Search results
- Defusing the Ticking Bomb Scenario reaffirms and re inforces the absolute and non derogable prohibition of torture and all other forms of cruel, inhuman or degrad ing treatment or punishment, against challenges based on the so-called ticking bomb scenario.
People also ask
What is defusing the ticking bomb scenario?
What is a ticking bomb scenario?
Is the ticking bomb scenario implausible?
Is the ticking bomb scenario a thought experiment?
Would a ticking bomb scenario allow torture?
Why is the ticking bomb scenario an ideological construct?
Defusing the Ticking Bomb Scenario reaffirms and re inforces the absolute and non derogable prohibition of torture and all other forms of cruel, inhuman or degrad ing treatment or punishment, against challenges based on the so-called ticking bomb scenario. Torture must be seen for what it is: abhorrent and shameful.
- Defusing the Ticking Bomb Scenario (2007) - APT
Defusing the Ticking Bomb Scenario (2007) In popular films...
- Defusing the Ticking Bomb Scenario (2007) - APT
Defusing the Ticking Bomb Scenario (2007) In popular films and television series, on talk shows and news, in academic journals and political debates, the possible use of torture to prevent a terrorist attack in a hypothetical “ticking bomb scenario” is a hot topic.
The ticking time bomb scenario is a thought experiment that has been used in the ethics debate over whether interrogational torture can ever be justified. The scenario can be formulated as follows:
- Method
- Results
- Summary
3.1.1 Participants
Two-hundred eighty participants were recruited online, from the MTurk work-distribution website. Participants received $0.15 via Amazon payments for full participation in the study. Thirty-six were eliminated for not completing the survey or answering story comprehension questions incorrectly. Of the remaining 244 participants, 51 % were female.
3.1.2 Design
The design was 2 × 2 × 2 factorial in which the term used to describe the person in custody (Terrorist or Individual), responsibility for planting the bomb (Responsible or Not Responsible), and prior moral commitment (Deontologist or Utilitarian) served as between-subject variables.
3.1.3 Materials and Procedure
The procedures and materials were identical to those used in Experiment 1, with the following modifications: First, the person in custody was described either as a terrorist or simply as an individual. Second, the person in custody was described as either responsible for planting the bomb or not responsible for planting it. Third, the statement describing the probability of alternatives to torture was replaced with the following: All regular investigative and interrogation methods have been e...
3.2.1 “Dirty Hands” Deontology
Participants were classified in two ways. The first way was as was done in Experiment 1, using consequentialism scores to divide participants into utilitarians and deontologists. Consequentialist scores ranged from 0 to 2.0. Mean consequentialist score was .58, and the standard deviation was .44. Overall, 61.0 % (n = 149) were classified as utilitarians (scores ≥ .5). Within each of the Suspect Label X Culpability cells, the proportion (and sample sizes) of utilitarians were as follows: Culpa...
3.2.2 Acceptability Ratings
Mean acceptability ratings are depicted in Fig. 2. Higher ratings indicate greater agreement that torture is acceptable under the circumstances. Unlike Experiment 1, the main effect of prior commitment was found to be significant, F(1,239) = 8.65, MSe = 3.19, p < .005, η2 = .04. Deontologists disagreed that torture was acceptable (M = 3.37; “Somewhat Disagree”) while utilitarians were unsure (M= 4.07; “Unsure”). This factor did not interact with any other factor, indicating that the impact of...
3.2.3 Wrongness Ratings
Mean judgment ratings are depicted in Fig. 3. Higher ratings indicate greater agreement that torture is wrong under the circumstances. As in the acceptability rating analysis, prior moral commitment was found to be significant, F(1,236) = 17.25, MSe = 3.12, p < .0001, η2 = .7. Deontologists agreed more strongly that torture was wrong (M = 5.41) than did utilitarians (M = 4.44). Also significant were the main effects of responsibility F(1,236) = 10.99 p < .0001, η2 = .05, and suspect label F(1...
Culpability strongly impacted all three judgments. When the suspect was described as culpable, participants judged torture to be more acceptable, less wrong, and more obligatory. Referring to a suspect as a terrorist as opposed to an individual also made torture seem more acceptable and less wrong. Deontologists objected more strongly to torture th...
- Joseph Spino, Denise Dellarosa Cummins
- 2014
Sep 30, 2007 · In popular films and television series, on talk shows and news, in academic journals and political debates, the possible use of torture to prevent a terrorist attack in a hypothetical 'ticking bomb scenario' is a hot topic.
Mirko Bagaric and Julie Clarke place the ticking bomb in a plane: A terrorist network has activated a large bomb on one of hundreds of commercial planes carrying over three hundred passengers that is flying somewhere in the world at any point in time. The bomb is set to explode in thirty minutes.
This chapter shows how the ticking bomb hypothetical inhibits understanding of the practice of torture and how it operates to neutralise the ideology of torture. The acceptance of the ticking bomb scenario as a legitimate point of debate, and as a legitimate basis of policy,
