Search results
- The problem with the “ticking time bomb” scenario is that torture in real-life cases are justified based on some version of this experiment. Our reality is, however, more complex and ambiguous than a philosophical thought experiment.
People also ask
What does the ticking time bomb mean?
Why is the “ticking time bomb” so mesmerizing?
What is a “ticking time bomb” scenario?
Is a ticking time bomb morally wrong?
Is the ticking time bomb a real thing?
What does the ticking time bomb say about torture?
Aug 3, 2007 · The problems of torture can be illustrated with the 'ticking bomb' scenario: is it acceptable to torture someone if it results in saving thousands of lives?
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:
The problem with the “ticking time bomb” scenario is that torture in real-life cases are justified based on some version of this experiment. Our reality is, however, more complex and ambiguous than a philosophical thought experiment.
Dec 10, 2014 · The new Senate Intelligence Committee report describes how the ticking time bomb scenario was in fact used by the CIA to defend its use of torture or "enhanced interrogation".
- 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
the idea of the pure ticking bomb scenario contributes to any serious consideration of the problem of torture, or for that matter the problem of terrorism. The debunking exercise can raise the following points: Assumption 1: A specific planned attack is known to exist. Assumption 2: The attack will happen within a very short time (is imminent).
Jun 3, 2009 · So why are ticking time-bomb cases so commonly deployed? Should such deployment stop? Certainly some critics—like Shue and David Luban—think so. I disagree and wonder what the rest of you think. Let me offer some comments in favor of ticking time-bomb methodology and then invite responses.
Manage, Calm & Stop Chronic Tics. Practices & Exercises To Do At Home to Get Rid of Tics. Stop the Embarrassment and Anxiety. Get The Free Video Training.
