There are grounds for believing that if the information is obtained quickly, there is a good chance of defusing the bomb before it goes off.There are reasonable grounds for believing that no other means would have the effect of compelling him to tell the truth.There are reasonable grounds for believing that he is likely to tell the truth if severe torture is threatened, and, if necessary, applied to him.The evidence in support of the contention that he has the relevant information would satisfy the requirements of evidence for convicting him of an offence.The version in the novel has the following conditions: The concept was popularized in the 1960s in the novel Les Centurions by Jean Lartéguy which is set during the Algerian war. The 1936 Nazi propaganda film The Traitor by Karl Ritter also features a version of the time-bomb argument. For the purpose of rescuing from torture these hundred innocents, should any scruple be made of applying equal or superior torture, to extract the requisite information from the mouth of one criminal, who having it in his power to make known the place where at this time the enormity was practicing or about to be practiced, should refuse to do so? Suppose an occasion to arise, in which a suspicion is entertained, as strong as that which would be received as a sufficient ground for arrest and commitment as for felony – a suspicion that at this very time a considerable number of individuals are actually suffering, by illegal violence inflictions equal in intensity to those which if inflicted by the hand of justice, would universally be spoken of under the name of torture. ![]() He wrote in his 1804 essay Means of extraction for extraordinary occasions: Philosopher Jeremy Bentham has been regarded as the "father" of the ticking time bomb argument. The ticking time bomb scenario is extremely rare in real life, but it is often cited as a reason for using torture. There is also uncertainty about the efficacy of interrogational torture, and much opposition to torture is based on the fact it is not effective rather than any moral issue, as well as how the decision to apply (or even allow) torture, whether or not an official process exists for doing so, might figure in the game theoretical payoff matrix of the hypothetical terrorist, or the problem framers. Opponents to the argument usually begin by exposing certain assumptions that tend to be hidden by initial presentations of the scenario and tend to obscure the true costs of permitting torture in "real-life" scenarios-e.g., the assumption that the person is in fact a terrorist, whereas in real life there usually remains uncertainty about whether the person is in fact a terrorist and if they have useful information -and rely on legal, philosophical/moral, and empirical grounds to reaffirm the need for the absolute prohibition of torture. Some consequentialists argue that nations, even those that legally disallow torture, can justify its use if they have a terrorist in custody who possesses critical knowledge, such as the location of a time bomb or a weapon of mass destruction that will soon explode and kill many people. Suppose that a person with knowledge of an imminent terrorist attack, that will kill many people, is in the hands of the authorities and that he will disclose the information needed to prevent the attack only if he is tortured. The scenario can be formulated as follows: The ticking time bomb scenario is a thought experiment that has been used in the ethics debate over whether interrogational torture can ever be justified. JSTOR ( March 2015) ( Learn how and when to remove this template message).Unsourced material may be challenged and removed.įind sources: "Ticking time bomb scenario" – news Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. This article needs additional citations for verification.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |