An american judge is coming under fire today for saying that there are times when torture may be allowable. At first sight this appears a terrible thing for a judge to say. But never trust the media to give the full story when half a story sounds better (just ask the archbishop). At least, as I understand it, the judge was given teh great dilemma question. That is, a plane piloted by terrorists is flying straight for the twin towers, in front of you sits one of their accomplices and he is the only one that can give you a way to stop it, to save all those people. Do you stick a needle under his fingernail to make him talk?
I believe torture is wrong. But in that instance, I really don't know. It goes against everything I believe in to say that in that one moment torture could be allowed, but it also seems ridiculous to say that I wouldn't allow one person to suffer in order to save hundreds. There is no right answer because this is a hypothetical and, as such, give the judge a break.
3 comments:
There is always another side to a story..that is why I try to be non judgmental..it's also why I am notoriously bad at making decisions.....
Maybe you need a needle under your nails to help you decide Sally? ;-)
It's a complex issue. Evidence shows that info obtained by torture is notoriously flaky. And there's that nagging though of Nietzsche that he who seeks to fight a monster should take care lest he becomes a monster...
Sometimes means determine ends and all that.
that's the problem though isn't it 1iz. Yes, information obtained by torture is often dubious, the Spanish Inqisition (nobody expects the spanish inquisition)was a very good example. And if we do allow torture then we are no better. Easy. But if you could save 1000 people by torturing one would that b wrong? And once that door is open even a crack then where do we go from there.
Post a Comment