In Daniel Hill's "Ticking Bombs, Torture, and the Analogy with Self-Defense," the author attempts to refute Shue's thoughts on why under some circumstances torture could be deemed morally permissible. He first introduces the opposing side as plausible; however, why would you actively hurt someone just to treat them as a means to getting what you desire? Hill argues that the only way we can ever deem torture permissible if it aids the individual being tortured, if it is a punishment of some sort for acting unacceptably, or to prevent the individual from hurting an abundant amount of uninvolved individuals. In the latter, there is a disparity in which we've interpreted that example. Hill thinks that there is a vast difference between torturing