Ticking time bomb scenario
The ticking time bomb scenario is a thought experiment that has been used in the ethics debate over whether interrogational torture can ever be justified. The scenario can be formulated as follows: Suppose that a person with knowledge of an imminent terrorist attack that will kill many people is in the hands of the authorities, and he will disclose the information needed to prevent the attack only if he is tortured.
Metadata
- Slug: 00683-ticking-time-bomb-scenario
- Type: THOUGHT_EXPERIMENT
- Tags: ethics, time
- Sources: 1
Axioms
- Assume the rules of the domain apply uniformly.
- Assume the observer’s criteria remain fixed.
- Assume classification boundaries stay consistent.
- Assume the model describes the real case.
- Assume repeated steps do not change the outcome.
- Assume no hidden variables are introduced midstream.
Contradictions
- Two reasonable lines of inference yield opposite conclusions
- A global rule conflicts with a local judgment
- A stable resolution appears to violate a starting premise
- Changing the framing reverses the outcome
- Intuition and formalism diverge at the same step
Prompts
- Which assumption is doing the most hidden work?
- What changes if you relax the smallest constraint?
- Does the paradox dissolve or relocate when reframed?
- What is conserved, and what is sacrificed?
Notes
Sources
Overview
The ticking time bomb scenario is a thought experiment that has been used in the ethics debate over whether interrogational torture can ever be justified. The scenario can be formulated as follows: Suppose that a person with knowledge of an imminent terrorist attack that will kill many people is in the hands of the authorities, and he will disclose the information needed to prevent the attack only if he is tortured.
Tension
- Two reasonable lines of inference yield opposite conclusions.
- A global rule conflicts with a local judgment.
- A stable resolution appears to violate a starting premise.
- Changing the framing reverses the outcome.
- Intuition and formalism diverge at the same step.
Why It Matters
This entry tests how a stable rule-set can yield unstable conclusions under certain assumptions.
Prompts
- Which assumption is doing the most hidden work?
- What changes if you relax the smallest constraint?
- Does the paradox dissolve or relocate when reframed?
- What is conserved, and what is sacrificed?