مارسیا بارون - James H. Rudy Professor of Philosophy, Indiana University

Recent literature arguing for, or reaffirming, the impermissibility of torture has deplored the ticking bomb hypothetical and its frequent invocation. I have in mind in particular the work of David Luban and Henry Shue. I share their views, by and large, but at the same time I think that just what is so problematic about the hypothetical has not been adequately articulated. Contrasting this use of a hypothetical from the use of hypotheticals by Philippa Foot and Judith Jarvis Thomson, I argue that the ticking bomb hypothetical has the singular problem that it relies for its effectiveness on the supposed plausibility of the scenario, and yet it is put forward as if its plausibility does not matter. I show how very implausible it is, drawing from the work of Darius Rejali, former FBI agent Ali Soufan, and others. In brief, it relies on the false notion that torture is more effective in eliciting the truth than "non-enhanced" interrogation or that a combination of the two works better than the latter.

interrogational torture, ticking bomb hypothetical, thought experiments, interrogation, Ali Soufan, Darius Rejali