Intoscience

Yes, and its the refusal to acknowledge this fact that I find rather strange. The focus seems to be around all the situations where torture would be un just (of which there are many) and the many possible undesirable outcomes to support this refusal. The question was is it "ever" right, well if there is just one possible example where it is the right thing to do then the answer has to be yes. That example is; when all else has failed, all considerations have been made, the situation is now desperate and there is a chance that it may be successful.

My focus as always been on this ^^^^ There seems to be a focus on deliberation of all the possible consequences and aftermath of a particular action that we all agree is morally un just in any normal, or rather more regular scenarios and may also lead to further complications or undesired future situations. I can't argue against this, for a couple of reasons; Any actions imposed in many situations in life may create future complications or undesirable outcomes. From experience we try to avoid this, so it it should be prudent that this be a consideration when imposing an action. No one can predict the future, there can only ever be estimated possibilities based on experience/history, again this should be a consideration and play heavily in the decision to take a certain action. Basically, we don't know the future, but we can make judgement on whether a particular action is justifiably based on the likelihood of a particular outcome and the merits of this as apposed to not acting. There is a possibility that not acting is most likely to produce a less desirable outcome than acting, we all know this as damage limitation. There is also always a chance that the outcome ends up the least desirable situation, granted, hindsight is a wonderful thing. But if we went through life with this attitude would we ever make progress? Maybe? Chance has produced some amazing breakthroughs and I think should not be ignored. I believe that if there is a chance to save someone, even if its ever so slim, that this chance should be taken. This is my moral stance and though could be short sighted (depending on the long term outcome), I believe is the right thing to do.

The ranking officer makes the ultimate decision, yes of course. But to get to that decision I would hope that an investigating team has worked hard to determine the facts to their best of knowledge and explored all avenues prior to. Yes, this is all open to interpretation, cultural influences and corruption. We can spend time discussing all the different scenarios, implications...etc. but there is still a possibility that in one extreme case torture is an option that could be considered and possibly effective. Reading through all the recent posts and there have been some excellent points raised, my answer to the OP still remains yes. +1

Why does it have to be only me catching them in the act, or accusing them of guilt? In fact I would be mortified to find that such a decision was made without jury. Since time is of the essence in the circumstance we are considering, this doesn't mean a trial by jury in a court of law. But a decision agreed on by a professional investigating team. Why do you assume that the child/bomb is secure whilst the perp is in custody? there could be a timer on the bomb, an accomplice on stand by... any number of possible scenarios. The child could be locked away hidden, starving, cold on the brink of death... again any number of possible scenarios. While there is any one possibility that becomes a desperate situation, where all other methods/attempts to succeed have failed, then unless you can be sure torture would be a 100% failure, then you are morally obliged to consider it as an option. The moral obligation is determined by the factors I stated in the 3 points, so are very relevant. It's not whether me or anyone else is desperate, its whether or not the situation is desperate. The decision to torture should not be determined by the former, which could be influenced by irrational emotion. The decision should be considered by the latter, which should be influenced by logic and morality.

True, If we could predict empirically then this would solve all our issues and we'd have a definitive answer. However I don't think this is a matter of prediction but rather a matter of possibilities. It's never right to torture anyone, until the time comes when its the only the right thing left to do. The only time I can think of it ever being the right thing to do is when all else has failed and its the only option left that might have a chance of success. This is different than torturing someone every time in similar situations, the situation has to be a real possibility and specific on 3 points - The level of guilt of the perp, the number of options left in the time remaining and the hierarchy of evils. 1. The perp has to be guilty (or at least have very high odds of being) 2. All other available methods to extract information should have been exhausted right upon to the last moment. 3. The act of violence to gain the information should be a lesser evil than the possible outcome of success.

I agree, we can discuss alternative methods of information extraction, and you know what, I'm sure there are many that are more effective and humane than the barbaric act of torture. But the question remains "is it ever right to torture someone?" My opinion is that 99.9% of the time the answer would be no, but there is that 0.1% that could possibly be a yes. ever = 100%, unlikely = 99.9%, possibly = 0.01%

+1

Yes, how can you consider any different under those circumstances? I don't disagree with what you are saying, I'm sure that in most real life circumstances torture would most likely be useless. But again, there is too much focus on the if's, buts and maybe's This is the point I'm focusing on (my bold) and the reason why I replied yes, not no, to the op. If there is an element of doubt then there is also an element of possibility. If the probability of success is zero then there would be no doubt, but rather certainty that it would result in failure. If we are to consider the possible negatives then we must also consider the possible positive/s I believe, if faced with such a situation, most people would take what ever odds they can, anything above zero is a possibility and gives even just a glimmer of hope.

There are many things that we do in life that are deemed wrong in general, however can also be the right thing to do depending on the circumstances. This just happens to be a rare an extreme example of such. "happy" is a strange term to use, no sane, compassionate, non-sadistic person is ever happy about inflicting pain on another. But they may have good reason to do so, which may result in a desired outcome, which makes them happy. I'm a compassionate, sensitive person. I'm sure I would find it very difficult to torture someone even if I believed it was for the greater good. So yeah, I would definitely not be happy about it, this sentiment we both share.

Why do you continue to twist the context? There is nothing positive about the action of torture, however the torture may result in a positive outcome. Or rather an outcome which is the least negative (the lesser evil). Regret comes after the event, usually as a result of failure, a lack of trying, or hindsight, or a combination of all 3. The question is how deep is that regret and which one are you prepared to live with? How do you know you are doing the wrong thing until the results are in? If you can accurately predict the outcome then you can choose what action is the "right" one to do. In less extreme circumstances you may choose not to act if the odds are that it is most likely to fail. However, faced with no other choice and nothing left to lose then acting on something gives you better odds than not, even if the chance of success is minimal. This is logical. The problem arises when such an act has very damaging moral implications, then you have to consider the moral obligations as part of the logical path. Keeping it simple - the lesser evil trumps, if a greater good is possible.

Then why are we discussing anything? There seems a focus around the negative unknowns whilst at the same time dismissing the positive unknowns. Maybe its just me, but the reasoning around this is that with all the unknowns considered there can only be 2 possible results, it will either work or it won't. Why would you not try and improve the odds from zero? If you knew that that it would result in failure 100% of the time then it would be automatically (by any sane and logical person/s) dismissed as an option rendering the action pointless and not even on the table for consideration at anytime. Thus the answer to the OP would automatically be No, both logically and morally.

The lottery example was to show that even when the odds are extremely poor there is still a chance. Not sure about your national lottery, but where I come from the jackpot is not won every week. Anyhow the point was to compare odds nothing else. Doesn't matter whether it has happened or not, the focus should be - is it possible? Yes, if my child had committed such a crime where there was no reasonable doubt of their guilt (which is what myself and beecee are focussing on). Obviously I would in all my power attempt to prevent this action, this goes without saying as a loving parent. But If torturing them was the only option left in a last ditch attempt to save innocent lives, then as much as it would destroy me, I would have to condone it.

Quite right torture is one of many interrogation techniques. But the OP is focused around whether torture is the right thing to do not what alternatives there are. Yes we can consider alternatives, much like we can consider real life scenarios. But to answer the question directly "is it ever right to torture someone" we have to consider all possible scenarios rather than focus on the most likely scenarios. So to re-iterate, when all other options have been exhausted and you are left with only 2 options - torture or not. Is it ever possible that torture is the right thing to do? Absolutely, which ever technique is going to cause the least distress for all those involved is the most logical and morally correct action to take. No one is arguing this. Exactly, +1

Well you do, as beecee pointed out, if the victims of the crime are saved. The main point is that if you don't try you will never know, but you will know for certain if you don't try the victims are doomed. I find this morally undesirable. Logic even dictates this. When people suggest to me that I'm wasting my time buying a national lottery ticket because I'm never going to win they are most likely correct. The odds of me winning are extremely low, so as far as gambling goes it's in reality a waste of money. However, I'm prepared to keep buying a ticket because there is an extremely small chance that I might just win, and the outcome of this is that I get to win the prize that was worth trying for - You have to be in it to win it If you don't try you can never achieve, if you do try at least there is a chance, no matter how unlikely it is, you will. When all else fails and you are left in a situation where torture or do nothing are your only 2 options left, do nothing results in one outcome. No, the question is a simple one that gets over complicated by irrelevant reasoning. There's too much focus on all the if's but's and maybe's. 1.Torture is most likely very unreliable for information extraction and could be most likely result in failure. Is it proven that torture has a 100% failure rate? If so I'm happy to retract my answer to the OP and change it to a No. 2.In some situations there maybe no way to ascertain 100% guilt, granted. however when time is of the essence and you have enough information to assume the perp is guilty then this is the logical approach. 3&4. You state yourself that the clock is ticking, this applies to the victims as well as the perp being tortured. but I think the clock for the victims is far more important than the clock for the perp, would you not agree? No one says that the perp requires torturing beyond what is necessary, now you are making up scenarios. Like beecee, my concern lies with the victims facing their doom, not the perp being tortured. The perp being tortured has a good chance of survival (though some would argue doesn't deserve such), the victims face inevitably death. But hey, if you can rest easy on your choice and sleep at night happy that the choice you made was the best one, good luck. I'm not here to argue what you should believe, think or feel. In my simple mind, I follow what I believe is the logical route where I can, until there is no logical route left, then I go with my gut and/or the route that I feel is the best one to take at that given moment. We can all look back with regret and say "only if".

I'm confused by this, Torture, in the context we are talking about, would be used in an attempt to gain information that may lead to saving lives. It will either work or it won't. If it works great, you may be in a better position to save lives. If it fails the lives are doomed. If you don't try using all means at your disposal, the lives are doomed The person being tortured will either respond with the truth, or at least some useful information. Or they will say anything just to stop the torture. Or, if they are really tough/insane, keep quite and possibly lose their life. No one is arguing this, no one is saying that torture will work. The argument is that it might, even with the smallest of chances. So are the counter arguments. They claim that torture will never work and is absolutely pointless and immoral in all circumstances. Going back to the OP Is torture ever right? I'm sticking with yes, if the person being tortured has requested it for pleasurable purposes. The OP stated in the initial post to ignore the legalities and assume that the perp is guilty, where you find yourself in a situation with only 2 choices left - torture or not. I took this as meaning to focus on the question of morality of those choices, rather than the implications of trial, justice and punishment. The moral justification of using torture, considering all possible situations. The OP offered a scenario which may pull on a person's heart strings, since it appeals to parents in general, myself included. However you can take an objective approach and still conclude the same moral standing. Simply take the scenario, consider the options and implications, and then go with the most logical route in an attempt to gain a successful result. Whether the desired result is achieved is irrelevant to the moral implications of the action taken; unless the desired result is always unachievable, in which case it is not the most logical route to take.

Point noted. Apologies, I didn't realise it was confusing or an issue.

Yeah, I can only think of a cyclic universe, but these tend to assume a pre-existence with no beginning or end. Where it expands then shrinks then expands continuously for all time. Was it Sir Roger Penrose who suggests an "aeon" where the universe expands beyond any measurable size, thus by which size becomes moot and therefore the cycle starts over? I don't know the exact details. I only read popular physics books, so only have a layman's understanding of cosmology.

It is true that humans have a common ancestor to all other living things. But the tree of evolution has many branches that spawn a vast variety of fruit. Humans like other species, are just one distinct variety that has a traceable lineage distinct from other species until it converges to its most recent common ancestor which is in the "ape" variety. Yes there are missing links along the route but most evolutionists agree that humans descended from the apes.

My answers in bold, others may correct or elaborate on them.

It appears so, I'm trying to understand why torture would always be off the table regardless. This seems to me a failure to expend every possible action in an attempt to preserve the most precious of all things. Obviously my assumption is that torture might have even the slightest of chances of success. I cannot confirm this, but since this tactic is still used in modern times in some form or another, suggests that it has the possibility to work. Simplified, if all attempts that might work (even if the chance of success is almost negligible) are exhausted, then I believe (along with many others) the "right" thing has been done. It would be a tough call to make and I wouldn't like to be the person making the decisions. However, I would like to believe that I would make all attempts to save lives, and face the consequences of doing so after the event. Dammed if you do, dammed if you don't. Which one could you live with?

I don't think you are wrong, planning and having protocols in place makes perfect sense and I think we can all agree they should be followed. However, I'm not so sure that torture should never be planned in as a final attempt to save lives. It's a bit like having a self-destruct button, where no one (sane persons)ever want to use it but it's there as a very last resort. I just think, in answering the OP's question "is it ever right", we should consider all possible scenarios regardless of how unlikely, not focus on specifics. If someone can convince me, or better prove to me, that torture would fail 100% of the time in 100% of scenarios then I would happily change my answer to no. I would hope that if torture had to be employed that the torturer would be careful not to go so far as it to be fatal, though the risk is there. There will be time for a "fair" trial after the people are saved or not, when time is of the essence then on the spot judgement has to be made. Since in some scenarios the full facts may not be available, granted. However, time could be wasted trying to gain them, maybe the right thing to do is act based on the best knowledge available. Lets face it, we all often do this, though mostly with less severe consequences, noted.

I'm guessing by the nature of the question and the reply by the OP that by intrinsic they mean fundamental? To answer this I'm not sure there is, and how there could be unless it was assigned, which implies a higher or conscious power that governs all life on Earth ( and possibly the universe should there be any). If you are religious you may argue that God assigns value and we humans (at least in some cultures) sit at the top of the pecking order. You may argue that the universe assigns value by producing rare and complex structures, by which the more complex and the rarer the complexity the higher the value. This doesn't mean that protection or survival of such is priority, we are examples of how this fails regularly - wars, environmental abuse, pointless destruction/killing, etc... So other than assignment by personal value, I don't see how one could encompass all into a fundamental set that was consistent across all life. As Zaptos has stated a few times, values are dynamic and personal.

I would argue that this is the main crux of the matter and I doubt if any sane person/s was/were in such an extreme situation they wouldn't be worrying about morality.

If only life was that so simple...:)

Could be either or both, a choice or a duty.