[stirfrykitty]

Depends on the situation. Let's say you have a hostile war captive (enemy combative of a high rank) who is the ONLY one who can provide you with critical, war-winning details. You (metaphorically) would want to do whatever it took to secure those details. I've been in hairy situations before. Everything Hollywood depicts goes out the window. Embedded reporters get a newfound respect for troops once they ride out just one hot encounter. They understand the need for the military to do what they do, and are likewise frustrated when the military's hands are needlessly tied when they shouldn't be. I agree to not engage in heinous acts for their own sake, but sometimes more vigorous actions are needed to win for the sake of innocent lives. Case in point being ISIS. They should have been afforded zero grace. In fact, my aforementioned situation has played out in the real many times over. Imagine if the man above had kidnapped a loved one. You would do and sanction anything necessary to get back your loved one. Failure to see this is a moral failure on the part of the one to make the right decisions. There are some situations where "anything goes" is the way to go. Thankfully they are few and far between.

[Robin_Message]

The problem with this kind of consequentialist ethics is that thinking the end justifies the means generally makes you very vulnerable to manipulation by others who tell you what the ends will be and then ask you to do the means.

Remember, Guantanamo also had taxi drivers and aid workers in it. How many of them are you willing to torture in order to find the terrorist you've captured and maybe get some information that might help stop a future terrorist plot? The hypothetical of capturing a top general with a tight deadline provides a terrible intuition when it comes to torture.

But that is exactly the kind of intuition Rumsfeld et al wanted people to be thinking about, in order to justify torture^W enhanced interrogation techniques.

[stirfrykitty]

You (metaphorically) still didn't answer the underlying question, namely, wouldn't you do anything it took to save a loved one? The answer isn't grey, it's black and white. The answer is always YES to doing what it takes to save one's family. You have a moral imperative to do whatever it takes to keep your own safe, up to, and including, your own life. You fail your family morally if you fail to act when you could do so. People like to throw in these trick questions like, "If you could save your own child, but nine others would die; or you could save the nine and your own would die. What would you choose?" Save my own child every time.

[MockObject]

So, then you'd kill 6 billion to save your own child.

[stirfrykitty]

That is patently ridiculous and taken to the extreme and you know it. We are talking reasonable possible situations (not world events) that you may find yourself in. And yes, if I had a choice to save an entire building or just my kid, it's my kid every time. I fail them morally if I do not. I'm not responsible for other people's family, just my own. Now... if I could save my kid and everyone else, then yes. But my kid first.

[MockObject]

Hardly ridiculous, it's inescapably implied by

> The answer isn't grey, it's black and white. The answer is always YES to doing what it takes to save one's family.

You didn't really need to make such an absolute point, but you did.

[ip26]

You would want to do whatever it took to secure those details.

Right, so you bring in Hanns Scharff.