At first thought, I agreed with the article. It seemed perfectly reasonable to torture someone who was guilty of something if it saved the life of an innocent person. The author was very good at persuading us to see it his way. As we got to discussing the article, my ideas started to change. I still feel that the article has some true parts, but I feel like the author is not giving us the whole truth. The idea that the person being tortured might not for example say where the bomb really is makes it difficult because then everyone dies. I am now leaning more towards torture is not the answer. It does not necessarily change anything because the person being tortured is probably not going be honest, which means that the person is being tortured for nothing. It makes me wonder whether its worth torturing one person to potentially save more people or whether it’s not worth hurting someone to save people that may not be able to be saved.
No comments:
Post a Comment