Quote:
Originally Posted by Frownland
Oops.
A man has been apprehended for attempting to bomb a public building, but he claims that there are more bombs in the city that he set up. However, that's all the information he is willing to give. A police officer suggests using torture tactics to save lives if there are more bombs out there. Is this acceptable?
|
My feelings on torture are kind of convoluted. On the one hand, allowing the use of torture would subvert and run against the current trend of human morality. As much as the information might be valuable the possible harm to the fabric of society's morals might be too great.
On the other, depending on the severity of the threat it might be impossible to simply do nothing regardless.
I think a reasonable, if unpleasant, compromise might be what I imagine occasionally goes on already in extreme situations: torture in secret when absolutely necessary and then throw the perpetrators to the wolves if it ever comes to light. You get the information you need and people get to maintain the illusion of moral superiority.