Tuesday, February 12, 2008

Scream

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:

sally said...

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.....

1 i z said...

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.

Merlin said...

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.