The Ticking Bomb Hypothetical
The Ticking Bomb Hypothetical
Recent literature arguing for, or reaffirming, the impermissibility of torture has deplored the ticking bomb hypothetical and its frequent invocation. Examples of such arguments are found in the work of David Luban and Henry Shue. This chapter shares their views, by and large, but at the same time holds that just what is so problematic about the hypothetical remains somewhat unclear. This chapter differentiates this use of a hypothetical, or thought experiment from those famously put forward by Philippa Foot and Judith Jarvis Thomson, arguing that the ticking bomb hypothetical has the singular problem that it relies for its effectiveness on the plausibility of the scenario, and yet it is put forward as if like other hypotheticals its plausibility does not matter. In the rest of the chapter the author shows how very implausible the hypothetical is, drawing from the work of Darius Rejali, former FBI agent Ali Soufan, and others. In brief, it relies on the false notion that torture is more effective in eliciting the truth than "non-enhanced" interrogation or that a combination of the two works better than the latter.
Keywords: Foot, Philippa, interrogation, Luban, David, Rejali, Darius, Shue, Henry, Soufan, Ali, Thomson, Judith Jarvis, thought experiments, ticking bomb hypothetical, torture
Chicago Scholarship Online requires a subscription or purchase to access the full text of books within the service. Public users can however freely search the site and view the abstracts and keywords for each book and chapter.
Please, subscribe or login to access full text content.
If you think you should have access to this title, please contact your librarian.
To troubleshoot, please check our FAQs, and if you can't find the answer there, please contact us.
