• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Would You Utilize Torture to Save a Life?

Would You Utilize Torture to Save a Family Member?


  • Total voters
    60
This hypothetical scenario is an attempt to gauge one's moral position on torture. It is not meant to elicit idiotic references to the television show 24. That a hypothetical is unlikely to occur is irrelevant - they are intended to subject our moral suppositions to scrutiny by forcing us to make a choice. Having said that, please answer the question with a YES or NO answer followed by an explanation.

If you had to brutally torture a person in order to save the lives of your family, would you do it?

The hypothetical assumes said person is a murderous thug who is directly responsible for endangering your family.


Answer: Yes.

Explanation: Because I hold the lives of my family in a higher regard than murderous thugs.

Would you kill your daughter, shoot her in the face, to save 30 other lives?
 
Would you kill your daughter, shoot her in the face, to save 30 other lives?

Nope. I would, however, kill those 30 to save my daughter.
 
So what would you do? Nothing? Ask them politely? Whats your solution?

When policemen are looking for criminals, they don't kidnap one of their parent and start removing his skin. Instead they use other methods to gather informations: observation, mail interception/phone recording, covert agents...these methods are both more reliable and ethic
 
Yes, I would, without a second thought.

If I could torture someone, I'd refuse to let them die :D Using that shock thingy that they used in hospitals to resuscitate dying patients.
 
Let's say they're children. Are you so much more important than the parents of those 30 children?

Couldn't tell you. I can tell you that my child is more important than every last mother's son and daughter on God's green Earth.
 
This hypothetical scenario is an attempt to gauge one's moral position on torture. It is not meant to elicit idiotic references to the television show 24. That a hypothetical is unlikely to occur is irrelevant - they are intended to subject our moral suppositions to scrutiny by forcing us to make a choice. Having said that, please answer the question with a YES or NO answer followed by an explanation.

If you had to brutally torture a person in order to save the lives of your family, would you do it?

The hypothetical assumes said person is a murderous thug who is directly responsible for endangering your family.


Answer: Yes.

Explanation: Because I hold the lives of my family in a higher regard than murderous thugs.

No.
I would not torture for no reason.
 
What if 16 of those 30 are people in the line of succession to be POTUS?

That might take three hearbeats, as some of them might need 2 shots.
You know, just to be sure.
 
I said "no", mainly because I feel that a false dichotomy has been presented. There are more options than "torture or not torture" and I'm not okay with torturing anyone, regardless of whether or not it is warranted.
 
Give me liberty or give me death, kind of explains it don't you think? If you sacrifice your morals then what do you have left? You've now become what you despise, shouldn't someone torture you next?
 
yes.

I would be operating on emotion and I love my family.

Would I for any old joe schmo...probably not unless I had been trained to do it properly to effect the best and most profitable outcome.

I'd chop off fingers for my family--kill for my family--I'd draw the line at permanent disfigurement otherwise.
 
No, no reason

I was just teasing you for the double negative. Crippler will probably give me another Grammar Nazi award.:2wave:
 
I was just teasing you for the double negative. Crippler will probably give me another Grammar Nazi award.:2wave:

Ah my mistake :)
 
When policemen are looking for criminals, they don't kidnap one of their parent and start removing his skin. Instead they use other methods to gather informations: observation, mail interception/phone recording, covert agents...these methods are both more reliable and ethic

different situations call for different tactics...
 
Give me liberty or give me death, kind of explains it don't you think? If you sacrifice your morals then what do you have left? You've now become what you despise, shouldn't someone torture you next?

if we allow our morals to totally dictate our actions, we are about as safe as sheep in wolf country...
 
if we allow our morals to totally dictate our actions, we are about as safe as sheep in wolf country...

If we don't uphold the morals we preach and claim to be defending, what seperates us from them?
 
Last edited:
Just out of curiosity, but are you trying to compare the love one has of a family member to the love one has for their own country in this scenario?
 
It seems some of us are failing to comprehend the hypothetical.

Torturing this murderous thug is the ONLY way to save your family. There are no qualifiers, there are no exceptions, there are no what-if scenarios or anything like that. If you do not torture this murderous thug it is a certainty that your family will die. It was made black and white for a reason.

Refuse to torture, family dies.

Now, what is your final answer?
 
Back
Top Bottom