"You are advised that torture is guaranteed to
produce the information needed to
ensure the authorities find and make the bomb safe"


Yes

The scenario is always flawed, because torture never actually works. So it's one thing to ask whether torturing someone could prevent the deaths of thousands, but it's not a reflection on how these things play out.

People who are being tortured will generally do and say anything to get the torture to stop, regardless of what they do or don't know, so what generally happens in cases of torture, is that the perpetrators end up with a load of false information, which, if you're on a tight deadline to prevent a bomb going off is the last thing you need.

It's just an impossible scenario that is always viewed over simplistically.

:hugesmile:he might like that though,Jake.

If it was going to get information that would save thousands of lives then yes without a doubt

Yeah I agree, if we were strictly talking about the OP where torturing is "guaranteed to produce the information needed" then I would say it was acceptable but the trouble with torture is that none of the information you get through it can be guaranteed

I'd much rather have highly skilled interrogators who are good with psychology and stuff

I think you're just as bad as the terrorist then.

I don't think torture would be all that effective, if the leader is committed enough to such a cause that they'd nuke an entire city then torturing them won't produce results. You would have to get hold of one of their subordinates, they would be more likely to talk then the mastermind behind it all.

Like Nathan said, the psychological approach would be best.

If it meant saving the lives of my loved ones, I'd do it myself. But then I'm a bit extremist like that: if given a choice between my family (direct, my partner and children, not parents or extended family) dying OR nuking the entire planet with us safe in a shielded self sufficient bubble, I'd hit the red button without a second thought.

As for it being a norm for the authorities - never. An individual case being justified is very different from making it an easy option. Basically I would say, never legalise it. Send the person authorising torture, and the torturer, to prison for 10 years after the event. That way, if they truly feel that its worth it, they'll sacrifice those 10 years for the greater good - but no one is going to start doing it as a matter of course.

So really the question isn't "does stopping a nuke justify the torture of one definitely guilty man" - which in my opinion, it does - it's "are the consequences of opening the flood gates of legalised torture worth it". They probably arent.

Torture one fella to save the lives of thousands? Yes 100%

You Are Most Wise

the op situation is a no brainer.
torture does work, break a person and they will give you what you want, if you're torturing someone that has no regard for inocent life then you have the green light in my book.

some people have the courage to do what has to be done.

dying is easy, its living thats hard.

That's just cliche-laden wishful thinking. Torture doesn't work, and there is evidence to back that up. In fact, th evidence and data actually shows that you end up with loads of false information. Believe it or not, that's just the way it is.

It actually takes far more courage not to torture someone, than it would to torture them in that instance.

If the scenario in Josy's post is exact - we torture one person to save loads, then that's something I would probably agree with. But that isn't how these things work out at all, and that isn't how torture works either.

NO....torture is never acceptable, for to do so lowers ourselves to the same level as the torturers or terrorists

It's a bit like the Death Penalty.....it can never be right because it lowers us to the same level as the murderers so NO

No way never..........under ANY circumstances !!!!!

I didn't think of that, that would be thee ideal option before torture imo

Definitely this

Would refusing to authorise the torture, thus ending in millions of lives being lost not equate to the same thing though, since in the scenario of the OP the needed information is guaranteed?

Where is this evidence? This isn't cliche-laden it's just pure supposition.
I find it hard to believe that anyone would make a list of who they tortured, when and why....
How does torture work?

has anyone here seen the recent movie prisoners which is a really good film. his daughter gets taken and he tortures the guy responsible to find out where she is. its a good dilemma to save your own kid what would you do.

the nuke things is a obvious yes torture the sucker. but it works on many other things as well.
those who say no would say yes in the right circumstance and in reality.

we are never going to agree, we as a whole let people die every single day by starving them to death, just be thankful we live in a civilised country becuse you would be worm food with the way you think.

when its kill or be killed i will always be the one doing the killing.

I would do what was necessary so yes, I would torture.

This is a well described scenario whereby torturing someone ends up in receiving information that can save lives.

But to inflict pain,torture,dismemberment and eventual death to save lives defeats the point.

Evil is Evil and committing an evil act to engineer a happy outcome does not make the act any LESS EVIL

So I say again No........there are other ways we can elicit this info without inflicting torture...!!!!!

..I agree with Nedusa that not authorising the torture wouldn't be the same as being responsible for the deaths of the people because I didn't actually authorise those deaths and am not responsible for any of the situation..that to me would be a bit like someone saying, if you don't do this, then I'll kill your family and maybe asking me to torture and kill someone else..and if I refused and they killed my family, then saying oh you did that/not me..it was your fault, when it wouldn't be my fault at all/the responsibility for all of it would be with the perpetrators/terrorists/murderer etc...

..yeah, I could say that I would do it and torture that person but there will still be no guarantee of an outcome that the people wouldn't be killed anyway because that's one thing that I could absolutely not guarantee in that situation because I don't have foresight, I would be putting my trust in someone who was asking me to kill someone and become what they were/barbaric and evil ...kind of the last people in the world you can trust...

..I think I would have to be true to myself and if people died, then it wouldn't have been me that had killed them or any of the responsibility mine....

You are though..in the scenario that the OP describes..

Torture's always a last ditch attempt used to break someone who won't be broken and doesn't really achieve much IMO because people will say anything to end their suffering.