Reply #8: There are several other arguments as well [View All]

[starroute]

One is that the limited time-frame of the ticking time bomb scenario would make it all too easy for the prisoner to say, "Oh yeah, it's hidden in an old warehouse on 11th street, behind a wall, I think it was on the east side of the second floor -- or maybe the north side of the third. Well, just hunt around and you'll find it." So the cops go ripping up every old warehouse on 11th street -- and a half hour later, while they're still knocking out walls, a used car lot on 27th street goes nuclear.

Another is that there has never to my knowledge been a government that gave itself the power to torture its prisoners that didn't use it far too routinely and easily. So the question becomes: Which do you think poses a greater actual danger to you and your loved ones -- the hypothetical ticking-bomb situation (which has never actually occurred) or a government run amok? And which one are you more willing to risk to prevent the other?

A third might be to point out that this whole scenario really derives from World War II-style battlefield situations, where a captured enemy prisoner might potentially have some key information that could protect you or your fellow soldiers. There actually might be a serious moral argument to be had about whether it's justifiable to crank up the field telephone in a case like that. But it's an argument that applies *only* to the special conditions of the traditional battlefield -- which is why the ticking time-bomb legion never actually admits that's where they're getting the paradigm.

Among other things, on a battlefield you're already likely to be aware that there are tanks and guns and other dangerous toys sitting around and presenting a danger to you. But how are you going to know there's an imminent danger in an ordinary urban setting unless your captured terrorist tells you about it? And if they're already telling you about all their secret plots, why would you have to torture them?