I must say that the "ticking time bomb" argument in favor of torture is compelling to some degree, as Ezra does, but it's ultimately irrelevant. It requires, as a prerequisite, the absolute knowledge of a future act of terrorism, which is unlikely. It requires that one has held captive someone who knows significant information about the threat and can be cracked by torture, which is unlikely but also implausible, as it is difficult to verify that the information is good, so you have to have some quick way of verifying it. And wouldn't terrorists switch up their routine after one of their gang got caught?
In the field of computer science education, there is what is known as a "toy problem", which is a problem that is so simplified from anything you encounter in the real world that it is useless aside from instructional purposes. I think the 24 scenario fits this bill precisely, but since that show hammers its subject matter home so vividly, people figure it's based on reality. Only it isn't--it's entertainment produced by Hollywood for mass consumption. I can't tell you how many times I've heard this argument posited by conservatives as proof of the need for torture--I think the left equivalent would be that the Oliver Twist scenario illustrates the need for anti-poverty programs. My feeling is: when your chief argument in your favor is a fucking television show, your arguments must suck.
