It comes in really handy when you want to debunk deontological ehtics. Whoop de shit. Good for you. It sounds like mental masturbation to me

Well if you're an anti-intellectual then it would seem that way to you.

and meanwhile in the real world, people have been getting brutalized for years, in my name.

Yes --and without the ticking time bomb conditions being met either. That's why I have consistently argued that Bush and half his cabinet should be tried for war crimes, inclding torture. That's also why, in the real world, I have worked at a high level with the ACLU on these issues -- because I believe in justice no less than you or Ondelette. I just have a different, more intellectually honest, method for figuring out what justice consists of in any given situation.

Let me lay it on the line for you. Natural rights that are not derived from something more fundamental, like utility, are nonsense on stilts. Its religious thinking. But there is no god to lay down the natural rights and laws. We have to do it ourselves. We are best guided by weighing the consequences, not complying with whatever rule someone has intuited no matter where it leads.

Again, again, and again: if you have no way of knowing what the outcome of your actions are, of what use is this philosophy?

We're just not that ignorant. And technically, we make our judgments based on expected utlility not actual utility. If I were faced with my scenario, I know that I would be pretty safe in judging that 15 million lives lost is not outweighed by the good of preserving the rights of one terrorist.

Your scenario - where all the facts are in your possession except for one key bit which you are certain your victim knows - cannot be classed as anything BUT implausible.

I beg to differ. There is no rason why you couldn't learn part of a plot without learning all of it. Its entirely plausible -- and you know it.

I wasn't avoiding your green eye scenario, it just seemed a bit jejune. But here goes:

If the only choices are 1) humanity is extinguished or 2) kill all the green eyed people. Then I choose 2) because a lot less people die that way. Sucks for the green eyed people but what are you going to do? Its them or us in your scenario.

Now THAT scenario is WAY less likely than my scenario so I'm not too worried about it.

The likelihood that the use of tactics like torture destroys the fabric of the democracy that uses them is of probability near one. Meaning it always happens.

Well then we are definitely screwed because we already used those tactics. Our democratic fabric is now irrevocably destroyed with absolute certainty.

Why are we debating then?

Its precisely because my scenario is unlikely that many of your criticisms come across as hysterical. If it never happens, then we'll never have any torture under my system. If it happens once every fifty years, then we'll have two incidents of torture every century and 30 million people saved. Sounds like a good trade.

BTW: Paul D. Ash: something can be both unlikely and plausible.