Reply #36: Start with several assumptions.

[ozone_man]

The starting point is to examine a hypothetical, ideal case and go from there.

Assumptions:

1) The city will definitely blow up if the bomb is not disarmed.

2) The method of torture is sure to work, resistance is futile. The terrorist is guaranteed to tell the truth. This may be considered as Harris' "truth pill" or the truth serum so often used in spy movies.

3) There is enough time to extract the necessary information to save the city.

What do you do? Wait for the city to blow up or use the truth pill on the terrorist? You're time is running out, tick ...

Harris argues that people's reaction to torture in these circumstances is warped by the uncomfortable thoughts of the pain inflicted upon the terrorist being tortured. But that is irrational considering the pain inflicted upon the tens of thousands of civilians and their families by collateral damage. To drive the point home further, he suggests that if a "truth pill" was used to remove all observable indications of pain from the person under torture, so that when they wake up, they tell the truth, it would level the playing field with collateral damage, which we rarely observe the effects of.

Conversely, I could argue that if the images of human victims of collateral damage were printed daily on the front page of the newspaper, that there would probably be no more war. Another valid argument. But our press is not likely to do that.

So there is a disconnect between what people perceive as cruel punishment for the terrorist under torture and the countless thousands of victims of collateral damage during war.

None of this addressed the effectiveness of torture certainly, but presumably methods could be perfected to achieve the desired results, i.e., the "truth pill". And I don't think Harris is suggesting the use of torture except under extreme circumstances such as might occur during the investigaton of a terrorist plot.

I was shocked when I read this section of Harris' book, but when examining the reasoning he is using, it becomes much less so. He is a rationalist, so many of the ethical situations that he confronts us with are designed to make us think. I don't condone torture, except under the most extreme circumstances where many lives are at stake. Certainly it is a slippery slope, so in reality, there will probably never be a legalized use of torture.

But the ethical arguments stand, I think. Most people would react by torturing the terrorist to save the city, if they knew it would work, especially if they kew that they would not have to observe any indications of pain during the process.

There are many ethical situations that one could come with that illustrate the contradictions that we accept on a daily basis. One is the fact that most of us drive cars or use fossil fuels, yet we are watching our Earth die a gradual death. It's irrational behavior, but one that we have come to accept. So, we are all terrorists when it comes to the Earth's ecosystem. But the Earth doesn't need us. It will eventually recover long after we have died out as a civilization. The Earth's methods of torture are cruel when confronting us terrorists, yet they are ethical at the same time. ;)