Lisa asked:

Should the Ticking Bomb terrorist be tortured?

Firstly, is torture ever just? By what rules am I making my judgement (strong, weak, none). If it is just,
how are we to determine when and to what point we can establish that it's OK to torture? In other
words, is it possible for man to establish a universal law stating an "it depends on the case" law about
torture? Finally, what does Justice prevent us from doing if we allow torture? Does it prevent
anything?

===========

Arguably one response could be: To act justly is to maximise the benefit for the greatest possible
number. The moral agent firstly decides to torture the terrorist in order to obtain the information that
allows to disarm the ticking bomb, thus saving thousands of people. Secondly the moral agent asks
for a trial, pleads guilty to torture (and if the terrorist died also guilty of man-slaughter or murder
depending on the circumstances ) and accepts the full punishment of the law for his case, thus saving
the community from the idea that torture is acceptable.

Helene Dumitriu