Recently philosophers unlike politicians have not lingered over definitions, that's a little surprising,
but have focused on the ticking bomb scenario, a hypothetical sketched by Jeremy Bentham in 19th century, popularized in the 20th by Michael Waltswer and revisited by Allen Dashuitz in the 21st. could it not be right to torture an uncooperative suspect, credibly believed to know the densely populated urban location of a ticking bomb? The danger is imminent, the potential disaster great, potential victims innocent, helpless and numerous and the suspect uncooperative. This is usually presented as a one off case, unique, unprecedented and not precedent setting. Yet it is hardly unusual for decision makers to think they confronted taking bombs. Some bombs tick slowly and softly. In the so-called one off case, there is implicit of policy.