1. Suppose a man has planted a bomb in New York City, and it will explode in twenty-four hours unless the police are able to find it. Should it be legal for the police to use torture to extract information from the suspected bomber? Does utilitarianism get the right answer?
1a. Now suppose the man who has planted the bomb will not reveal the location unless an innocent member of his family is tortured. Should it be legal for the police to torture innocent people, if that is truly the only way to discover the location of a large bomb? Does utilitarianism have the right answer?
Here goes--I don't know if I am doing this right since I was unable to make meeting one. Ellen J
ReplyDeleteNo. The important words here are “suspected” and “torture.” First of all, we are not even sure the suspect is, in fact, the bomber. Supposition is not is not very firm ground on which to make decisions. Secondly, when one uses evil (torture) to combat evil, one becomes like the person he/she despises.
1A-- No. Same reasoning as above. In addition, I now know the person being tortured is innocent.
1.In this day and age...yes! We have seen what happens when we don't have the guts or courage to do what is needed. Too many "namby pambys" out there who are too weak and don't have the toughness in them to do what is needed. If we are 100% positive we have the right person, then our government should do all they can do..
ReplyDelete1a.No. believe me, our government has ways to make you talk. I don't care who you are or what training you have had. There are ways to make you talk. So don't even play this game with him.
There are too many gaps in this story to give an answer. I agree with Ellen that a suspect should not be tortured. Innocent until proven guilty; I believe this categorically and this is my answer to question 1a as well. What profit is it to gain the world but lose your eternal soul?
ReplyDeleteI agree with Gill that inquisitors should negotiate from strength and not play games with terrorists, but this strength must be extremely controlled. I'm reminded of the true history of a Roman inquisitor who tortured a confession of being a Jew from a favorite advisor to the King of Portugal. The kingsman was put to death. Hearing of this the King invited the inquisitor to his court, whereupon he had the man tortured by the same techniques and extracted a confession of being a Jew from the Roman. The King sent a letter to the Pope saying in essence, 'You'll be happy to know that we've found your chief inquisitor to be a Judaizer. We've taken care of the problem.'
If beyond a reasonable doubt the terrorist is known to have planted the bomb, then he has forfeit his rights and may be tortured, even killed.
Utilitarianism does not have the right answer because it is predicated on a faulty premise, namely that the needs of the many categorically outweigh the needs of the few or the one (even if it’s Mr. Spock : ) Utilitarianism is sometimes correct, but it is not absolutely right.
I find the sentence above about the terrorist forfeiting his rights compelling. If the FBI could have prevented 911 by torturing the planner of that act, should they have done so? Would that not have saved the lives not only in the twin towers but the wars that followed? I find it hard to argue against the torture? But I equally abhor the idea of torturing anyone not directly guilty of the act - ie the innocent family member.
ReplyDeletePersonally I am not "the end justifies the means" person. That is way too much of a "slippery slope". For one thing, we cannot fully know the full result of our actions, unless we have perspective of history. Since Clint brought up Mr. Spock, I remember an episode from the original Star Trek where Kirk, Spock and Bones went back in time to just prior to WWII. They attempted to save the life of a peace activist but in doing so were able to see the result of America failing to enter that war and the result of a Nazi victory.
If an action is against conscience but seems to promote the good of the greater number, we should be skeptical at the very least.
If one uses the utilitarian philosophy, one would say "yes" because they would argue it was done for the greater good of the majority. I think of 9-11 and wonder if these tactics were or are used today when suspects are revealed who may be plotting something against the general good of the people. Although I am against torture, I can see how this might be the right thing to do in this case. I don't think it is right to torture innocent people just because someone insists on it for revelation of information. I would look for another way to accomplish the same purpose. Find another way to discover the location of a large bomb.
ReplyDeleteSuggested is the key word for me. There are people who spent years on Death Row in U.S. prisons who were later found to be innocent of the crime. Too many "what ifs." What if this is a lower level operative who only holds minimal information? What if this person has suicide bomber rationale? I believe I lean towards a no. While we might say "I'd do this" or "I'd do that" if we were the one assigned to carry out the torture, we wouldn't have the backbone. We cannot condemn an act of terrorism -- which in itself is designed to instill maximum terror -- and at the same time set out to inflict that same amount of terror into a suspect to get information. At this point -- interrogation/torture/terrorism -- becomes a game of semantics.
ReplyDeleteI'm late coming to this group, and therefore missed this discussion. (We saw the movie yesterday.)
ReplyDelete1) I do believe that we need to deal from a position of strength when it comes to terrorists. However, the words “suspected” and “torture” are going too far for me. Isolate him - yes, question him - yes, collect evidence – yes. All with a protective system of the judicial system involved. The sticking point is torture. How is that defined?
2) No. No innocent family members should be included. It would be questionable whether they had knowledge anyway.
The utilitarians believe if you add up the benefits and subtract the costs, you will serve the greater good. But this scenario is not black and white! Where do we draw the line? If we start torturing on suspiscion for one thing, why not for something else. Where does it end? I am also thinking the there are people in the world who would die for their cause; there's nothing you could do to make them talk. In the second example, it would be totally out of line to torture an innocent person.
ReplyDeleteSo my personal belief, no, the utilitarians did not get it right.
If the man has admitted to planting a bomb, then he isn't innocent; he's already guilty. He just won't reveal the location of the bomb. Ultimately his goal has been accomplished, and he is willing to sacrifice his life. The utilitarian belief justifies doing whatever is necessary to save the larger number of people. If the man's family members have to die, then so be it. (I'm not saying it's okay, nor would I want to be the person involved in this scenario. However, there are people trained in these tactics. Watch the movie Unthinkable with Samuel L. Jackson. It's a great movie and poses a similar scenario).
ReplyDeleteI understand this proposal to state that this man is the planter of the bomb, and is a "suspected bomber," only because the bomb has not detonated. I personalize such hypothetical scenarios, so I consider that my granddaughter is among the many toddlers who will die at their daycare/preschool locations if the bomb detonates. I have no doubt that the man will reveal the bomb's location, at the hands of professionals, who would be FBI or CIA or some other federal employees. Legal for local police to extract the information? No. OK for more highly skilled enforcers? Yes. Torture the bomber's family members? Moot point - not needed.
ReplyDelete1. I am struggling with the word “suspected” in this case. If the police know for sure they have the actual bomber in custody then I believe they should be allowed to use any means necessary to locate the bomb. In this case, torturing the bomber in order to save hundreds, possibly even thousands, would be the right answer.
ReplyDelete1a. I would have to go against utilitarianism in this case. Even though I know torturing one innocent person may lead to the happiness of the greater number in society, I cannot morally justify torture of an innocent person.
This is a tough one... For me, I have to look to the Constitution on this, and several rights stand out to me in this case: innocent until proven guilty, the right to a speedy and public trial by a jury of peers, and no cruel and unusual punishment. If we really follow these ideas that the country was founded on, then in no way would it be right to torture the accused man (because he is only a suspect until he gets that trial), and especially not the innocent family member.
ReplyDeleteYes, utilitarianism would say torture on either scenario would benefit the most people, but does morality in general tell us that toruture is right and acceptable? I would say definitely not.