When is Torture Justified?

abuayisha wrote: Well than perhaps I have misunderstood your golden rule application, "If we say that it's okay for us to use torture against them, then what will we say when they use torture against us."

Why would it not be applicable?Let me emphasize, because so many people don't understand the Golden Rule: it's not ""do unto others as they do unto you", it's "do unto others as you would have them do unto you."  Their behaviour has nothing whatsoever to do with it.  You do what you think is right, and the test for what is right is according to how you would react if the same thing were done to you.

abuayisha wrote: Fair enough Ron, however I have found life to be pretty much nuanced and not so rigid. I think some situations call for an approach we certainly wouldn't want for ourselves, but its the right thing to do just the same.

There's nothing "nuanced" about torture.  I don't see how we can condemn torture when others use it, while reserving the right to use it ourselves.  It sounds a lot like hypocrisy to me.

Edited by Ron Webb - 04 August 2011 at 4:49pm

Well what I'm talking about is the "ticking bomb" scenario of possible harm to many; are we to concern ourselves with one individual at the expense of many innocents?  What is worse, to be labeled a hypocrite or slaughter of people? This is not advocacy for a policy of torture, but concern over public safety.