From: Blunderov (squooker@mweb.co.za)
Date: Sun May 23 2004 - 13:28:53 MDT
rhinoceros
Sent: 23 May 2004 07:28 PM
<snip>
But can't torture at least be used on someone who might know of an imminent
terrorist act? Not without opening the door to pervasive torture. The
problem with this "ticking bomb" scenario is that it is infinitely elastic.
Why stop with the terrorist suspect himself? Why not torture his neighbor or
friend who might know something about an attack? And why stop with an
imminent attack? Aren't the potential victims of possible future attacks
just as worthy of protection by torture? The slope is very slippery.
<end quote>
---- [Blunderov] Quite an important point. Recently I came across an interesting example of logical chicanery that bears a haunting resemblance to some evangelical rhetoric that I have heard sometimes. It goes "If you had to torture 10 people in order to save a life, would you?" It attempts to establish the proposition that a certain amount of wrong can be equal to a certain amount of right. The trouble is if you answer yes to the question, you would also have to answer yes to the question 'If you had to torture everyone on the planet in order to save a life, would you?' in order not to be self-contradictory. (The criteria are not quantifiable in any way that is not entirely arbitrary.) So really the question amounts to "Do you believe in torture or not?" Best Regards --- To unsubscribe from the Virus list go to <http://www.lucifer.com/cgi-bin/virus-l>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sun May 23 2004 - 13:30:26 MDT