- Top Features:
- War Room
- Glenn Greenwald
- Broadsheet
- Joan Walsh
- Camille Paglia
- Since You Asked
- Follow Salon:
Read other letters about this article
"Would you have permitted the torture of one person if it would have prevented the Holocaust?
This is a ridiculous question. But, no. I wouldn't, because this is about principles. As I said earlier, if you are not willing to die for them, what's the point?"
Of course, its a ridiculous question, and contrary to Wb's definition of a wildly impractical situation becoming probable, there is no possibility of their ever being a situation in which action a completely assures consequence b. Never, in the history of the universe, has anyone been able to predict with one hundred percent accuracy the outcome of an action.
If you want to reformulate your question as, "would you permit the torture of one person, if there was a high probability that it would have prevented the holocaust" then that's ok, but it obviously brings the silliness of the idea into perspective. By what means would you calibrate this probability? By torturing one person, would a space time worm hole open and Captain Marvel and Mr. Peabody appear and take you back in time with a magic wand to make everything right? How could torturing one person ever produce the outcome you suggest? You might as well have averred if you could piss into a cup and drink it to prevent the holocaust.
