Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Neubob on March 25, 2008, 03:24:39 PM
-
Sitting in my Criminal Procedure class this afternoon, the Professor presented the following hypothetical:
A known terrorist has just swallowed a piece of paper with the disarm code to a nuclear device on it. The device, if detonated, will kill a 10,000 Americans. The bomb has been located, but cannot be moved, and there are 2 minutes remaining before it goes off...Would you torture him to get the code?
A large minority (close to half) within the class was audibly shocked to hear somebody say 'yes, I would.'
When asked further, people generally placed the number of lives great enough before an act of torture is justified at somewhere around 100,000. By that same reasoning, torturing one known terrorist would not have been justified the day before 9/11.
Moral high ground is thus more important than survival for this group of people, many of whom will be earning 6 figures on graduation next year, and some of whom will go on to careers in leadership.
Sad state of affairs, in my opinion.
-
1. Torturing him would be a waste of time. Why would he have a disarm code written down if he could remember it.
2. Why not simply gut him and take the piece of paper out of his terrorist gullet?
-
1. Torturing him would be a waste of time. Why would he have a disarm code written down if he could remember it.
2. Why not simply gut him and take the piece of paper out of his terrorist gullet?
My thoughts exactly! I'd be moraly obligated to save lives. As Alvin York once said...
Alvin: Well I'm as much agin killin' as ever sir. - - But it was this way Colonel. - - When I started out I felt just like you said, but when I hear them machine guns a-goin' and all them fellas are droppin' around me - - I figured them guns was killin' hundreds, maybe thousands, and there weren't nothin' anybody could do, but to stop them guns. And that's what I done.
Maj. Buxton: Do you mean to tell me that you did it to *save* lives?
Alvin: Yes sir, that was why.
Maj. Buxton: [amazed] Well York, what you've just told me is the most *extraordinary* thing of *all*!
-
1. Torturing him would be a waste of time. Why would he have a disarm code written down if he could remember it.
2. Why not simply gut him and take the piece of paper out of his terrorist gullet?
These are good points, and definitely flaws in the hypothetical. However, forget these flaws for a moment and imagine that the only way to stop the bombing would be to beat the answer out of the terrorist.
Given that my esteemed classmates weren't ready to even hurt him for the answer, I doubt they'd be willing to cut the guy open.
-
These are good points, and definitely flaws in the hypothetical. However, forget these flaws for a moment and imagine that the only way to stop the bombing would be to beat the answer out of the terrorist.
Given that my esteemed classmates weren't ready to even hurt him for the answer, I doubt they'd be willing to cut the guy open.
Hell, I'll do it. Just give me a place to plug in the battery charger.
-
1. Torturing him would be a waste of time. Why would he have a disarm code written down if he could remember it.
2. Why not simply gut him and take the piece of paper out of his terrorist gullet?
or just ram something down his throat and make him puke it back up. either works
-
I don't understand how this is a thinker, maybe I'm missing something. One life of a terrorist, someone who wants to hurt us and would have no sympathy for anyone, to save thousands of civilians. How is this a difficult trade off? Who wouldn't do it?
-
Sitting in my Criminal Procedure class this afternoon, the Professor presented the following hypothetical:
A known terrorist has just swallowed a piece of paper with the disarm code to a nuclear device on it. The device, if detonated, will kill a 10,000 Americans. The bomb has been located, but cannot be moved, and there are 2 minutes remaining before it goes off...Would you torture him to get the code?
A large minority (close to half) within the class was audibly shocked to hear somebody say 'yes, I would.'
When asked further, people generally placed the number of lives great enough before an act of torture is justified at somewhere around 100,000. By that same reasoning, torturing one known terrorist would not have been justified the day before 9/11.
Moral high ground is thus more important than survival for this group of people, many of whom will be earning 6 figures on graduation next year, and some of whom will go on to careers in leadership.
Sad state of affairs, in my opinion.
"Survival" is perhaps a bad choice of words on your part. The hypothetical premise does not mention that your classmates or their families or your nation were at risk.
-
I don't understand how this is a thinker, maybe I'm missing something. One life of a terrorist, someone who wants to hurt us and would have no sympathy for anyone, to save thousands of civilians. How is this a difficult trade off? Who wouldn't do it?
Apperantly half the people in his class with manginas wouldn't do it but in this day and age it doesn't really shock me.
Me on the other hand, well I always have my Leatherman multi tool hanging on my belt. Bet your butt I'd gut him like a fish and not think twice about it.
-
"Survival" is perhaps a bad choice of words on your part. The hypothetical premise does not mention that your classmates or their families or your nation were at risk.
True. When I said survival, though, I meant survival of our way of life as a whole. To me this attitude from people who may one day be deciding such things spells doom for us all. When the barbarians have all the willpower, and we have none of it, high tech armies or not, I think we're more or less screwed.
-
I would have pulled a Black Jack Kershaw move.
Brought in a pig, slaughtered it in front of the terrorist, and start to dip the torture instruments in the blood.
Torture is one thing, but it really starts to get fun when you bring in eternal damnation. :D
-
I think you need to have more faith in the American way of life. It has endured far more than 10.000 deaths in the past. The only way the terrorists will change your lives is if you willingly change your lives. To me the so called war on terror is a far greater threat to your way of life than the terrorists are.
-
Moral high ground is thus more important than survival for this group of people, many of whom will be earning 6 figures on graduation next year, and some of whom will go on to careers in leadership.
Sad state of affairs, in my opinion.
The sad thing is, those same people would have a loved one as one of those 10,000 victims and they will come back after it happens saying why didn't we do it.
-
If we are willing to allow ouselves to be destroyed by upholding a supremist moral code of conduct then we as good as dead.
With 2 minutes left there would be no question...eviscerate the terrorist immediately.
-
These are good points, and definitely flaws in the hypothetical. However, forget these flaws for a moment and imagine that the only way to stop the bombing would be to beat the answer out of the terrorist.
Given that my esteemed classmates weren't ready to even hurt him for the answer, I doubt they'd be willing to cut the guy open.
Next class look around...... know that your life means nothing to them at all. On one hand it's a shame there are such weak folks in this world today but on the other.... if things get tough around you, you'll know who not to depend on for any help.
-
The sad thing is, those same people would have a loved one as one of those 10,000 victims and they will come back after it happens saying why didn't we do it.
Wow. Your powers of telepathy and foresight are remarkable!
-
the question is flawed, it should have said the bomb was in the same room with them.
-
Hypothetical's are great for mind expanding ethical debates, but I would be more interested in how the following information was obtained "A known terrorist has just swallowed a piece of paper with the disarm code to a nuclear device on it" before I made a decision.
shamus
-
So they WOULD torture for 100,000 lives but they WOULDN'T torture for 10,000 lives?
Reminds me of an old joke:
Billionaire to woman: "Would you have sex with me for a million dollars?"
Woman: "Well ... yes"
Billionaire to woman: "Would you have sex with me for ten dollars?"
Woman: "What kind of girl do you think I am?"
Billionaire: "We've already determined that. Now we're just arguing over the price."
-
So they WOULD torture for 100,000 lives but they WOULDN'T torture for 10,000 lives?
Reminds me of an old joke:
Billionaire to woman: "Would you have sex with me for a million dollars?"
Woman: "Well ... yes"
Billionaire to woman: "Would you have sex with me for ten dollars?"
Woman: "What kind of girl do you think I am?"
Billionaire: "We've already determined that. Now we're just arguing over the price."
I think that that's one of those legendary Churchill quotes. Whether he actually said it remains a mystery.
-
It fits though; they'll torture all right. The price just has to be right.
If you'll torture to save one or you'll only torture to save 100 thousand, you're still a torturer either way.
They are the typical hypocrites.
I'll wager if the Prof had made it personal (would you torture to save your mother/wife/child) he would have had a much different answer.
-
The question shouldn't have been would you torture him but how would you torture him with only two minutes to get the code. Perhaps just promise him a slow agonizing death with many excruciating details. Maybe cut off a couple of sensitive body parts during the process to make sure he knows you're serious.
-
Pair of pliers and a blowtorch.
-
Torture to save 10k lives?, Sure, But if i was the one doing it, I would understand going to jail afterwords.
Would just hope for a quick parole.
-
Pair of pliers and a blowtorch.
Nevermind the pliers, get a Popsicle and almost frozen beef.
-
Sitting in my Criminal Procedure class this afternoon, the Professor presented the following hypothetical:
A known terrorist has just swallowed a piece of paper with the disarm code to a nuclear device on it. The device, if detonated, will kill a 10,000 Americans. The bomb has been located, but cannot be moved, and there are 2 minutes remaining before it goes off...Would you torture him to get the code?
A large minority (close to half) within the class was audibly shocked to hear somebody say 'yes, I would.'
When asked further, people generally placed the number of lives great enough before an act of torture is justified at somewhere around 100,000. By that same reasoning, torturing one known terrorist would not have been justified the day before 9/11.
Moral high ground is thus more important than survival for this group of people, many of whom will be earning 6 figures on graduation next year, and some of whom will go on to careers in leadership.
Sad state of affairs, in my opinion.
Having an actual "college professor" present the classic neocon blogger "24" (What would Jack Bower do and how does this relate to your morality versus your patriotism?) scenario to "educate" seems even sadder. *ShruG* Rationalizing torture as an accepted policy based on an imaginary scenario is rationalizing torture ... period. Historically speaking ... it's not anything remotely American.
-
I think that that's one of those legendary Churchill quotes. Whether he actually said it remains a mystery.
Clemmons aka Twain.
-
Having an actual "college professor" present the classic neocon blogger "24" (What would Jack Bower do and how does this relate to your morality versus your patriotism?) scenario to "educate" seems even sadder. *ShruG* Rationalizing torture as an accepted policy based on an imaginary scenario is rationalizing torture ... period. Historically speaking ... it's not anything remotely American.
In a law class its a valid question Arlo.
shamus
-
In a law class its a valid question Arlo.
shamus
As valid as "If you had a throw away gun on you or in your police cruiser and you thought you could get away with it would you shoot the perp?"
And it was a weed-out session.
-
As valid as "If you had a throw away gun on you or in your police cruiser and you thought you could get away with it would you shoot the perp?"
And it was a weed-out session.
I would say more so.
I think the question makes the students think about torture in the broad sense and do we as a society condone it.
A throw away used in the way that you are referring to is already illegal, torture is not yet defined it would seem.
These folks are going to be the judges at some time and this needs to be debated and wrung out.
Weed out session went over my head, sorry :)
shamus
-
At last Arlo is here to show us the err of our ways and guide us down the path of enlightment.... :salute..
With so many misguided threads how does he manage to keep up.. :)
-
Having an actual "college professor" present the classic neocon blogger "24" (What would Jack Bower do and how does this relate to your morality versus your patriotism?) scenario to "educate" seems even sadder. *ShruG* Rationalizing torture as an accepted policy based on an imaginary scenario is rationalizing torture ... period. Historically speaking ... it's not anything remotely American.
It was a lawschool class Arlo. 2L, second semester. Criminal Procedure. Specifically, constitutional versus non-constitutional gathering of evidence. It has nothing to do with patriotism. The terrorist topic was a momentary departure from pure law, into the realm of ethics and philosophy. Somewhat superficial maybe, but the disagreement it generated within the class demonstrated how differently we approach this issue.
As for it being American or not, I don't know and don't care. We were all human in there and the questions being asked weren't too far removed from potential reality. Trade the atom bomb in for a hijacked airliner or a suicide bomber and it's close enough to reality to warrant discussion.
-
It was a lawschool class Arlo. 2L, second semester. Criminal Procedure. Specifically, constitutional versus non-constitutional gathering of evidence. It has nothing to do with patriotism. It was a momentary departure from pure law, into the realm of ethics and morality. Somewhat superficial maybe, but the disagreement it generated within the class demonstrated how differently we approach this issue.
As for it being American or not, I don't know and don't care. We were all human in there and the questions being asked weren't too far removed from potential reality. Trade the atom bomb in for a hijacked airliner or a suicide bomber and it's close enough to reality to warrant discussion.
What if there was a suicide bomber that hijacked an airliner with an atom bomb? Hypothetically, of course.
-
At last Arlo is here to show us the err of our ways and guide us down the path of enlightment.... :salute..
With so many misguided threads how does he manage to keep up.. :)
It's not hard. I follow the slime trail and *boom* I'm there ... smartarse. :D
-
The terrorist topic was a momentary departure from pure law, into the realm of ethics and philosophy.
Exactly. So as surprising as you found the answer .... I'm just as surprised at the prof applying blogspeak 101. ;)
-
I'll shoot him dead & slit him right open. I wouldn't oppose torture at all afterward of anyone necessary to gain information leading to the discovery of every person/organization which took part in the process.
-
When asked further, people generally placed the number of lives great enough before an act of torture is justified at somewhere around 100,000.
The threshold for the number of innocent lives for me would be one.
-
I don't understand how this is a thinker, maybe I'm missing something. One life of a terrorist, someone who wants to hurt us and would have no sympathy for anyone, to save thousands of civilians. How is this a difficult trade off? Who wouldn't do it?
[geek alert]
The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few.
(http://www-personal.umich.edu/~touch/spock.jpg)
[/geek alert]
-
I'll shoot him dead & slit him right open. I wouldn't oppose torture at all afterward of anyone necessary to gain information leading to the discovery of every person/organization which took part in the process.
My hero! :rock
-
here is a hypothecial, arlo has been captured and is locked up in a secret location with a bomb that is set to explode at any time. You have captured the terrorist that knows the location.
would you.
A, offer the terrorist a cup of tea.
B, sit down and drink tea with the terrorist and discuss mid east affairs.
C, go watch TV.
-
Awe, that's mean. Arlo, we'd kill a terrorist for you also.