Nazis =/= Monsters

I think that it is morally unethical to desensitize ourselves to human by referring to them as something negative. For instance, some people may think torture against humans is completely unethical. They could then insist, foremost, that animals used as food are not human, so it is okay to torture them in the process of creating food. Some of the people will also make exceptions to their no torture rules when the torture involves certain groups. An American might say that torturing a member of Al-Qaeda is okay because the members of Al-Qaeda are monsters who attacked America. Similarly, a Jewish person may say that it's okay to torture a Nazi because Nazis are monster who killed many Jewish people. This is inconsistent and a prime example of why we should strive to keep personal and ancestral bias out of ethics.

Necessary Conditions for Torture

The necessary conditions that I think would allow for torture are as follows (I tried to place them in order):

Firstly, the lives of a sufficiently large number people must be at risk.

Secondly, there must be no other conceivable way to prevent the bomb from causing harm. 

Thirdly, the torturer, or the institutions supporting the torturer, must be certain, beyond a shred of a doubt, that the person they are torturing has the information necessary to prevent the bomb from causing harm. 

Fourthly, the torturer must use the smallest sufficient amount of force necessary to procure the information.
Finally, the institution supporting the torturer should sufficiently compensate the person who was tortured; the institution has committed a crime by doing a substantial amount of damage to the person who was tortured. If the person who was tortured planted the bomb, they should still receive sufficient compensation, though that does not mean that they should be exempt from prosecution.


Note, while these are my current necessary conditions, I am willing to change them if some brings a convincing argument before me.

Question 1

Would issuing warrants to torture actually help to regulate torture, or would they make it more widespread?

I, personally, think it would do neither. I think that it would only legitimize the torture that already happens, and make it more open. I don't think that allowing torture warrants would equate to the government torturing more people than they need to torture. I think that would should certainly set up a a list of necessary conditions for torture, and we should indeed be worried when the government strays from that. I think that is the way with most government actions though. People ought to be more aware of what the government is doing. At any rate, if the public watches the government actions, warranting torture may in fact regulate torture. This is risky, in that the government can easily sway people to think that torture is for their own safety. 

Third Party Threat

Is third-party torture or threat (i.e. capturing a terrorist's spouse and threatening to kill or torture the spouse) more or less morally justifiable than direct torture?

I think that, if done correctly, a third-party aspect of torture could prove very useful and morally justifiable in some circumstances. I think that it would be wrong to capture the spouse, given that it is against the spouse's will and then threaten to kill or torture the spouse. The spouse, in this scenario, had nothing to do with the the crime, as such, we are not justified in punishing the spouse. However, I think we could consider talking to the wife to persuade her to help in saving many lives, along with the promise that she will return unharmed and that, as compensation for her time, and for the psychological trauma that the tortured person would experience, they would somehow be rewarded.