Can there really be a middle ground?

My feelings about torture are most consistent with Clarence’s point of view. I believe that torture can be used constructively in certain circumstances. I partially agree with Erica when she says that torture will not diffidently force someone to talk. She also argues that the person in captive may not even have any information to provide. Although this might be true, I believe that in certain situations, this is a risk we must be willing to take. We are living in a world today that is becoming more and more intimidating and we must emplace better tactics that will help us. I believe that allowing torture in situations such as the ticking bomb scenario will greatly help us. I also think that our problem with terrorists is a completely different situation, and it cannot be dealt with like a normal war situation. We must enforce our ability to torture in extreme situations to help keep our citizens, armed forces, and the world safe.

But can there really be a middle ground? How can we determine what situations are worth torturing? By the numbers of people in harm? I feel as though it is a clear yes or no situation. I lean towards Clarence's point of view, but I believe that there must be rules about the extent of torture used.

It is obvious that allowing torture is not ethical in any means. Some argue that torture cannot realistically be used in the real world. If torture was allowed, there would have to be strict rules about the type of torture allowed, how many people are allowed to be tortured, in what situations is torturing allowed, if innocent people are allowed to be tortured, as well as many other rules. But when someone is emotionally attached to a situation and know someone who is in danger, they argue with their hearts, and not their ethics. As Professor Johnson said in class, it’s what people want to do not what they are supposed to do. It is clear that if torture was allowed there would have to be strict rules or else it would get out of control.