The torturing of the terrorist to find out where the bomb is is a popular question.
The question had a real-life analogue in Germany in 2002. The eleven year old Jakob von Metzler was kidnapped by the student, Magnus Gäfgen, and murdered almost immediately. When Gäfgen was arrested, the police (in particular, the investigating Kommisar, acting on instructions from the Frankfurt Deputy Police Commissioner), not knowing that Jakob was already dead, threatened Gäfgen with torture if he did not reveal the location of the boy. Gäfgen gave them the information. German law is quite clear on the issue (and both policemen were well aware of this). Partly as a result of Germany's frightful history in the Nazi era, torture (or threats of torture) by the state, organs of the state, or agents of organs of the state are clearly forbidden - in any circumstances. Gäfgen was subsequently imprisoned for life. Both policemen had to answer for their actions, were found guilty and fined. They experienced no negative professional consequences. The public discussion of the case focussed on the fact that Wofgang Daschner, the Deputy Commissioner pleaded not guilty, and his defence lawyers claimed that his action was lawful, given the conflict of interests between the rights of the victim and the rights of the suspect, Daschner giving priority to the rights of the victim (whom he supposed to be still alive). The court rejected this line of reasoning with the argument that "the infringement of basic human rights can never be justified, such [an infringement] is a break in essential taboos, which - not least in light of German history during the Nazi period - cannot be tolerated." Personally, I don't know how I would react in such a situation. I think Daschner's ordered torture threat may have been the subjectively correct moral decision. I think his real mistake was not to subsequently report himself and plead guilty, rather than try to legally justify himself (although, to be fair, he did record the order to threaten torture, thus making his conviction easier for the court - something the court took into account in applying the lightest penalty legally possible). I base my argument on the fact that - in, hopefully, exceptional circumstances - a situation may force us to a moral decision which means breaking the law. It's a situation with which I may conceivably be faced myself, as a nursing professional - although I profoundly hope it never happens. I suppose basically what I'm saying is that, in the end, the individual conscience/free moral agent is more fundamental than the law (even though the law may, as a general norm, still be basically right). Laws are always formed with reference to the generality - in specific situations we may have to go beyond, or against them. And then accept the consequences. Francis On 8 Feb., 06:11, "Weber? What do you think." <[email protected]> wrote: > For the first question consider that old adage: Life Liberty, and > property (to be applied distributively) (every man has a right to it) > So, it is your right yes, if you so decide to do so, to kill yourself > and donate those organs to others. Yet it is not the right of the > government to do so. I think we sometimes replace the distributively > part with quantitative. > > The difference is whether the law should be applied to spare as much > as possible, or should be applied equally to every one. Well > according to Locke, it should be applied to everyone. > > As far as the kidnapped case, there is one person you could shoot in > order to save every one, yourself, other then that it is not your > decision. For the last part, you should run over the people tied to > the track. This is one of those situations in which you have no > option. the first one implies governments actions, or societies > actions. Society ecists to preserve human life as much as possible > (once again distributively). > > Let me pose a question: > > A terrorist is in the custody of the CIA. He knows the location of a > bomb in New York city. It is going to explode in two hours. Do you > torcher him to get the information? (he is a hardened fighter, and > fully devoted to his cause, he will not tell you on his own in the > next 30 minutes) > > www.top3productdesign.com > > On Feb 6, 8:25 pm, Pavan Kolachoor <[email protected]> wrote: > > > This is a famous philosophical question posted by > > BBC.http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/magazine/7739493.stm > > > I never got an opportunity to discuss this with anybody, your thoughts > > please. > > > *1. SHOULD WE KILL HEALTHY PEOPLE FOR THEIR ORGANS?* > > > Suppose Bill is a healthy man without family or loved ones. Would it be ok > > painlessly to kill him if his organs would save five people, one of whom > > needs a heart, another a kidney, and so on? If not, why not? > > > Consider another case: you and six others are kidnapped, and the kidnapper > > somehow persuades you that if you shoot dead one of the other hostages, he > > will set the remaining five free, whereas if you do not, he will shoot all > > six. (Either way, he'll release you.) > > > If in this case you should kill one to save five, why not in the previous, > > organs case? If in this case too you have qualms, consider yet another: > > you're in the cab of a runaway tram and see five people tied to the track > > ahead. You have the option of sending the tram on to the track forking off > > to the left, on which only one person is tied. Surely you should send the > > tram left, killing one to save five. > > > But then why not kill Bill? > > > -- > > Regards, > > > Pavan --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups ""Minds Eye"" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/Minds-Eye?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
