评论
打印
Recently philosophers unlike politicians have not lingered over definitions, that's a little surprising,
近来不同于政客哲学家们没有再停留在定义问题上这让人有点惊讶
but have focused on the ticking bomb scenario, a hypothetical sketched by Jeremy Bentham in 19th century,
而是开始着重关注定时炸弹问题 这是Jeremy Bentham在19世纪提出的
popularized in the 20th by Michael Waltswer and revisited by Allen Dashuitz in the 21st.
一个假设在20世纪得到了Michael Waltswer的推广
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世纪又被Alan Dershowitz重新提起当一个拒绝合作的嫌疑人知道有一个定时炸弹安置在人口密集的城市地区时
The danger is imminent, the potential disaster great, potential victims innocent, helpless and numerous and the suspect uncooperative.
对他酷刑是对的吗这种情况下危险迫近潜在的灾难巨大潜在受害者是无辜的无助的并且大量的而嫌疑人拒绝合作
This is usually presented as a one off case, unique, unprecedented and not precedent setting.
这通常是一种一次性案例很独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.
但是决策者通常不会认为自己遇到了定时炸弹
Some bombs tick slowly and softly.
一些定时炸弹是很缓慢的悄无声息
In the so-called one off case, there is implicit of policy.
在这种一次性案例中就有着政策的
Sighting Bentham who reversed his initial opposition to torture,
暗示 Bentham后来也改变了自己最初对于酷刑的反对立场
Daschiszs proposes bringing back legal warrants for torture, for ticking bomb emergencies.
Dershowitz提议回采酷刑在定时炸弹情况下的法律授权
His goal is to substitute public accountability to reduce the incidence of what now occurs
他的目的是替代公共责任减少
as he puts it-below the radar screed with the participation of governments that officially disavow it.
如今这种他称之为官方否认却秘密地参与其中的事件的发生率
Such warrants would of course violate international conventions.
这种授权当然会违反国际约定
If I understand him, Daschuitz agrees that torture is immoral but thinks regulating it a lesser evil than a band routinely violated covertly.
如果我的理解是正确的话 Dershowitz同意认为酷刑是不道德的但是认为对其进行监管要比允许别人秘密违反更好如果
