Ethical Problem #1a

[marieldraconis]

OK...so far, so good. I have given my own answer to problem 1. Now, here's a slight scenario shift.
You are soldiers in Iraq. For the moment, ignore any moral opinions that you have about the war and accept that point. "Larry" is your commanding officer. "Johnny" is a group of Iraqi terrorists that you have captured. Larry wants, instead of killing them, to torture them for information.
These terrorists have killed a lot of your friends in the war. Maybe not these ones personally, but definitely the organizations they work with. Do you go along with the torture, or do you oppose Larry and risk court-martial?

Again, please feel free to bring friends in on this scenario or copy it over into your LJ. I want to see reactions.

Comments

[sablemoonsilk.livejournal.com]

Oppose. I've read too many translations of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights to just lightly put it aside.

There is no such thing as absolute evil that absolutely MUST be opposed at all costs. Even so-called terrorism is a matter of perspective. I mean, what is the US Army in Iraq but a glossed-over form of terrorism in its own right? Not all these Iraqi terrorists are into their cause heart and soul, any more than all the US soldiers are. Whether or not they deserve death may be a point to ponder, especially in war where all the rules change, but they do not deserve physical torture and the mental torture of knowing their own betrayal, which is certainly worse than a clean death would be.

[azn-wanderer.livejournal.com]

I would refuse to torture them, because I am a compassionate being and would not want the same done to myself.