Exam 3 Study Guide - Final Exam Study Guide 1. Shue...

Info iconThis preview shows pages 1–3. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Final Exam Study Guide 1. Shue compares the morality of torture with the morality of killing in combat. What conclusions does he reach? What pro-torture argument does he consider? According to Shue, torture is sometimes morally acceptable because it only causes partial destruction of a person, while killing of someone in just combat causes the total destruction of a person. Shue also states that just-combat killing is morally worst because it violates the prohibition against assault of the defenseless and the constraint of being a fair fight. Therefore, since total destruction is far worse than partial destruction torture is sometimes morally permissible, because just combat killing is sometimes okay, even though just combat killing causes greater harm to the person. 2. What does Shue mean by "interrogational torture"? When, if ever, does he see this as permissible? According to Shue, interrogational torture can be compliant, but would never work in practice because once a suspect is placed in restraints the information the interrogator or torturer receives from the suspect cannot be distinguished between what is relevant and what is not. This reason, Shue states makes interrogational torture impossible in practice because the torturer will never be able to distinguish between the relevant and irrelevant information. 3. How does Shue analyze the case of the terror bomber in Paris? According to Shue, in extraordinary circumstances Interrogational torture should be used to stop the terror bomber in Paris, but society must be careful not to make ethical policies based on such extraordinary circumstances, as acts of torture will become more likely to occur in usual ones if torture is used in extraordinary cases. 4. What does Luban take "liberalism" to mean? How are "ticking time bomb" cases supposed to provide a liberal defense of torture? Luban states that “liberalism” is a view that believes in limited government and the importance of human dignity and individual rights. Luban also claims that ticking bomb cases are built on a set of assumptions that amounts to intellectual fraud. 5. What does Luban think about the use of ticking time bomb cases to defend torture? Pro torture arguments begin and end with the ticking bomb case, while most interrogators never know about the plot before weeks of torture, which could very well kill the tortured victim. While the whole idea of torturing a subject during the ticking bomb case is in the hope of exposing the plot as the torturer hopes and suspects that an individual might know something about the ticking bomb. The clearly shows that torture is extremely ineffective and utterly useless because in real life scenarios one will never know there is a
Background image of page 1

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
ticking bomb in the first place making the entire idea of torturing a subject to reveal the ticking bomb plot improbable. 6.
Background image of page 2
Image of page 3
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

This note was uploaded on 03/15/2009 for the course PHIL 202 taught by Professor Hanley during the Spring '08 term at University of Delaware.

Page1 / 6

Exam 3 Study Guide - Final Exam Study Guide 1. Shue...

This preview shows document pages 1 - 3. Sign up to view the full document.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Ask a homework question - tutors are online