You are the head of a counter-terrorism organization and have captured a "terrorist" that refers to himself as a "freedom fighter"
He has planted a bomb somewhere in the city that is set to detonate in T - 1 hour.

He has been impervious to" low grade torture"
He is unbreakable and has said thousands of people are about to die when the bomb detonates.
He senses that you have been uncomfortable with the low grade torture he has been subjected too.

A member of your team rushes in with the terrorist's 5 year old daughter.

Your colleague tells the terrorist " if you wont talk I will torture your daughter in front of you till you do"
But he needs your approval to actually do it.

The terrorist looks concerned but appears to look as if he is going to call your bluff

What is the ethical solution here.

Before I consider the problem you present here, the ethical dilemma, I would like to know what you mean by your topic thread and how it relates to the problem you pose, if that's possible.

Hi Nerd,
Since I've been engaged with Robert Tulip's posts I know it's based on his assertion on the" introduction" thread that "ethics equals reason plus evidence." The question then is how can this be applied to this situation as a basis for ethical decision making?

ant, you (or your funder) have constructed a hypothetical moral dilemma that is carefully calculated to maximise the difficulty of weighing the lesser of two evils, torture and innocent death.

Such circumstances cannot ever be resolved satisfactorily since something bad will happen whatever you do.

But the application of reason and evidence is the best ethical method we have.

Reason has to weigh the evidence about how setting a precedent on the use of torture could lead to a slippery slope.

Evidence based debate on exceptions to absolute principles is at the heart of moral logic.

I actually want to see how your poetry translates into the complexities of the real world.

So, in other words youre just going to give us more poetry out of Mr. Spock's diary. Is that right?

Let someone else make the call so you can stand by and critique.

You are hardly talking about the real world. The dilemma you propose has never actually occurred but is just a version of the idle game of the trolley problem.

It is oh so typical of an emotive theist to denigrate the role of reasoning in assessing moral choice. I suppose you could take Flann's line in the Ten Commandments Introduction thread that you should do whatever God supposedly instructs to smite wickedness. Unfortunately claiming to have a personal hotline to heaven is a far worse moral method than systematically applying reason and evidence.

What is your solution ant, praying for divine guidance? Or reading the Bible?

Robert Tulip wrote:You are hardly talking about the real world. The dilemma you propose has never actually occurred but is just a version of the idle game of the trolley problem.

It is oh so typical of an emotive theist to denigrate the role of reasoning in assessing moral choice. I suppose you could take Flann's line in the Ten Commandments Introduction thread that you should do whatever God supposedly instructs to smite wickedness. Unfortunately claiming to have a personal hotline to heaven is a far worse moral method than systematically applying reason and evidence.

What is your solution ant, praying for divine guidance? Or reading the Bible?

This is clearly Robert refusing to implement his superior ethics in what could very well be a complex situation occurring in a complex world that often times defies logical behavior.

Robert wishes to implement his ethics in a world that is different from what it actually is.

Extremism exists.
Extreme situations exist
"No win" scenarios are a reality.

Robert wants to play his ethics games only on his game board.
In theory it sounds nice. In practice, so far Robert is showing that it is impotent.

And now Robert doesnt want to play, BUT, he wants ME to answer the question.

Maybe this would be a good time to claim agnosticism and let someone else make the call, Robert.
After which, you can return to preaching how reason and evidence would have solved this dilemma.

So far you are simply being poetic and critical.
A lot of theoretical ballyhoo.
And you are once again resorting to ad hominem attacks.
AND you fell back on an argument about God to save yourself

Well I read all that and saw nothing but more of ant's typical disengaged junk lacking in any serious content. Ant has proved s/he can invent a trolley fantasy that shows decisions should not be based on evidence. And has the hipporhinocritical hide to accuse me of playing games. Great. The bottom line argument from ant appears to be that revelation from God is a better source of ethical decision than evidence and reason. Go figure.

ant, you (or your funder)

Robert Tulip wrote:Well I read all that and saw nothing but more of ant's typical disengaged junk lacking in any serious content. Ant has proved s/he can invent a trolley fantasy that shows decisions should not be based on evidence. And has the hipporhinocritical hide to accuse me of playing games. Great. The bottom line argument from ant appears to be that revelation from God is a better source of ethical decision than evidence and reason. Go figure.

once again, another militant atheist that is totally disconnected with the complexity of the real world.

"This cant happen!!"
"This isnt reality!"
"MINE IS THE ONE TRUE REALITY!"


Robert is a theoretical poet.

The world is complex and does not always align with your personal desires, Robert.
Wake up.

So, you want to go back and play your criticism game of what you believe are all myths?
Thats a total contradiction on your part and a fine example of irrationality.

I will call you a "polite agnostic observer" in this discussion.

Id really like you to implement your ethical system here.