Is Torture Justified In The Ticking Bomb Case Analysis
1059 Words5 Pages
Torture can be defined as “forbidding only physical pain equivalent to that ‘accompanying serious physical injury, such as organ failure, impairment of bodily function, or even death,’ or mental pain resulting in ‘significant psychological harm of significant duration, e.g., lasting for months or even years’” (White 464). People have been torturing each other for years, and it will continue to exist even though there are “international agreements that prohibit torture” (White 462). Although torture can be seen as morally wrong and a terrible act, like assassination, in some cases it may be the best option. For an example as Dershowitz states; “If the torture of one guilty person would be justified to prevent the torture of a hundred innocent persons, it would seem to follow that it would also be justified to prevent the murder of thousands of innocent civilians” (Dershowitz 466). I agree that if torturing an evil…show more content… As I stated above, I do agree with Dershowitz’s point of view on torture as seen in the ticking-bomb case. I think Dershowitz is right, if something terrible like the bombings that occurred on 9/11 could have been prevented by torture, then why not? Torturing or even killing one person in order to save thousands should be justified and I completely disagree with Luban point of view on ticking-bomb cases. Luban’s position on torture is that, “whether heavy or lite, should be absolutely prohibited” nor “should it be morally prohibited (White 465). This position is absolutely ridiculous, in certain situations torture should in fact be prohibited and justified. If someone is in danger and only one evil and guilty person knows where they are, then I believe that the guilty person should be tortured in order to save the innocent life. In certain circumstances, torture is something that could possible prevent horrible