3 ms·
The concepts aren't even opposed. If, hypothetically, there actually is a ticking bomb somewhere (this has never happened that we know of), just break the law.
by jbooth 13y ago
The concepts aren't even opposed.
If, hypothetically, there actually is a ticking bomb somewhere (this has never happened that we know of), just break the law. You'll sort it out later. If you were right, there will be a pardon, if you were wrong, you'll go to jail.
In every other possible scenario, the law should protect rights of the accused.
- canvia 13y agoThere was a pretty good movie that made you think about that type of situation, "Unthinkable" http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0914863/ http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0914863/ It's like the question in Swordfish, would you be willing to sacrifice the life of an innocent to save 10,000 people's lives? How about 2 innocents? What about 500? Once you start to consider making those kinds of trade offs it's a very slippery slope. It seems to me the only correct answer is 0. There is no acceptable trade off to try and counter irrational actions.