These people appear eternally oblivious that any such policy may someday be applied aginst them

This is a kind of perverse, cost/benefit analysis. In order to save the lives of hundreds, we torture an individual or their wife and child, and we think it's worth it!

Of course, it's a hypothetical scenario which doesn't exist in the real world, but can be used, or prostituted, to "justifty" and "legitimize" the use of torture across the board, in circumstances where the benefit and the guilt of the victim, are far less clearcut and unambiguous.

The Big Problem with using torture, which "intellectually challenged" individuals like Andersen, don't understand, or don't care about, is that torture drags us down into the shit from the moral highground, and leaves us crawling side by side with the evil terrorists, we are, supposedly, superior to. Torture is a form of terror.

Even if we choose to ignore the moral and ethical arguments against the use of torture, surely we can't ignore the central question, like does torture work, is it effective, does it really provide one with useful or vital information?

This entire ticking bomb scenario is so stupid, and loaded towards a specific answer.

One could argue that we should have tortured Iraqi prisoners in order to get them to reveal the location of Saddam's WMDs, which we so sure, that we knew, existed, and were a threat to us, terrible weapons on a veritable hair-trigger! Yet we wouldn't have found them no matter how barbarously we tortured our hapless victims, or their families; because the secret weapons only existed in our minds, not in the real world. Yet this scenario, like toruturing "witches" in order to get them to confess to non-existant, fantastical crimes, is almost never mentioned when we debate the issue of torture.

The problem with the "ends justify the means" argument is that since the ends are in the future, we in real life do not know what they are. Hence the argument can be used to justify anything.

Like invading Iraq. And afterwards?

"Oops! How could we have known there were no WMDs. Lets just move on..."

Which is why we have morals both in terms of human dignity and respect as well as in terms of consequences.

Humility (understanding one does not know anything) leads to humanity (in this case limits on what we will do to our fellow humans to achieve a possibly imaginary end).

i am heartened that so many voices are speaking so articulately in outrage at this STUPID repugnant suggestion. still it sends shivers down me that peoples' (ie anderson for example) morals are eroded to such an extent that it is even suggested. it is so easy to simply throw out a remark, and practise 'armchair MI5', with no connection to what the repercussions of such tactics actually mean, nor of what realities lie at their core.

no good can come of torture. no good does come of torture. to even contemplate the abuse of a suspect's spouse and children makes me want to shake the man and shout "WAKE UP!!! listen to what you are saying!!
WHAT are you 'fighting' for ???"

the torture of innocents leaves a stain that never comes clean.

we are ALL worth more than that.

I am sadent that any human can come p with the consept of torture on a child, if an adult can not come up with other means to solve a situation then they deserve what they prescribe... dangerious thought... shame that some people would agree with a process of harm to get information... Under torture people loose the plot and will not give coherent and reliable information, imagine that of a child, it would psychologically scar them for life and for what?

I would challenge anyone to come up with 100 creative ways to solve a solution without torture... as one day it will be eradicated from human race... but only if people make a stand.