Ticking in Reverse
Okay, here’s the scenario: Terrorists have planted a nuclear weapon in a major American city and if you don’t stop it millions will die. If you have any sense of honor at all, wouldn’t you give your own life to stop that? Most of us would say yes, wouldn’t we? What about prison? If you could save them at the cost of spending years in prison, maybe even the rest of your life, wouldn’t you have to make that choice? As bitter as the years might be, could you live with yourself knowing that you allowed a nuclear holocaust just so you could live out your own days in comfort and freedom? Fair? No. But what kind of man or woman worth the gametes that got them going could look someone in the eye and say, “I could have prevented it, but I would have suffered.”
So if it’s ticking bombs that worry you, what do we need laws permitting torture for? Do the crime, save the lives, then do the time. Leave possible pardons aside. We are hard men for hard times and we want hard make-believe conundra.
Don’t talk to me about the suffering you’d bravely inflict on someone else. Tell me the cost you yourself would pay. Those are the “tough choices.” Next time the subject comes up, ask your interlocutor to make one.
Comment by the talking dog —
January 17, 2006 @ 12:02 am
Good old ex-CIA man Michael ”Let’s Nuke the Middle East and Get it Over With Already” Scheuer insists that the CIA never tortured anyone at any of ITS ghost prisons… how could he be sure, notwithstanding extensive victim testimonials that the CIA did so torture guests under its hospitality?
Because Scheuer insists that it was common CIA doctrinal knowledge that physical torture plain old didn’t work. Simple as that: someone under torture will simply tell their interrogator what they want to hear to make the torture stop, making the torture counter-productive.
As always, however, don’t tell the American people– or especially the sadistic morons that yon American people have elected to ”lead” them, no… COMMAND THEM IN CHIEF… the facts just get in the way of what feels good to do.
Comment by Glaivester —
January 17, 2006 @ 9:43 am
talking dog -
Don’t be daft. Torture is very useful at getting information. You know, as long as you don’t care if it is accurate or not.
Simple as that: someone under torture will simply tell their interrogator what they want to hear to make the torture stop, making the torture counter-productive.
That’s not a bug. It’s a feature. And it’s not necessarily counter-productive. It may be exactly what the torture was meant to accomplish.
And of course, getting people to confess to whatever it is on the agenda for them to confess to is only one benefit. We can also use torture to terrorize the population into submission.
That and lotsa bombing.
Comment by jlw —
January 17, 2006 @ 11:10 am
I don’t think you’re framing this for maximum conflict.
It’s the lives of millions of innocents versus _spending the rest of your life without Cheet-ohs._ That’ll make the Keyboard Kommandos stop and think.
Comment by moonbiter —
January 17, 2006 @ 1:09 pm
Not only that, but there’s this little thing called extenuating circumstances that would certainly be considered in a court of law were our square-jawed heroes to actually prevent a nuclear catastrophe by performing the Passion on some evil-doers.
Of course, there’s the rub. If your not certain enough to face the consequences of being wrong, then you certainly shouldn’t be certain enough to torture a person. But this is exactly what these folks want — all the risks to be beared by the other guy, the powerless guy without the backing of law enforcement.
Comment by Eric the .5b —
January 17, 2006 @ 2:12 pm
I absolutely, completely agree. Though, I don’t think consideration of any extenuating circumstances should be permitted unless the torture actually produced real, vital information that saved civilian lives. Even in that case, the torturer should serve some years (albeit somewhere nicer than, say, Leavenworth) and be fired/have a dishonorable discharge.
If there aren’t any extenuating circumstances, well… Here’s the book – catch.
Pingback by The Poor Man Institute » Ticking Time Dumb —
January 17, 2006 @ 5:00 pm
[...] n 2006
Ticking Time Dumb
Posted by Sifu Tweety under Uncategorized
Jim Henley points out some flaws in the whole retarded “ticking time bomb” argument i [...]
Pingback by Long story; short pier. » Blog Archive » Give it up for the last honest libertarian. —
January 17, 2006 @ 5:33 pm
[...] a divider. Give it up for the last honest libertarian. Thanks to Jim Henley, you’ll never have to hear another tic [...]
Pingback by Positive Liberty » Blog Archive » Jim Henley, Asker of Tough Questions —
January 17, 2006 @ 6:47 pm
[...] 2006, 6:44 pm
Jim Henley, Asker of Tough Questionsby Administrator
From Jim Henley, quoted in full: Okay, here’s the scenario: Terrorists have planted a n [...]
Pingback by Positive Liberty » Blog Archive » Jim Henley, Asker of Tough Questions —
January 17, 2006 @ 7:06 pm
[...] 2006, 6:44 pm
Jim Henley, Asker of Tough Questionsby Jason Kuznicki
From Jim Henley, quoted in full: Okay, here’s the scenario: Terrorists have planted a n [...]
Comment by John Steinberg —
January 17, 2006 @ 7:26 pm
Couldn’t agree more. Which is why I wrote this a month ago:
Comment by Why yes, I am a rocket scientist. —
January 17, 2006 @ 7:32 pm
The ticking time bomb scenario is retarded. A nuclear suitcase bomb is actually possible — if you’re an immensely wealthy nation state with an advanced nuclear weapons program active and billions of dollars to throw at the problem of proving conservatives right, not an easy task by any means. But for your basic criminal or guy hiding in a cave, no. Hell no.
The US is safe. Too safe, perhaps.
Comment by Demogenes Aristophanes —
January 17, 2006 @ 11:01 pm
Jefferson pre-echoes (?) Henley:
”It is incumbent on those only who accept of great charges to risk themselves on great occasions when the safety of the nation or some of its very high interests are at stake. An officer is bound to obey orders; yet he would be a bad one who should do it in cases for which they were not intended and which involved the most important consequences. The line of discrimination between cases may be difficult, but the good officer is bound to draw it at his own peril, and throw himself on the justice of his country and the rectitude of his motives.” –Thomas Jefferson to John Colvin, 1810.
Comment by John Emerson —
January 18, 2006 @ 7:57 am
I say this every time, but I think that the ticking-time-bomb scenario comes entirely from movies. None of the torture advocates have, to my knowledge, bothered to name actual cases in the millenia of recorded world history when massacres or atrocities were prevented with the help of information gained with the help of torture.
In truth, such cases probably exist. It’s just that the torture advocates don’t need to mention them because they assume that everyone has seen those TV shows and movies. The ones with with the urgent ticking in the background, and the cops rushing around and shouting into the telephone, and the weenie liberal Spock figure humiliated by the Captain Kirk figure, and the hot female FBI agent in the snug jumpsuit, and so on.
Comment by Pat M. —
January 18, 2006 @ 9:04 am
Brilliant analysis. Up until now my gripe with this whole time-bomb scenario was similar to the comments of ”Why yes, I am a rocket scientist”, that is, I thought the hypothetical itself was absurd and was shoved into the faces of liberals only to goad them into appearing to choose the rights of the terrorists over the lives of their fellow citizens, an evil rhetorical ploy to be sure. But the obvious flaw in the arguments of Krauthammer and others, that they want to be absolved in advance of any criminal responsibility for risking a genuinely agonizing decision, had escaped me. Thanks for laying it out.
Trackback by Pharyngula —
January 18, 2006 @ 11:45 am
Open Thread
Open Thread I’m doing some traveling and touristy things with grrlscientist today, on top of somehow coping with the first week of classes (physiology and our freshman seminar in biological principles), and attending Drinking Liberally at the 331 Club…
Comment by Lame Man —
January 18, 2006 @ 12:46 pm
Can we start referring to the ticking time dumb scenario as the ”Jack Bauer scenario”? This would hopefully emphasize that the whole thing is based on FICTIONAL characters and FICTIONAL situations. And that participants in this little thought experiment could make better use of their time.
Comment by Craig Ewert —
January 18, 2006 @ 5:13 pm
The problem with the positions of Jim Henley, and Eric the .5b, and John Steinberg, is that you want the law to punish Agent Squarejaw when he, in your own admission, did the right thing. My metaethical stand is that any ethic that advocates punishing people for doing what they should do is broken, even before you examine it’s particular prescriptions.
A better argument against the ”Ticking bomb” faction is ”Yeah, sure, if you had a ticking bomb you should torture the guy. You don’t have that. You didn’t have it in Abu Ghraib, you don’t have it with all the prisoner renditions you’ve done, you don’t have it with any single one of the prisoners in Guantanamo.” If you would grant them that obvious and absurd hypothetical then maybe (just maybe) you could then get them to defend their actual actions, which are not defended by the hypothetical.
And John Steinberg, if you want to hold a categorical imperative against torture, then you just have to live with the hypothetical nuke destroying the city. If you want to make an exception, then your imperative isn’t categorical after all.
Comment by Craig Ewert —
January 18, 2006 @ 5:45 pm
To Lame Man, Pat M. et al:
Yes, the ”Ticking Bomb Scenario” is fictional, and absurd, and implausible. It’s supposed to be. It’s the edge case we use to help clarify our ethical positions.
If you claim that Agent Squarejaw shouldn’t torture the prisoner even then then you have a categorical imperative, like Kant, and John Steinberg (maybe). If not, then you admit that torture might, possibly, be warranted in some circumstances that actually happen in the world, and we can proceed with the task of discovering what those circumstances are.
My own considered opinion is that actual torture is so rarely warranted in situations we actually see that we would be better off just prohibiting it outright, and let those hypothetical exceptional cases be handled by judicial, juridical, or presidental pardons. (Darnit. I want ’juridical’ to mean ’by the jury’ but it’s really just a synonym for ’judicial’.)
Surely, if the crime you committed was justified, you can convince 12 peers, or 1 judge, or 1 president of that fact? The subtle difference between my position and Jim, Eric, and John is I think Agent Squarejaw deserves that pardon, and some one with the proper authority ought to give it to him.
Comment by AkiZ —
January 18, 2006 @ 7:21 pm
I am a terrorist. My cohorts have planted a bomb in this fair city which explode in an hour, killing several thousand people immediately, and possibly several hundred thousand over the next twenty years or so.
Torture me all you want, Agent SquareJaw, I won’t tell you where it is.
Now, that is mildly uncomfortable, but I still won’t tell you where it is.
Ow, actually, that hurts quite a bit. But no.
Oh, I don’t think I’ll ever play piano again, but you know, I didn’t think I’d get much opportunity to do that after today, anyway.
Ah, all right, I can’t bear any more, turn off the Celine Dion, I’ll tell you: it’s at the football stadium, buried under the goal posts.
What’s that? No, the other posts.
What’s that, not there either? And there’s only five minutes left? I guess you don’t have time to clear the railroad station where it’s actually hidden, then. Mwahahaha!
Comment by John Emerson —
January 18, 2006 @ 10:16 pm
Edge cases make bad law.
Trackback by Meandering Vaguely Around Timnah —
January 18, 2006 @ 10:35 pm
More Torture
I’ve already discussed torture here and, more succinctly, here. However, Jim Henley at Unqualified Offerings puts forward another spin on the whole Ticking Time Bomb scenario that appeals to me.
Okay, here’s the scenario: Terrorists have pl…
Comment by McDuff —
January 18, 2006 @ 10:45 pm
I agree that the TTS is a ludicrous hypothetical. It doesn’t even exist as an ”edge case” in my opinion because you have to suspend so much reality in order to finally justify torture that you are left with something that bears no resemblance to any possible situation that could really occur on this planet. The idea that you would have absolutely certain knowledge that the person in your custody was an evil terrorist (already a serious jump off the deep end) yet no other sources of information as to his movements to follow is beyond the pale.
That said, explaining things using long words might be a better and more rigorous argument, but this one is shorter and achieves the same effect, that of exposing the ”Clear Eyed Realist” bravely advocating torture as being a snivelling pussy who probably wears a bow tie.
Pingback by Long story; short pier. » Blog Archive » Lay down the mony upon the nail, and the business is done. —
January 19, 2006 @ 2:51 am
[...] ow slept with “his eyes wide open,” “wondering who handed him up,” [...]
Comment by John Emerson —
January 19, 2006 @ 10:15 am
I don’t usually like slippery-slope arguments, but I think that the only possible real effect of the TTB argument, if accepted, is to start a slippery slope. The TTB argument can be developed ever so rigorously, scrupulously restricting the instances when it might be used, and in the end we can sit in our armchairs and congratulate ourselves on having been philosophical as shit.
But our restrictive conclusion will never have any influence on anything actual. At the point when someone is actually deciding whether or not to torture someone, they will never, ever, think back to our armchair discussion and think about the restrictions we placed.
The only effect of our decision will to represent a slight weakening of the anti-torture consensus. None of the pro-torture people will care about our restriction or reservations. The cash value of our conclusion would be: ”Even John Emerson says torture is sometimes justified.”
Given this, the use of an edge-case argument is particularly obnoxious. To say something like ”Torture is sometimes philosophically justifiable, but only under certain highly restricted circumstances which may never actually hold anywhere” cannot be a constructive contribution to a real-world argument.
So there’s reason #123 why I dislike academic philosophy.
Pingback by Noli Irritare Leones » Blog Archive » Torture and ticking bombs —
January 19, 2006 @ 11:23 am
[...] ontrolled Substances Act
Home
Torture and ticking bombs
Jim Henley on the infamous “ticking bomb” justification for allowing torture [...]
Comment by Robert Waldmann —
January 19, 2006 @ 10:27 pm
I agree exactly
http://www.blogger.com/post-edit.g?blogID=3621026&postID=108363624269921478
. Sometimes it is morally necessary to do the crime. In such cases it is right to punish someone for doing the right thing.
I would add that prison is not supposed to be there just to avenge injustice and lock up dangerous criminals, but also to deter future crimes and the effect of future deterence of allowing a torturer to walk because he did the right thing would be huge. (I don’t believe that avenging injustice is a separate valid justification for punishment, so the argument seems stronger to me).
This is the old slippery slope argument tired old and hackneye but a bit dressed up with solid empirical support every time you open your newspaper.
Comment by David Harmon —
January 19, 2006 @ 10:44 pm
Now we all know what to do if we’re trapped in a problem box with a ticking time bomb!
For those without games-theory concepts, a ”problem box” refers to those arbitrary constraints placed on the problem to force a choice on the proponent’s terms. Like this:
”No, no, you can’t send the guys clothing to Forensics, or ransack his house. You don’t know anything about his movements, or associates, or anything else. And you can’t find out, because I say so. All you know is that he knows where the bomb is. Whaddya mean, how sure are you that he knows? What are you, some kind of terror-symp ^%#*&$)@*? ”
Comment by radish —
January 20, 2006 @ 1:33 pm
Wow, Jim. This is right up there with Belle Waring’s classic ”Power of Stipulation” post, and shorter too. Congratulations and thank you…