what about a torturer extracting information about a bomb placed in a school?
Thus philosophical debate has been going on for ages, like the medical advances made by horrific means by the nazis, or whether it's even ethical to listen to Wagner. Does good that comes from evil ever justify the evil? We wont solve that now or anytime, it's much the same debate as the one for the death penalty, because that's been shown time and time that it has no deterrent effect.
> what about a torturer extracting information about a bomb placed in a school?
What about someone divining the information about the bomb from the entrails of puppies?
Why prefer one horrendous and inexact method over another?
((though maybe if the information was actually inside one of the puppies they'd do it because it's "just a puppy", whose lives are arguably less valuable than schoolchildren))
What if the information is engraved on someone's pacemaker? What if you know that the information is maybe perhaps possibly wrong?
If you think these scenarios are unlikely, FYI so is the "torturing to extract information about a bomb in a school" scenario.
What if you take into account the person you proposed should be tortured, most probably hasn't been formally found guilty?
What if you take into account that even if you think you're pretty sure, innocent people are sometimes found guilty (and even put to death)?
What if you take into account that this course of action means that you are now living in a society where torture is considered legitimate in a police investigation? Meaning that it will be used more often, and therefore with growing certainty at some point applied to innocent people (just like happens in places that still support the death penalty). How big of a school does it need to be, for you, to justify that? Including the part where you take into account that you can't be sure whether you will obtain any correct information at all.
It has been proven multiple times throughout history that torture is completely ineffective in extracting information. Claiming that torture has any sort of positive benefit both alarming and sad. Alarming because this is exactly what the US government wants its populous to think (torturing terrorist in Guantanamo!) Sad because it's saying that some people deserve to be treated like animals, missing the irony that it requires a savage animal to treat others like animals.
Is it morally obligatory to skullfuck a prisoner if that is the only way to prevent a bomb from exploding a school?
(To flesh out the scenario, you receive a call from a terrorist. He assures you that he has placed bombs in two schools. To prove it, he blows up one school. He demands that you cut out prisoner 54325's left eyeball, and perform the sexual act upon the empty eye-socket to orgasm, on video. If you do not, he will blow up the second school.)
I don't know why you are getting downvoted, it's a perfectly valid point.
There are cases where there'd be a choice between acting ethically towards one person or saving a live of another. The dissonance is further amplified when there's more than one life at stake.
GP, just pretend your kid was kidnapped and be dead in 24 hours if you don't find him. Now, say, you have an unrestricted access to the kidnapper who knows where your child is.
The problem is false confessions. People have even confessed to be a witch and get burned, to stop torture.
Just pretend your kid was kidnapped and be dead in 24 hours if you don't find him. Now, say, you have an unrestricted access to someone that is accused of being the kidnapper. (By the way, he was accused by the former boyfriend of his daughter, because he didn’t like the relationship.) Now, you are lucky , and you get unrestricted access to a new suspect. (By the way, he is a moron the police incriminate because they must show some result to the press before the 11 news report.)
> GP, just pretend your kid was kidnapped and be dead in 24 hours if you don't find him. Now, say, you have an unrestricted access to the kidnapper who knows where your child is.
This is why we disapprove of vigilante justice. Because it can make any course of action seem like a good idea, given that you are sufficiently emotionally involved.
The problem with that scenario is that it's not effective. The violence of it could only be justified were it effective at producing true information which could stop a bomb threat.
You should pick an example like "Well, if we torture the rival lord in to giving a false confession that he committed a crime, we can stabilize the political landscape of the kingdom."
Thus philosophical debate has been going on for ages, like the medical advances made by horrific means by the nazis, or whether it's even ethical to listen to Wagner. Does good that comes from evil ever justify the evil? We wont solve that now or anytime, it's much the same debate as the one for the death penalty, because that's been shown time and time that it has no deterrent effect.