BF2S Forums Utility of actions

I voted NO for both, in policy.  In reality, yes, it's better that one man die (or apply things less than death) to save millions.  But also, in reality, this man would die and NOT give information even if tortured.  You don't create such a scenario and not train to withhold information.  For this cause, I say NO as a policy.  However, regardless of policy, those in charge would take matter in their own hands and torture or kill this man.

And before you ask (since this was a classroom environment related question), I can't put a number on how many lives would be worth killing one person to save them.  But that would be a great poll to take..to see what a human life is worth.  I suspect many here would put 1:1 down.

edit: please note that this in NO WAY alters my views on death penalty killing..which is still wrong.

Last edited by IRONCHEF (2006-12-08 09:38:45)

C.  3 hours later, having given the order to torture and rape the 'terrorists' 7 year old daughter, it turns out someone phoned in the infomation due to a personal feud (edit: and the 'terrorist' had a mental illness which compelled him to confess to planting the bomb when pressured).  You decide to make the problem disappear, and arrange a cover story that the 'terrorist' murdered his daughter and killed himself before anyone could stop him.  You then garotte the child with a belt and hang the man from a ceiling vent with the same belt, then call in the press.  You have safely covered up the 'mishap' and can use the same technique again without worrying about public outcry or going to prison, thus ensuring that you might save the day next time someone tells you there is a nuclear device or small conventional bomb planted somewhere.

Are you justified?

Last edited by UON (2006-12-08 12:22:50)

Parker wrote:

i would have assumed that had already been done.......but then again the first thing that will go in america if we get attacked will be the freedom to travel. thats what really freaks me out.
one of these crazy fucks hears about an ebola outbreak in fuckin zaire or some back woods country, and goes and somehow gets ahold of the ebola virus............
worst case, they are smart and breed that virus until they have enough. then they fake a can of shaving cream, into say the detroit auto show that happens once a year......people from all over the world go to see those cars. within a week of exposure 70% of the fuckin planet would be pissin and shittin blood. and with a virus that has a 90% mortality rate, that would be ALOT of dead bodies to deal with.


god im rambling. im sorry, no more paranoia for me.

I think someone just read "Executive Orders" by Tom Clancy...hehe.

Commie Killer wrote:

Parker wrote:

i would have assumed that had already been done.......but then again the first thing that will go in america if we get attacked will be the freedom to travel. thats what really freaks me out.
one of these crazy fucks hears about an ebola outbreak in fuckin zaire or some back woods country, and goes and somehow gets ahold of the ebola virus............
worst case, they are smart and breed that virus until they have enough. then they fake a can of shaving cream, into say the detroit auto show that happens once a year......people from all over the world go to see those cars. within a week of exposure 70% of the fuckin planet would be pissin and shittin blood. and with a virus that has a 90% mortality rate, that would be ALOT of dead bodies to deal with.


god im rambling. im sorry, no more paranoia for me.

I think someone just read "Executive Orders" by Tom Clancy...hehe.

i havent read it for a couple of years. that scenario has always stayed with me, because its the only one i think could actually fuck us up. its not like some country would actually have the balls to invade us. short of a nuke this country could not be controlled by a military, one of the great things about all of us owning firearms. and if anyone dropped a nuke we all know that it would just be a nuke shooting contest until probably the majority of the planet was glowing green. there just wouldnt be any way to take us. i know people will probably say china, but even with their numbers they wouldnt be able to take this country.

Fancy_Pollux wrote:

While torturing him I would make it clear that if he does not provide the correct information, he would be cryogenically frozen and hidden away somewhere so he couldn't die and get his 72 virgins. After he gives up the information, I'd freeze him anyway.

LOL, your such a prick Fancy, thats why I love you (platonically of course).


Btw, since some of you brought it up, and its my fault for not clarifying in OP, assume for all intensive purposes that the terrorist WILL talk. The point of the situation is not to discuss the merits of torture as a interigation methods and whether its effective, but rather what lenghts of utility people are willing to explore. Heck, if your worried about modern tech and nuclear weapons, just substitute a virulent pathogen for a nuclear weapon that will be released in a crowded area in 2 hours.

Sure, you'll lie to your wife by telling her those pants don't make her look fat

Sure you'll kill a bad person to save a good person

Sure you'd kill a bad person to save a million people.

But would you kill/harm an innocent person to save a million people? Act ulitarianism says yes, because the utility gained by that one loss of life is incomparable to the lives gained, but rule ulitariansim says that by breaking the law to gain that utility, we really have experienced no true gains.

Last edited by Elamdri (2006-12-08 16:58:06)

weamo8 wrote:

Fancy_Pollux wrote:

Yes and Yes.

Evacuate the city, torture the terrorist for the hell of it....  and hell...  torture the girl too for good measure.

Parker wrote:

worst case, they are smart and breed that virus until they have enough. then they fake a can of shaving cream, into say the detroit auto show that happens once a year......people from all over the world go to see those cars. within a week of exposure 70% of the fuckin planet would be pissin and shittin blood. and with a virus that has a 90% mortality rate, that would be ALOT of dead bodies to deal with.


god im rambling. im sorry, no more paranoia for me.

lol, will the models be wearing lave 4 suits?

Yes to both, PROVIDED we are prepared to face the consequences of our actions if something isn't as we believe it to be...eg. there is no bomb

CameronPoe wrote:

I vote no on both counts on the 'innocent until proven guilty' axiom.

The question IS, they guy says its there and by all accounts theres proof if i read it right, so wheres the inocent until proven guilty part? BTW, what if it was YOUR city that had to bomb in it, what then would your answer be? Thats assumeing You KNOW yourself that the bomb really is in your city?

I say yes on both, Im sorry, but a million inocents compared to one guilty and ONE possibly inocent kid doesnt even compare here. Whos to say the Kid doesnt Know, that wasnt included in the question posed.

YES x2

CameronPoe wrote:

Just a thought: you're talking about the kind of person who would fly a plane into a skyscraper killing himself and everyone in the building. Are you sure torture is going to bear fruit? He could provide information that deliberatley misleads the authorities as to the whereabouts of the bomb to GUARANTEE it goes off.

True, but as GS said, there's choppers with radiation detectors.