Posted by:
Henry Bemis
(
)
Date: January 24, 2020 12:36PM
https://samharris.org/in-defense-of-torture/“Imagine that a known terrorist has planted a bomb in the heart of a nearby city. He now sits in your custody. Rather than conceal his guilt, he gloats about the forthcoming explosion and the magnitude of human suffering it will cause. Given this state of affairs—in particular, given that there is still time to prevent an imminent atrocity—it seems that subjecting this unpleasant fellow to torture may be justifiable. For those who make it their business to debate the ethics of torture this is known as the “ticking-bomb” case.”
This hypothetical is meant to argue that there are at least some cases where torture would be almost universally deemed morally appropriate. (Imagine the terrorist was a Christian fundamentalist and his intended victims were Muslims worshiping in a large Mosque. Imagine further that it was known that the subject was sensitive to a relatively minor form of torture, say a single instance of water boarding, and would likely reveal the location of the bomb if subjected to such treatment.)
In short, I think the "ticking-bomb" hypothetical, when fully filled out, succeeds in demonstrating that torture is not morally objectionable per se: Given a utilitarian moral commitment that is based on some calculation of human suffering, torture may well be morally required.
Of course, that does not mean that it is acceptable as a general social or military policy. The question is NOT whether torture may in some cases be justified. The question is whether torture is an acceptable general policy without constraints; or with constraints that are minimal, vague, or left unenforced. Moreover, in the context of any general guidelines, there is a line to be drawn in each individual case. Where is the line to be drawn, and who should draw it? Given such complexities, it seems to me that the moral social position should be that torture is outright banned absent very extenuating circumstances and rigid procedures.