Analyzing the Ticking Bomb: A Dialogue on Torture Justification

This essay presents a philosophical dialogue between Emily and Joseph, who discuss the ethical implications of the 'ticking bomb' scenario as an argument for torture. They delve into the history of the argument, referencing thinkers like Jeremy Bentham and exploring its popularization through Jean Larteguy's novel 'Les Centurions'. The dialogue covers various facets of the debate, including the validity of information obtained through torture, the potential for abuse, and the moral considerations of inflicting harm on innocent individuals, such as the suspect's family. Emily and Joseph also discuss the views of scholars like Alan Dershowitz and Bruce Anderson, ultimately highlighting the complexities and controversies surrounding the justification of torture in extreme circumstances. The dialogue concludes with a reflection on the potential for misinformation and the need for alternative solutions, emphasizing the ongoing debate among governments, organizations, and the public.

Running head: DIALOGUE WRITING
Dialogue writing
Name of the student:
Name of the university:
Author note

1DIALOGUE WRITING
Dialogue on topic: How good an argument for torture is ‘the ticking bomb’?
[February 2018: two friends Emily and Joseph were watching a political debate on television
regarding the ticking time bomb scenario]
Emily: I still get goose bumps whenever I think of any kind dreadful bombing.
Joseph: Why? What is there to be so scared of? Nothing is happening to you.
Emily: What do you mean? You are aware of this thought experiment, aren’t you?
Joseph: Of course, I am. I know that this experiment was used as an ethical debate on the
justification of torture.
Emily: It is not only limited to your bookish definition. There was no necessity for this thought
experiment to be possible in the real life. Moreover, there was no necessity that this experiment
would serve the purpose of ethical considerations. In that case, how will you depict the particular
scenario?
Joseph: So you want me to elucidate the scenario. All right, then let me put it in this way. For
instance, there is an individual with the knowledge of a potential terrorism related activities,
which might take the life of numerous people. The decision lies on the authorities if he will be
tortured to reveal the information, which might save the people from falling prey to the terrorism
activity. The question arises if he needs to be tortured or not?
Emily: Well, I am not very satisfied. This is because the situation could be better described by
countering against those who respond to it. Therefore, the resultant argument will be somewhat
of this kind. The nations, which are not permitted to torture any individual, can bend their rules if
there is a potential terrorist in their custody with vital knowledge.

2DIALOGUE WRITING
Joseph: You have missed out a point in this, dear. What does the vital knowledge of a terrorist
actually mean?
Emily: I did not get it.
Joseph: You only spoke about the vital knowledge of the terrorist but there was no specific
mention. Let me make it easy for you. The critical knowledge of a terrorist includes the location
of the bomb explosion and the weapon of mass destruction. These weapons are an immediate
cause of death of numerous people.
Emily: I am sorry to interrupt you, but your points are contradictory. Certain assumptions can be
disclosed here with regard to the initial representation of the situation. Moreover, it has a
tendency to doubt the original costs of allowing torture in reality.
Joseph: Okay?
Emily: I am not done yet. I want to simplify it in the way that if a person is assumed a terrorist in
reality then there is a dubious condition if he is actually a terrorist or he has information about
the terrorism activities. At that point, of time, it is required to depend on the legal, empirical and
moral grounds for confirming the necessity of the complete restriction on torture.
Joseph: However, you skipped on the part that doubts also arise on the usefulness of torture and
in most of the cases; the torture is based on the information that its effectiveness do not surpass
the ethical value.
Emily: I get it. In order to find out more about this issue I think we need to do some background
research. What say?
Joseph: Surely, actually our thinking are on the same track.

3DIALOGUE WRITING
[Both of them sorted out old newspaper articles and tried to find out relevant books from the
library. Joseph started to look into his history research papers. On the other hand, Emily started
looking for his dad’s old collection of database.]
Emily: Look what I found.
Joseph: What? Show me.
Emily: It is a well- researched work on the ‘ticking time bomb scenario’.
Joseph: That is great. Let me read out what it says. Philosopher Jeremy Bentham was known as
the ‘father of the ticking time bomb’ argument. He had wrote few lines in 1804 regarding this
topic in his essay ‘Means of extraction for extraordinary occasions’.
Emily: It sounds interesting.
Joseph: The lines go like this. “Suppose an occasion to arise, in which a suspicion is entertained,
as strong as… at this time the enormity was practicing or about to be practiced, should refuse to
do so?
Emily: That is deep and heavy. It will take me some time to think and comment on this. Check
out this. I have found something on my dad’s personal folder. It says that the concept of ticking
time bomb was introduced in the 1960s. Jean Larteguy’s novel ‘Les Centurions which was set
during the Algerian war, was responsible for increasing its popularity.
Joseph: But are you aware of the particular conditions that is included the novel?
Emily: I have not yet read it.

4DIALOGUE WRITING
Joseph. Well, I have. While researching on the materials, I have found out certain important
points and highlighted them. Do you want to know them in detail?
Emily: Yes, why not? I am finding this subject quite fascinating.
Joseph: So, there are six significant points. Primarily, the novel has valid evidence in support of
the disagreement. The disagreement emerged on the use of authentic information to agree with
the requisite data for the conviction of offence.
There are several grounds to trust the fact that there is probability of telling the truth
regarding the threat of serious torture, which might be applicable to the author, Jean Larteguy.
Again, there is other bases on which there are no options but it could lead to the effect for the
persuasion of truth.
Another aspect, which was highlighted in this novel is about the authenticity of
information that is available rapidly and it provides a good scope for bomb diffusion before the
blast.
Emily: Oh, wow.
Joseph: Wait, there are more in the list.
Emily: Okay.
Joseph: There is a firm base to trust the facts that the probable damage due to bomb blast will
take away the life of common citizens and leave others in a more painstaking condition. A bomb
blast produce a long- term effect, which is much more than the torture inflicted on the capured
individual.

5DIALOGUE WRITING
Emily: I agree on that.
Joseph: There is a strong point to believe that there is no worse outcome of torture than the pain
inflicted on the commoners after a severe bomb blast. What do you want to opine on this?
Emily: I am in support of the findings that the author has focused on this novel. I firmly believe
that a terrorist or a person with terrorism association does not deserve to live a peaceful life after
degrading the life of millions others. I found out from my professor of political science that the
probability of an enormous devastation of innocent people provided opportunity to the French
liberals with a wider agreeable justification to cause torture.
Joseph: I would like to say in this matter that there exists justification behind causing torture. It
can be argued that our nature might often lead to irregular abuse out of our bookish knowledge.
In that case, it can be considered good to regulate a policy of ‘torture warrant’, created on the
track of responsibility.
Emily: How can you say that?
Joseph: I got this information from a book where the author had suggested that torture warrants
are similar to search warrants and the tapping of phone warrants. It is an advanced use of
technology and the experts might use it to look out for the rights of the suspect.
Emily: Yes, it is quite appropriate. The other day, I was reading Alan Dershowitz’s book, ‘Why
terrorism works: understanding the threat, responding to the challenge’ in the library. To know
about other aspects I went through the review of other scholars in ‘the new republic’. It was
written that torture cannot be considered as the only way to gather information from the suspect
and it might not always help in diffusing the bomb in the specific location. Torture was used in

6DIALOGUE WRITING
the past as a weapon and will be used in the future to extract information from the suspect. If
anyone is doubtful of this case should not be held responsible.
Joseph: I am wondering that this subject is going on removing the cover from new discoveries as
much as it is being discussed. I think that I am slightly inclined towards supporting the torture on
the relatives of the suspects.
Emily: Oh no, why would you say that?
Joseph: There is a reason why I am saying this. I read the column of Bruce Anderson in ‘the
independent’. It was mentioned there that it was the right as well as the duty of the British
government to torture the suspects if ticking bombs exist. They should torture the relatives too if
it was found out to be justified for extracting information about bomb blast. However, it was
devilish act of challenge in the terrorism activities. If the assumption can be elongated a bit, the
instance can be framed in a way that a terrorist is caught, but it is next to impossible to extract
information from him. In that case, his wife and children can be captivated to fulfill the
responsibility.
Emily: This is inhumane. The wife and the children do not deserve the torture without any fault
of theirs.
Joseph: How do you know that the wife and children are free from guilt?
Emily: I do not want to know if they are guilty o involved in the act of terrorism, but I can never
support the idea of inflicting harm on the innocent women and kids. This is out of my moral
value.

7DIALOGUE WRITING
Joseph: Where does the moral value when the terrorists destroy millions of lives without even
giving a second thought?
Emily: It is not only I, who is against the idea. If you go through this article you will find out
there are other individuals who believe in the similar thoughts.
[Emily hands over a magazine to Joseph. Joseph read out the article.]
Joseph: What do you want to say?
Emily: There are some governments and non- government organizations, scholars, academic
researchers and experts who have straightaway went against the idea of torturing in the ticking
bomb condition.
Joseph: But this is not right…
Emily: You are not accountable for deciding what is right and what is not.
Joseph: Go on.
Emily: There is a major part of population, who has expressed their views on the issues related to
the torture in the name of ticking bomb thought experiment. They are worried about the
manipulation imposed due to so- called moral perceptions of the citizens and the legal bodies.
Joseph: I…
Emily: I have not yet finished. These individuals believe that a simple response in these kinds of
situations might destroy the society. Moreover, there is no valid evidence that the reality of
fulfilling the requisites of ticking bomb condition has represented the public and there is high
improbability.

8DIALOGUE WRITING
Joseph: So you are saying that it is okay to lose millions of lives for the sake of the family of
terrorist.
Emily: You misunderstood my arguments Joseph.
Joseph: Did I?
Emily: Yes, I wanted to say that torture is not the appropriate way to collect information about
ticking bomb. This is because the suspect might make up anything in his mind art that moment in
the name of truth to get a temporary relief from the pain. He might take advantage of the ticking
timer to misguide the interrogators and at that point, the bomb will blast. This will not lead to
any positive outcome. It might happen that the value of lives saved from the ticking bomb can
surpass the value of its negative outcome.
Joseph: So do you have any other solution in this respect?
Emily: I do not think myself capable enough to bring a plausible solution in this respect.
However, I can recommend that the interrogators and the officials can try out between the true
and fake information rather than relying on only one. They can counter plan accordingly to spoil
the plan of the terrorists.

9DIALOGUE WRITING
Bibliography
Anderson, S.A. and Nussbaum, M.C. eds., 2018. Confronting Torture: Essays on the Ethics,
Legality, History, and Psychology of Torture Today. University of Chicago Press.
Balfe, M., 2016. Why did US healthcare professionals become involved in torture during the
War on Terror?. Journal of bioethical inquiry, 13(3), pp.449-460.
Beck, S. and de Wijze, S., 2015. Interrogating the ‘Ticking Bomb Scenario’: Reassessing the
Thought Experiment. International Journal of Applied Philosophy.
Callaghan, B. and Hansen, I.G., 2016. Cuing moral transcendence reduces support for torture and
disentangles it from retributive and utilitarian concerns. Dynamics of Asymmetric Conflict, 9(1-
3), pp.37-56.
Einolf, C., 2016. The Ethics and Politics of Torture.
Koh, H.H. and Shue, H., 2016. Why Torture Doesn't Work: The Neuroscience of Interrogation.
By Shane O'Mara. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. 2015. 336 pp. Political
Psychology, 37(5), pp.753-757.
Mavelli, L., 2016. Governing uncertainty in a secular age: Rationalities of violence, theodicy and
torture. Security Dialogue, 47(2), pp.117-132.
Middleton, J., 2016. The Subject of Torture: Psychoanalysis and Biopolitics in Television and
Film by Hilary Neroni. Cinema Journal, 56(1), pp.143-147.

10DIALOGUE WRITING
Newheiser, A.K. and DeMarco, T.C., 2018. Who deserves basic rights? People condone
violations of procedural and physical rights in the treatment of terrorist suspects. Law and human
behavior, 42(1), p.50.
Obi, C. and Ezeogu, U., 2016. An appraisal of interrogational torture in liberal democracy.
Obi, C. and Ezeogu, U., 2017. Interrogational torture as an abuse of human rights in the fight
against terrorism in Nigeria: an ethical evaluation. OGIRISI: a New Journal of African
Studies, 13(1), pp.132-145.
Schiemann, J.W., 2017. Interrogating Torture. The Journal of Politics, 79(4), pp.1469-1483.
Spino, J. and Cummins, D.D., 2014. The ticking time bomb: when the use of torture is and is not
endorsed. Review of Philosophy and Psychology, 5(4), pp.543-563.
Thaler, M., 2016. A pragmatist defence of the ban on torture: from moral absolutes to
constitutive rules of reasoning. Political studies, 64(3), pp.765-781.
Tillyris, D., 2015. ‘Learning how not to be good’: Machiavelli and the standard dirty hands
thesis. Ethical Theory and Moral Practice, 18(1), pp.61-74.
Wolfendale, J., 2016. Preventing torture in counter-insurgency operations. In Ethics education
for irregular warfare (pp. 75-92). Routledge.

11DIALOGUE WRITING