opinion has to be voided. That's the price that is paid by taking the position in the first place, and a just person would never implicitly agree to use torture in this situation and then not use it when the time comes.
|
|
back to top |
link to this post
|
|
|
Display posts from:
|
Home
Community
