Reply #45: He presents both hypothetical and actual examples.

[ozone_man]

The hypothetical example was used to convince you that there are cases where one may approve of torture. For example, go back to a day before 911, and say that one of these guys was apprehended, but we didn't know the specifics, what exactly was going to happen. What level of interrogation would be acceptable to drag out the truth from the terrorist? The bomb case is pretty realistic too, it may happen, and represents a possibility for a many times larger loss of life than 911. If the answer is ever yes, that there may be cases where torture is justified, then it remains to discuss what these particular situations are.

The "truth pill" was introduced to make the apparent affects of torture invisible to the witness like collateral damage is for most of the world. It's out of sight, not on the front page. Most people don't want to hear about collateral damage anyway. He's saying that it is irrational to not be much more upset with the collateral damage to thousands of innocent victims then it is with the idea of torture of terrorists.

Personally, I don't approve of torture, but there may be certain circumstances, such as when thousands of lives are at stake, where it is acceptable.