why would you? To what end?? I don’t see how you think you can advance from the “not logically impossible” to any kind of meaningful conclusion about advisable policy or behavior in the real world.

Because I am a lover of truth. You want a policy that rides on the philosphical question? Here's one. Libertarians and conservatives will argue that people have a natural right to property. They will argue that that natural right rules out redistributive policies. I say: no, no, no. Natural rights that are not derived from something else that is real are simply nonsense on stilts. Redistribution from the low marginal utility rich to the comparatively high marginal utility poor will increase utility. So let's have Social Security and National healthcare!

Your hypothetical scenario - the story you're telling us - is predicated on assumptions.

Guilty as charged. I've already confessed to this "crime" several times. Why do you keep torturing me by repeating the same already mooted objection over and over?

You didn't say “we think” there's a bomb, or “our best guess is” this guy knows something about it. You’re saying “we know”.

I'm saying we know the same way we know anything in everyday life -- not with 100% apodictic certainty.

How are the facts in your scenario known to your hypothetical interrogators? Through conventional methods. Not interrogation, but traditional surveillance, which is not torture. But if those are working, there's no "last resort". You just decided for some reason to yank in a conspirator while the surveillance was working.

Right but for example, let's say they found out about Operation Nuke New York because they got lucky and the NSA intercepted a cell phone call. There's certainly no guarantee this is going to happen again. Meanwhile the guy we caught who was unequivocally named in the intercepted cell phone call, just isn't talking. Instead he spits in the interrogator's eye and calls his mother a whore. He's been doing this for 3 weeks staright and now there's only a week until detonation.

That's the kind of thing I mean when I say "last resort". if it ain't working and we've tried everything else but torture, then we would have to torture.

why not continue to use traditional surveillance methods to find out what you want to know?

Because it just ain't working and we're running out of time.

We don’t “require” certainty. You do.

No, I don't. But lots of people make this argument that you have to 100% know this and 100% know that.

particular objections, even if the revision voids the whole point of your argument.

What does your belief about a hypothetical justified instance of torture tell us about how we should conduct our affairs in the real world? Anything more meaningful than for instance the belief of a hypothetical justified instance of theft? If not, then why are you bothering harping on about this.

As I said in the first few lines of my first post on tihs thread, I have two motivations:

1) I think the philosphical point is an important one, and

2) Strategically, I think its counterproductive to argue against torture by making strident and counterintuitive arguments that leave our side branded as extreme pacifists whose views can be ignored.

Would you object to letting the government waterboard you and put you in a coffin full of bed bugs, The Fool? It is a hypothetical that could really happen, and doesn't involve a ticking bomb or any other such nonsense...You know you are innocent

That's an easy one. Why yes I would object.

I'm innocent and its not even a ticking time bomb situation where they know I have the info they need and I'm withholding it?

Uh, is this a trick question? Hell yeah I would object!

How does the ticking time bomb scenario hold up if the Feds are torturing the wrong guy?

Not very wwll. But in the hypothetical scenario, they know* they have the right guy.

*In the oridnary sense of "know" where it doesn't mean 100% metaphysical certainty but that they have met some high standard like beyond a reasonable doubt. You can probably imagine a scenario for yourself if you try hard enough.

my previous post was @amnesiac

"How do they know someone is withholding information? Does this assumption hold 100% of the time."

Because I stipulated it in my hypothetical scenario. It holds 100% of the time in my scenario, yes.

Well you were right about one thing: arguing with The Fool made you a fool.

Torture, if it occurs, needs at least to compulsorily be investigated. And our legal system has the flexibility to decide if there were mitigating circumstances. The problem at hand is not with the laws and any "absolute prohibition" and "ticking time bombs" and other such nonsense. The problem is that we need to know the full truth about the Bush-instituted policy of torture; and subsequent to that, the prosecutions that are justified.

Before you start insulting people you might want to make sure that you're not arguing for the same thing they have already argued for. I have repeatedly said that my TTB scenario does not apply to Bush and that Bush should be convicted for a number of war crimes, #1 being a million dead Iraqis, but also certainly for the torture he conducted.