評論
打印
Recently philosophers unlike politicians have not lingered over definitions, that's a little surprising,
近來不同于政客哲學家們沒有再停留在定義問題上這讓人有點驚訝
but have focused on the ticking bomb scenario, a hypothetical sketched by Jeremy Bentham in 19th century,
而是開始著重關注定時炸彈問題 這是Jeremy Bentham在19世紀提出的
popularized in the 20th by Michael Waltswer and revisited by Allen Dashuitz in the 21st.
一個假設在20世紀得到了Michael Waltswer的推廣
could it not be right to torture an uncooperative suspect, credibly believed to know the densely populated urban location of a ticking bomb?
在21世紀又被Alan Dershowitz重新提起當一個拒絕合作的嫌疑人知道有一個定時炸彈安置在人口密集的城市地區時
The danger is imminent, the potential disaster great, potential victims innocent, helpless and numerous and the suspect uncooperative.
對他酷刑是對的嗎這種情況下危險迫近潛在的災難巨大潛在受害者是無辜的無助的并且大量的而嫌疑人拒絕合作
This is usually presented as a one off case, unique, unprecedented and not precedent setting.
這通常是一種一次性案例很獨特前所未有并且背景都不同于以往
Yet it is hardly unusual for decision makers to think they confronted taking bombs.
但是決策者通常不會認為自己遇到了定時炸彈
Some bombs tick slowly and softly.
一些定時炸彈是很緩慢的悄無聲息
In the so-called one off case, there is implicit of policy.
在這種一次性案例中就有著政策的
Sighting Bentham who reversed his initial opposition to torture,
暗示 Bentham后來也改變了自己最初對于酷刑的反對立場
Daschiszs proposes bringing back legal warrants for torture, for ticking bomb emergencies.
Dershowitz提議回采酷刑在定時炸彈情況下的法律授權
His goal is to substitute public accountability to reduce the incidence of what now occurs
他的目的是替代公共責任減少
as he puts it-below the radar screed with the participation of governments that officially disavow it.
如今這種他稱之為官方否認卻秘密地參與其中的事件的發生率
Such warrants would of course violate international conventions.
這種授權當然會違反國際約定
If I understand him, Daschuitz agrees that torture is immoral but thinks regulating it a lesser evil than a band routinely violated covertly.
如果我的理解是正確的話 Dershowitz同意認為酷刑是不道德的但是認為對其進行監管要比允許別人秘密違反更好如果
