The Torture Question And Logic 101

Back to school, folks!

Here's a sample of the kind of argument that's been kicking around for, oh, a couple of centuries (in one form or another).

If you knew that you could save thousands of lives (SL)like 9/11 by torturing one person (T) to get the necessary preventive information, wouldn't you do it?

Sure you would!

Ya know why?

BECAUSE IT'S A CIRCULAR ARGUMENT!!

Look at it this way:

P: If you knew SL, then you would T.
P: You do know SL.
C: Therefore, you would T.

It's a valid DEDUCTIVE argument -- where the conclusion is already CONTAINED in the premises! (You see it, right??)

BUT moral conclusions like this one are NEVER deductive -- they are ALWAYS and NECESSARILY INDUCTIVE! The conclusion, in this case, a moral judgment, can only be MORE OR LESS probable! If you try to use DEDUCTIVE reasoning to support a conclusion which can only be probable, YOU ARE COMMITTING THE FALLACY OF CIRCULAR REASONING (a.k.a. BEGGING THE QUESTION)!

You see, knowing special life-saving information can NEVER be certain! It can ONLY be more or less likely -- Further, you can never know HOW more or less likely it is!!

MAYBE the guy you're going to torture HAS the information! How do you know?? Can you know for CERTAIN?? HOW!!!!??? THERE IS NO WAY YOU CAN KNOW!!!!!!!!!!!

Logically, we can't even know FOR CERTAIN that an object dropped from you hand will fall to the ground -- THE LAW OF GRAVITY! How can we know about what a person "knows" -- for sure!

So, all of these arguments about torture -- as usually presented -- are, well, either the product of ignorance OR STUPIDITY!