- Top Features:
- War Room
- Glenn Greenwald
- Broadsheet
- Joan Walsh
- Camille Paglia
- Since You Asked
- Follow Salon:
Read other letters about this article
Once again I'll ask for that elusive practical answer: Would you have permitted the torture of one person if it would have prevented the Holocaust? Wbgonne
This is a ridiculous argument, a teleological one (if I remember my university philosophy professor correctly). It amounts to "the ends justify the means."
A few weeks back there was an argument here over whether the death of a baby would be justified if that death brought about cures for any number of human illnesses (at least that's how I remember the debate).
I'll avoid a long and drawn out comment on teleological arguments; what I will say is that you're not looking for an "elusive practical answer." You're looking for justification. You're assuming that a) said person actually possesses critical information; b) that information can be reliably extracted via torture; c) the information "extracted" will happily prevent some earth-shaking event.
Does any of this sound reasonable? I hope it doesn't, because it's not.
