Slippery slope
The idea of the slippery slope argument is a very common form of argumentation as to why a particular practice should be avoided. When considering such an argument, the potential gains for the practice, must be weighed against the potential destruction to be wrecked by the implied threat of a slippery slope. Also, one should note any ways of short circuiting that eventual slide into "iniquity" or whatever the threat is.
Of course, there are some things here, where one must step back and really think hard. Several talking heads of posited the idea of the "ticking time bomb" as a means of justifying torture. The idea goes as follows:
A terrorist has planted a nuclear device in a major metroplitan area. It will detonate within the hour. You have captured the terrorist. Is it justifiable to torture him to extricate information as to the location of the device?
The answer seems to me to be no. However, the only pundits who propose this ethics problem seem to think the answer is yes. That torturing one person is morally justifiable as a means of preventing the death of millions. Now, to be fair, if I believed that one could readily extract the necessary information from a person using torture, my answer might be a bit different, but I don't believe it to be an effective methodology. Similarly, the idea is naive. It is nearly inconceivable that such a confluence of events could reasonably occur. To know that there is a nuclear device, and that our terrorist isn't lying. To know that we have, in fact, caught the terrorist. And somehow in the midst of tracking his movements prior to capture, didn't manage to notice him dropping off a nuclear device. Then, of course, there is the problem of whether one can extract truth from someone through torture. Honestly, by the end, I expect any victim of torture will say almost anything, true or false. Additionally, if you haven't moved the terrorist outside the city, he will expect his suffering to end in an hour, when the bomb goes off.
But, that is not the point of the actual argument against the use of torture. The fundamental argument is not that it is not effective, or that the scenario laid out is not within what one could acceptably call the bounds of reasonable expectation. Instead, the argument runs that if a society or culture of any kind condones the use of torture in that one instance, it does open the door to permitting torture on a broader scale. Truthfully, this is indeed a slippery slope argument. And I am uncomfortable with them, as they can easily be a form of logical fallacy if applied incorrectly. In this case, however, the potential threat of allowing torture in much vaguer circumstances, especially those where the guilt of the victim is not established, presents a daunting threat.
I find it interesting that most people will argue that torture may be employed when the sheer number of lives saved is extremely high, a kind of pragmatic survivalism. There is a kind of logic there; however, that argument seems untenable to me because I still cannot be made to believe that the information obtained is reliable.
Of course, there are some things here, where one must step back and really think hard. Several talking heads of posited the idea of the "ticking time bomb" as a means of justifying torture. The idea goes as follows:
A terrorist has planted a nuclear device in a major metroplitan area. It will detonate within the hour. You have captured the terrorist. Is it justifiable to torture him to extricate information as to the location of the device?
The answer seems to me to be no. However, the only pundits who propose this ethics problem seem to think the answer is yes. That torturing one person is morally justifiable as a means of preventing the death of millions. Now, to be fair, if I believed that one could readily extract the necessary information from a person using torture, my answer might be a bit different, but I don't believe it to be an effective methodology. Similarly, the idea is naive. It is nearly inconceivable that such a confluence of events could reasonably occur. To know that there is a nuclear device, and that our terrorist isn't lying. To know that we have, in fact, caught the terrorist. And somehow in the midst of tracking his movements prior to capture, didn't manage to notice him dropping off a nuclear device. Then, of course, there is the problem of whether one can extract truth from someone through torture. Honestly, by the end, I expect any victim of torture will say almost anything, true or false. Additionally, if you haven't moved the terrorist outside the city, he will expect his suffering to end in an hour, when the bomb goes off.
But, that is not the point of the actual argument against the use of torture. The fundamental argument is not that it is not effective, or that the scenario laid out is not within what one could acceptably call the bounds of reasonable expectation. Instead, the argument runs that if a society or culture of any kind condones the use of torture in that one instance, it does open the door to permitting torture on a broader scale. Truthfully, this is indeed a slippery slope argument. And I am uncomfortable with them, as they can easily be a form of logical fallacy if applied incorrectly. In this case, however, the potential threat of allowing torture in much vaguer circumstances, especially those where the guilt of the victim is not established, presents a daunting threat.
I find it interesting that most people will argue that torture may be employed when the sheer number of lives saved is extremely high, a kind of pragmatic survivalism. There is a kind of logic there; however, that argument seems untenable to me because I still cannot be made to believe that the information obtained is reliable.