The 'ticking bomb' problem

The scenario

The 'ticking bomb' problem

The problem that even the most virtuous people face when thinking about torture is whether there is ever a case when a good result produced by torture justifies the evil act of torturing someone.

It's often illustrated by a version of the 'ticking bomb problem', which asks us to put ourselves in the position of a senior law officer facing a situation like this:

• A terrorist group states that it has concealed a nuclear bomb in London
• The authorities have captured the leader of the group
• He says that he knows where the bomb is
• He refuses to reveal the location
• Torture is guaranteed to produce the information needed to ensure the authorities find and make the bomb safe
  • In fact torture is not guaranteed to be useful in producing accurate information, but please just accept this premise in order to focus on the points of principle

Is it ethically acceptable for you to have him (or his family) tortured to find out where the bomb is and thus save thousands of lives, or is it unethical to torture him, no matter how many die as a result?

This is not, in fact, a particularly realistic scenario but arguing through this problem can illuminate many of the issues involved in torture. It's important to acknowledge, however, that the problem may not be solvable in the terms in which it's stated above.

An answer which focuses on the reality of the ethical situation might say that:

• it is unethical to torture the terrorist
• it is also unethical to let your moral principles condemn thousands of others to an avoidable death
• so in this case there is no ethically acceptable course of action - whatever you do is morally wrong
• it is understandable (but still wrong) for the interrogators to torture the terrorist in this case to save lives
• sometimes an ethically wrong act can be forgiven - in this case because it is a perfectly intelligible human choice to make

By the way: It's important to understand that this answer does not justify the decision to torture, nor does it argue that we are justified in choosing the least bad option. Instead it should be interpreted rather differently - here are a couple of ways of doing it:

• Torturing the terrorist is unethical and can't be justified, but it can be understood, and it can be forgiven
• Torturing the terrorist is unethical, but in those circumstances it is the 'right thing to do'

This is not intellectually satisfactory but it does acknowledge that hard cases can't always be solved in a neat way.

Worldwide opinion

Testing the 'ticking bomb' argument

A sizeable majority of people around the world is opposed to torture even if its purpose is to elicit information that could save innocent lives from terrorist attack.

In 2006 the BBC conducted a worldwide poll to see if people thought the 'ticking bomb' defence - the argument that using some degree of torture may save lives - could ever be a justification for mistreating suspects.

The poll for the BBC World Service showed that 59% of the world's citizens say 'no': they are unwilling to compromise on the protection of human rights.

Opposition to torture was highest in Italy, where 81% of those questioned think torture is never justified. Australia, France, Canada, the UK and Germany also registered high levels of opposition to any use of torture.

In Britain, 72% oppose torture in any circumstances - a reflection of the strong antipathy towards such practices in Western Europe.

One-third of those questioned - 29% - think that governments should be allowed to use some degree of torture in certain cases.

Support for using torture is generally greatest in those countries who see themselves as actively engaged in a struggle against political violence.

43% of those questioned in Israel; 42% in Iraq; 36% of Americans; and 32% in India believe that some degree of torture should be allowed if it provides information that saves innocent lives.

In China too there is significant support for torture - 37% for, 49% against.

The majority of those questioned in the poll - 19 of the 25 countries surveyed - agree that clear rules against torture in prisons should be maintained because it is immoral and its use would weaken human rights standards.

Overall, more than 27,000 people were questioned in 25 countries, all of which were signed up to the Geneva Conventions which prohibit the use of torture and cruel and degrading behaviour.

More about the poll can be found on the pages in the related links.