Ticking time bomb scenario

In the Mad Bomber scenario, I do consider the torturing method to be ethical. You have a man threatening to kill hundreds of people by his own will. Knowing that you would have people’s lives at stake, if you can torture one bad person to save hundreds of good people’s lives than you should. Maybe taking something precious that he cannot live without will get him to cooperate. Not necessarily stating that you would harm his family or something precious to him. However, if showing him that he would

permissible in extreme emergency situations. By extreme emergency situations I mean when there is a risk that hundreds of people will be killed if the victim does not provide certain information. In the ticking time bomb case, interrogators have tried all the acceptable methods to get the code to disarm the bomb and have failed to do so and hence it is morally permissible to torture the person to get the code otherwise we will be putting the lives of millions of people at risks. Also, some cases where torture

Is torture ever justified? Torture has always been one of the most debatable topics in many countries and law convention. Some say that it is morally wrong to use torture and it is a fact that many laws of various countries prohibited torture in their prisons. However, is it always wrong? It is a fact that many countries still use torture in interrogation, but they keep it in secret. If it is morally wrong, then why did the government the people who should be the example for the citizens to follow

restrained and defenseless. In this paper I will argue that torture cannot be morally justified; torture ought not to be legalized or otherwise institutionalized even in the ticking time bomb scenario because the rights of the innocent against the guilty is not equally balanced and the idealization/abstraction problem in the ticking time bomb case makes it unrealistic. Allowing the institutionalization of torture will normalize its use, there will be

The United States of America; the strongest nation in the world. This phrase gives fear to others in the world. The United States feels fear as well. In the atmosphere of prosperity and peace, a cruel and inhumane torture the solution to the fear living in their hearts. The horrendous attack on the World Trade Center planted a sense of fear and worry in everyone’s minds. To avoid losing control of the nation, the United States conduct tortuous acts to get into the minds of terrorists and others suspects

What’s worse is that the physical and psychological damages that have been dealt to the detainee is irreparable harm that will haunt him for eternity. I do not deny that torturing has a certain, though limited extent of usefulness. Quoting New York Times report in 20091, President Obama’s national intelligence director told colleagues that the banned harsh interrogation techniques by the U.S did help to produce useful information that helped the nation in it’s struggle against terrorism. The obtained

Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq. The disturbing pictures were released on the internet showing bodies of naked Iraqis piled onto each other, others showed Iraqis being tortured and humiliated. There was a huge up roar, which caused the President at the time George W. Bush to publicly apologize, and threaten the job of Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld. Soon after, the CIA Conformed the use of waterboarding on three Al-Qaida suspects in 2002 and 2003, which further annihilated the topic. Since these

permitting these methods. To begin, the scenario known as the “ticking bomb” prompted attention to the idea that if a person knew where a bomb was located, and it could kill numerous people, and they chose to be uncooperative by remaining silent, then they should be tortured to reveal information. However, Brecher (Jackson and Sinclair, 2012) states quite clearly, “No, the consequences of torturing the suspect would be even worse than the carnage the bomb would cause,” (p. 160). The reasons for this

order to get what you want from this person. Krauthhammer’s “The Truth About Torture: It’s Time to be Honest About doing a Terrible Thing” and Sullivan’s “The Abolition of Torture” are two different views on torture and whether or not it should be made legal and the moral complications that arise in certain situations. Although torture is a monstrous and horrible thing, there are two cases (ticking time bomb and high level terrorist problem) where you have to reconsider whether or not torture can

to commit to either side. A University of Montana study claimed that people's views of torture are often negative. However, those views change in a scenario where they felt closeness to potential victims. Results from the study suggested that people were considerably more likely to support torture during personal scenarios compared to distant scenarios. Although, people still perceive torture to be wrong, the study gives insight that many people are willing look past their moral objections in extreme