Try everything else first, then torture. If it is morals against saving a few thousand lives (including the wives of women and children), then morals be damned.
ash
Moral dilemma.
by expatbrit 18 Replies latest jw friends
-
-
xjw_b12
This sounds similar to the current theme of this season's 24 ?
That is the one show I actually leave this site for a while to go watch. Any other 24 fanatics out there ?
-
Marvin Shilmer
Hello, Expatbrit
I see no moral dilemma. What you are asking about is a matter of self-defense.
Societal norms (and most orthodox religions too) accept that self-defense is morally acceptable to the point of applying force necessary to defend your person or those in imminent danger. In the case of threat of life then taking life is not out of the question. In the case of threat of torturous affliction then applying torturous affliction is not out of the question. Your scenario has both threats. One would only need proof of the offense you state in sure terms. If sure then there is no dilemma to me. On the other hand, doubt is reason for refrain, and the extent (or lack of extent) of doubt is where the moral dilemma lay.
That's the way I see it, and no one should try convincing me that parents would not kill to protect their child's life from a criminal set to murder. I agree with several posters above. Give me the pliers! I'll do the job.
__________________
Marvin Shilmer
-
TR
I would never use physical torture... simply because it does not work as well as most people think. The more a person is tortured, the more resolved a person is to keep quiet. Oppression breads resistance... even to the very end.
I dunno.... The right kind of torture could do the trick. I'm not talking slapping someone around here. I'm talking slicing and peeling your flesh off in strips. I'm talking using a 4" grinder to grind away skin and bone. This kind of torture is so excruciatingly painful that the person would do anything for the pain to stop. Or not.
TR
-
freedom96
I would do whatever it took to get the information.
-
gumby
It makes you think how and where people draw lines doesn't it.
I suppose a way could be devised that made a peron think torture was imminent if they didn't speak and would work the same way. If not.....that's a toughy.
You could always tell them you will have the dubs call on them forever!
-
Xena
In my opinion the moral code should be defined by the ones who instigates the action (the terrorists), they have set the parrameters and so should have no protection of the targets moral code.After all, by taking that action they are sending a statement that they disagree with that code.
That was a good point in my opinion. Give it a Biblical twist and just say "You reap what you sow"....I would do whatever it took to save those innocent lives.
Edited by - Xena on 21 January 2003 20:19:37
-
Michael3000
Sounds EXACTLY like the plot of this season's "24" on Fox (here in the US).
Like a true American, I'll have to watch next week's episode before I can give you an opinion on your dilemma!
-
Swan
It also depends on whether or not the president has given her immunity from prosecution and/or immunity from the future crime of killing you. Also, did she kill my spouse last year? That would also be a factor, I think.
Tammy