No, respectfully, you are incorrect. There are no certainties, only percentages. It is all well and good to take the high moral position that no threat can justify enhanced interrogation or torture. This is fatuous and avoids the difficult moral problem posed by a situation in which there is a high probability that person A is in possession of information which if divulged in a timely manner could to a high probability avoid a catastrophic loss of life. Such a situation is not so difficult to conceive of except for those who refuse to even engage in the discussion of the moral and ethical implications of such a situation.
It is easy to reject the idea of enhanced interrogation if you define it as torture. It is easy to reject the use of torture by a civilized society. However, there are situations in which a civilized society may have to choose between the value of 'NO-TORTURE' and survival.
Would torture be justified to save a single innocent life? A thousand? A million? 8 million?
Although such a hypothetical may have been inconceivable 100 years ago, that is no longer the case.
Weapons of mass destruction exist which could be transported by a single person and which could take the lives of millions of people.
So, what is the ethical mandate when faced with this choice? Does the calculation differ based on the number of people at risk?
How about it?
