Abstract
Arrigo, DeBatto, Rockwood, and Mawe (2015) take issue with a number of arguments in our previous article (O’Donohue et al., 2014). We respond in four major ways: (a) pointing out that they never really take on, let alone refute, the key argument in our article—that utilitarian, deontic, and virtue ethical theories are not only consistent with the use of enhanced interrogation and torture in the ticking time bomb scenario but these prescribe it; (b) there are numerous other exegetical problems in their article; (c) they make unsubstantiated claims about the ineffectiveness of EITSLs techniques that we argue are much too strong; and (d) they conflate the ethical with the legal and but even in doing so miss many important issues regarding the legality of EITSLs in the war on terrorism.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
