Here is a moral ‘dilemma’. Is it right to torture ‘criminals and suspects’ for ‘truths’, that might save other lives? This might seem plausible at first, provided that the caught truly know, thus able to convey what is true. The answer then becomes a counter-question… What if the persons are tortured for nothing or worse, misleading non-truths? The path to truths might lead to coerced fake news.
What if the caught were trained to resist torture? The counter-question… What if they were not, and become over-tortured, even leading to death? The price to pay for warding off villains must not be to become a villain. All other more humane methods must be used to save more humans. Never dance with the devil so closely that you are not only mistaken as him, but that it becomes a demonic duet.
Use a ‘stick’ if needed, but never a ‘stick’ too big with actual lasting harm. Throw in a bigger ‘carrot’ if needed, why not? The ends justify the means, only if the means are not too mean, and only if the ends sought are truly worthy, for greater good. Never become inhumane for humanity. Never give hell for peace, as the giving of hell is already the end of peace. Never terrorise terrorists in the name of anti-terrorism.
Why lose your conscience even if enemies have lost theirs? ‘An eye for an eye leaves the whole world blind.’ If hate crimes arise karmically in the first place, why feed fuel to the fire to risk another round of retaliation? (‘The Report’ in summary concludes that ‘Enhanced Interrogation Techniques’, as euphemism for ‘interrogation with torture’ is ineffective for acquiring intelligence or gaining cooperation.)
