Is Torture Ever Right ?

[Peterkin]

1 minute ago, beecee said:

We are talking of certainty of guilt as per the example given previously.

Yet again, that came with an IF I simply don't accept as pertaining to real life.

 

2 minutes ago, beecee said:

Would sticking the big hulking brute Father in with the kidnapper be torture for the kidnapper? 

Already answered.

[beecee]

15 minutes ago, Peterkin said:

Yet again, that came with an IF I simply don't accept as pertaining to real life.

I gave examples of 100% certainty of guilt in a couple of crimes in the justice/punsihment thread. Of course we can be reasonable certain of the probability of guilt, and also 100% certain of guilt.

15 minutes ago, Peterkin said:

Already answered.

Did you?  My answer is if the jailed kidnapper refuses to reveal the whereabouts of his mate, and there is good reason to believe the child is in danger, then yep, put the Father in with the jailed kidnapper which you already have agreed as a valid scenario in your imagined situation and chosing between two evils.

15 minutes ago, Peterkin said:

There are three questions: Would I do it in some imagined situation? A: Maybe.

 

16 minutes ago, Peterkin said:

 I imagine there are situations where someone has to choose between evils - but that doesn't make the lesser evil good.

 

[Peterkin]

1 hour ago, beecee said:

I gave examples of 100% certainty of guilt in a couple of crimes in the justice/punsihment thread. Of course we can be reasonable certain of the probability of guilt, and also 100% certain of guilt.

I wasn't entirely convinced about all of them, either. However, as the verdict in those cases came after a trial,  not instead of a trial, I'm more inclined to believe it was accurate. In the present example, someone has been picked up that the police are sure is one of the perpetrators, and they need information from him or her very quickly - so there is no time for a thorough investigation, let alone a trial. How often are the police sure they have the right guy and turn out to be wrong - maybe 30 years or a hanging later?

1 hour ago, beecee said:

the Father in with the jailed kidnapper which you already have agreed as a valid scenario in your imagined situation and chosing between two evils.

No, I didn't consider that a valid option. I can take responsibility for my own actions; not for those of a distraught hulking brute.

[beecee]

1 minute ago, Peterkin said:

I wasn't entirely convinced about all of them, either. However, as the verdict in those cases came after a trial,  not instead of a trial, I'm more inclined to believe it was accurate. In the present example, someone has been picked up that the police are sure is one of the perpetrators, and they need information from him or her very quickly - so there is no time for a thorough investigation, let alone a trial. How often are the police sure they have the right guy and turn out to be wrong - maybe 30 years or a hanging later?

In the most relevant case I gave, he was caught in the actual act of raping a little girl and stabbed one of the rescuers. 100% guilty by normal everyday logical standards.

In the example given, it was mentioned certainty I believe, but I will add confession also to achieve what I am proceeding on...that is !00% certainty. My actions re the Father being locked in with the kidnapper who is remaining silent, stands. And as you yourself agreed on...

6 minutes ago, Peterkin said:

There are three questions: Would I do it in some imagined situation? A: Maybe.

 I imagine there are situations where someone has to choose between evils - but that doesn't make the lesser evil good.

*shrug* 🥱

[Peterkin]

4 minutes ago, beecee said:

My actions re the Father being locked in with the kidnapper who is remaining silent, stands.

Sure. The father kills the perp; the child is also killed because he doesn't get the information; later the father kills himself for having failed to protect his child; the mother falls into a profound depression; their other two traumatized children grow up in the shadow of this single tragic event.... I'm glad it wasn't my decision precipitated this sequence. 

 

7 minutes ago, beecee said:

And as you yourself agreed on.

I never did.

I admitted that, in an extreme situation, I might be capable of doing what I consider wrong to prevent a greater wrong. I did not ever consider encouraging another person - especially one who is incapable of rational thought atm - to do so.

[beecee]

13 minutes ago, Peterkin said:

Sure. The father kills the perp; the child is also killed because he doesn't get the information; later the father kills himself for having failed to protect his child; the mother falls into a profound depression; their other two traumatized children grow up in the shadow of this single tragic event.... I'm glad it wasn't my decision precipitated this sequence. 

No one mentioned anything about killing. Why are you avoiding a proper answer, like, My actions re the Father being locked in with the kidnapper who is remaining silent, stands. And as you yourself agreed on...

15 minutes ago, Peterkin said:

I never did.

I admitted that, in an extreme situation, I might be capable of doing what I consider wrong to prevent a greater wrong. I did not ever consider encouraging another person - especially one who is incapable of rational thought atm - to do so.

Yep you did. Again why are you now denying what you said and not giving a straight answer? I have. Are you now playing philosophical politics? It is an extreme situation, as any situation regarding a kidnapped child is.

[Peterkin]

6 minutes ago, beecee said:

No one mentioned anything about killing.

I did. You put a hulking brute, who is out of his mind with rage and fear for his child, in with a smaller, weaker prisoner you told him is 100% guilty of kidnapping his child. What did you expect to happen?

 

6 minutes ago, beecee said:

Again why are you now denying what you said and not giving a straight answer?

I do not deny having said that I might do something I consider to be wrong. Can you really not see the difference between doing myself that I can take responsibility for, and causing another person - someone whose  capabilities and limits I don't know - to do something for which he has to take the responsibility?

43 minutes ago, beecee said:

In the most relevant case I gave, he was caught in the actual act of raping a little girl and stabbed one of the rescuers. 100% guilty by normal everyday logical standards.

That, BTW, is not a relevant case. The information there is already known. If you had caught the kidnapper in the act, you would already have the child and wouldn't need to extract information.

Edited February 7, 2022 by Peterkin

[beecee]

40 minutes ago, Peterkin said:

I did. You put a hulking brute, who is out of his mind with rage and fear for his child, in with a smaller, weaker prisoner you told him is 100% guilty of kidnapping his child. What did you expect to happen?

Who said he was out of his mind? Perhaps slightly emotional, angry yes? so? What did I expect to happen? I expected some broken teeth, maybe a bone or two, aching genitalia...you know, hurt him, hurt him more until he reveals the where abouts of the other kidnapper. (He would also obviously be under the passive watchful prison guards just in case he did try and kill  him) What's your answer?

40 minutes ago, Peterkin said:

That, BTW, is not a relevant case. The information there is already known. If you had caught the kidnapper in the act, you would already have the child and wouldn't need to extract information.

 He doesn't need to be caught in the act. He could be caught with irrefutable evidence, like perhaps a hair of the child and DNA, or as I suggested, perhaps he has confessed when caught with that or other irrefutable evidence. Don't, repeat don't stand/sit there and try and bully me into accepting that we could never truly know his guilt. That argument does not hold water, and there are probably another 100 scenarios I could dream up also.

 

40 minutes ago, Peterkin said:

I do not deny having said that I might do something I consider to be wrong. 

 And I agreed with you for Christ sake!

 9 hours ago, Peterkin said:

There are three questions: Would I do it in some imagined situation? A: Maybe.

Agreed.

  7 hours ago, Peterkin said:

Would I give my police force blanket permission to do if they thought it's warranted? A: No.

Agreed.

  9 hours ago, Peterkin said:

and Is it ethical? A: No.

Agreed.

::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

Whay are you being so contrary? *shrug* Is this simply an exersise for you to practise your imagined life philosophy on? (I had another try that also) 

::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

A recent case in WA.......

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-12-06/terence-kelly-faces-court-over-alleged-cleo-smith-abduction/100670654

The bloke arrested,( and I would most probably say guilty as charged) according to the evidence available is an idigenous person. It could very well be construed that locking him up is torture, as there is plenty of evidence and accounts of the locking up of indigenous people often ends in suicide. 

evidence that he did it: (1) footprint outside the tent where Cleo was grabbed. (2) The accused buying nappies and such at the local stores. (3)  The little girl found alone in his house. (4) probable DNA in his car ( that as yet has not been released but forensic have given it full coverage with a fine tooth comb)

In fact so far the only real doubt seems to be whether he was acting alone. He was arrested 18 days after the kidnapping. 

 

[Peterkin]

16 minutes ago, beecee said:

Perhaps slightly emotional,

Is that how you would feel in his place?

 

16 minutes ago, beecee said:

(He would also obviously be under the passive watchful prison guards just in case he did try and kill  him) What's your answer?

I say there is nothing obvious about a passive guard being able to stop an accidental manslaughter, or a prisoner unconscious or otherwise rendered incapable of speech.

None of your caveats changes the moral issue of shoving your responsibility onto a person whose emotional condition, capabilities and limits you don't know and put him in a situation whose outcome you don't know. You are in control: whatever happens is on you.

16 minutes ago, beecee said:

Don't, repeat don't stand/sit there and try and bully me into accepting that we could never truly know his guilt.

In the stated circumstances, in a real life situation, it's very unlikely that you would know at this stage. The search would not have been delayed for laboratory findings or comparison of time-lines or witness statements, or any correct investigative procedures. 

And that also doesn't alter your evasion of moral responsibility for what happens. 

16 minutes ago, beecee said:

And I agreed with you for Christ sake!

So, what table are you pounding with this just-so-happens-big-cool-headed father?

Edited February 8, 2022 by Peterkin

[beecee]

Just now, Peterkin said:

Is that how you would feel in his place?

Funny how apt you are at asking questions, but reluctant to answer them, why?. My answer, if I was the Father yes, another person perhaps a copper, yes probably also emotional as we have evidence that he is 100% guilty.

2 minutes ago, Peterkin said:

I say there is nothing obvious about a passive guard being able to stop an accidental manslaughter, or a prisoner unconscious or otherwise rendered incapable of speech.

You agree in extreme circumstances that you would also consider this "wrong"? Your philosophy is getting quite confusing and irrational.

4 minutes ago, Peterkin said:

None of your caveats changes the moral issue of shoving your responsibility onto a person whose emotional condition, capabilities and limits I don't know. You are in control: whatever happens is on you.

?? Who is shoving what onto what? I'm simply examining and offering scenarios, re another thought experiment that another made. Again, why are being contrary when all I have done is agree with you?

7 minutes ago, Peterkin said:

In the stated circumstances, in a real life situation, it's very unlikely that you would know. There has been no time for laboratory findings or comparison of time-lines or witness statements, or any correct procedures to have been completed. 

Wrong. There ARE circumstances where it is obvious a person is 100% guilty. To deny that is flying in the face of logic.

9 minutes ago, Peterkin said:

And that also doesn't alter your evasion of moral responsibility for what happens. 

What moral responsiblity is that? I have essentially agreed with you. 

10 minutes ago, Peterkin said:

So, what table are you pounding with this just-so-happens-big-cool-headed father?

Perhaps you need to step back and read what has been said, instead of adding phrases to suit your own contrary version of this scenario. Who said the Father was cool headed? Please stop telling me what I have said when it is false!

28 minutes ago, beecee said:

Who said he was out of his mind? Perhaps slightly emotional, angry yes? so?

 

[Peterkin]

58 minutes ago, beecee said:

Funny how apt you are at asking questions, but reluctant to answer them, why?

I've answered all of them at least twice.

 

58 minutes ago, beecee said:

You agree in extreme circumstances that you would also consider this "wrong"? Your philosophy is getting quite confusing and irrational.

There are different wrongs; I would consider some wrongs, not all possible wrongs. I have explained why. At last twice.

1 hour ago, beecee said:

Who is shoving what onto what?

If you, as the detective in charge, send a victim (which is what the father of a kidnapped child is) into the cell with a prisoner you tell him is absolutely guilty, that father is taking on the responsibility of the interrogator (you). If he fails to extract the information, or it's too late, or it's incorrect, that becomes his failure (and it should be yours.) He puts his own morality on the line in order to save his child, and it later turns out he did it for no gain, or to a wrongfully accused suspect, it becomes his tragedy (though it was your mistake).

1 hour ago, beecee said:

I'm simply examining and offering scenarios, re another thought experiment that another made.

I might threaten, bully, even beat a suspect if I were convinced he had the information - and answer for my methods afterward, and pay whatever penance was required. I would live with my decision to do wrong. But I would never pass that responsibility on to a victim.  That's the issue of disagreement.

1 hour ago, beecee said:

Who said the Father was cool headed?

Slightly emotional, angry? You expect him to be controlled enough to get reliable information from a captive you just told him with absolute certainty intended to hurt, violate a kill his child. That's a lot to ask of "hulking brute" : you must assume he's cool-headed.

 

[beecee]

52 minutes ago, Peterkin said:

I've answered all of them at least twice.

All I see is rhetoric  about what if's and what isn't scenarios etc.

52 minutes ago, Peterkin said:

There are different wrongs; I would consider some wrongs, not all possible wrongs. I have explained why. At last twice.

Getting somewhere at last. In other words, no better or no worse then I, since I have essentially agreed with you, despie your continued consternations.

52 minutes ago, Peterkin said:

If you, as the detective in charge, send a victim (which is what the father of a kidnapped child is) into the cell with a prisoner you tell him is absolutely guilty, that father is taking on the responsibility of the interrogator (you). If he fails to extract the information, or it's too late, or it's incorrect, that becomes his failure (and it should be yours.) He puts his own morality on the line in order to save his child, and it later turns out he did it for no gain, or to a wrongfully accused suspect, it becomes his tragedy (though it was your mistake).

It's all an effort to obtain necessary information. Whether it does, or does not, it's still making an effort to obtain that info, albeit by so called wrong means. If the police can't get him to talk, let Daddy have a go. Now again, the question without any consternations, Do you, or would you let the Father at least try to get that info if all else failed? My answer is yes, certainly. Your answer?

52 minutes ago, Peterkin said:

I might threaten, bully, even beat a suspect if I were convinced he had the information - and answer for my methods afterward, and pay whatever penance was required. I would live with my decision to do wrong. But I would never pass that responsibility on to a victim.  That's the issue of disagreement.

 No it isn't. If your wrongs fail, then someone else deserves that chance. Who knows, the great big hulking emotional and somewhat angry Father, may even pull on the heartstrings of the kidnapper, ( a long shot certainly with a good for nothing pedaphile) and break down with the info. Either way it deserves a chance.

52 minutes ago, Peterkin said:

Slightly emotional, angry? You expect him to be controlled enough to get reliable information from a captive you just told him with absolute certainty intended to hurt, violate a kill his child. That's a lot to ask of "hulking brute" : you must assume he's cool-headed.

There you go again. Making more statements attributed to me which are false and porky pies. No one said anything about killing the child with absolute certainty. I said as follows, 

2 hours ago, beecee said:

 He doesn't need to be caught in the act. He could be caught with irrefutable evidence, like perhaps a hair of the child and DNA, or as I suggested, perhaps he has confessed when caught with that or other irrefutable evidence.

All the Father knows in the circumstances, is his child has been kidnapped and maybe in danger with the other kidnapping pedaphile, and he needs to extract that info, by hook or by crook, as you have agreed, not withstanding your usual pedant about who is doing the extraction and fault or blame. Yes, a naturally rather emotional Father, that is probably angry, and after all else has failed, needs to try his own methods. If that method includes broken teeth or other physical damage, and is successful and the child is recovered unharmed, then that "wrong" is worthwhile, correct, valid and good. (psst! That's another philosophical issue for you to be contrary on🤭)  

 

 

Edited February 8, 2022 by beecee

[Peterkin]

1 hour ago, beecee said:

It's all an effort to obtain necessary information. Whether it does, or does not, it's still making an effort to obtain that info, albeit by so called wrong means. If the police can't get him to talk, let Daddy have a go. Now again, the question without any consternations, Do you, or would you let the Father at least try to get that info if all else failed? My answer is yes, certainly. Your answer?

NO

[mistermack]

Which would you rather, be tortured and survive, or be blown to bits along with your family by a cruise missile? 

It's a strange world, when people were outraged by torture by guards in a prison, but were quite happy to see missiles raining down on Bhagdad. The basic principle is, if I don't see the pictures, it's ok.

[beecee]

3 minutes ago, Peterkin said:

NO

  🤣And yet you say 

3 minutes ago, Peterkin said:

There are three questions: Would I do it in some imagined situation? A: Maybe.

and...

5 minutes ago, Peterkin said:

I might threaten, bully, even beat a suspect if I were convinced he had the information - and answer for my methods afterward, and pay whatever penance was required. 

I'm sure you'll try and explain your way out of thise dilemma. 

If the police can't get him to talk, let Daddy have a go. 

[Peterkin]

10 minutes ago, beecee said:

I'm sure you'll try and explain your way out of thise dilemma

I have explained till I'm red, white and blue in the face! I take moral responsibility for the wrongs I may do, for my own reasons, with my own hands.  I don't make other people, especially victims, do my dirty work.

[zapatos]

51 minutes ago, mistermack said:

It's a strange world, when people were outraged by torture by guards in a prison, but were quite happy to see missiles raining down on Bhagdad.

Not so strange I don't think. War is hell, but there is no need to intentionally increase pain and suffering. That is why we outlaw hollow point bullets, landmines, poison gas, and yes, torture.

[beecee]

3 hours ago, Peterkin said:

I have explained till I'm red, white and blue in the face! I take moral responsibility for the wrongs I may do, for my own reasons, 

As do I. So we agree again.

3 hours ago, Peterkin said:

 I don't make other people, especially victims, do my dirty work.

This is where you ignore the facts, and worse still, manufacture your own unlikely scenarios. No one is making the Father interrogate in whatever way he choses, the kidnapper of his daughter, that has refused all other efforts for the information leading to the recovery of his daughter. He would be doing it of his own accord, or possibly as a suggestion from others. You know the most obvious scenario? Why would any law enforcement officer, force any Father to do what you strangely suggest.

You have contradicted yourself and are in recovery mode. Our biggest problem here Peterkin, is that I'm arguing this as I did in the punsihment/justice thread, from a practical realistic point of view, not from some pretentious philsophical argument point of view.

22 hours ago, Intoscience said:

If the person captured is guilty, all other forms of information extraction have been exhausted to no avail, and the child's life is in immediate danger, then if anyone has any better suggestions then I'm interested to hear them.

This post is gonna end up down the same road as the "punishment" thread.  

😉Ahh, yes remember it well!!!

12 hours ago, beecee said:

16 hours ago, Peterkin said:

There are three questions: Would I do it in some imagined situation? A: Maybe.

Agreed.

11 hours ago, Peterkin said:

Would I give my police force blanket permission to do if they thought it's warranted? A: No.

Agreed.

11 hours ago, Peterkin said:

and Is it ethical? A: No.

Agreed.

For those that came in late and somehow think I have some weird view on tortutre, the above are three questions asked by Peterkin and my total agreement with them.

No wonder some notable scientist have let loose lately on their views of philosophers and there short comings.😏

 

 

On 2/7/2022 at 6:39 AM, swansont said:

“you have to assume that there was no doubt at all that the pedophile you held was truly guilty” (emphasis added) is doing a lot of heavy lifting here.

Yes most assuredly, and as stipulated in the OP.....

On 2/7/2022 at 1:51 AM, mistermack said:

Imagine an innocent toddler has been abducted by a couple of pedophiles, and you have one in captivity, and he knows where the other is keeping the child, but he won't tell. Forgetting the legal and practical issues, if you had a free hand, (if you were dictator say) would you use torture to get the location of the child? I would.

(you have to assume that there was no doubt at all that the pedophile you held was truly guilty)

I would ignore the slippery slope argument, and go ahead. But I wouldn't be happy or sure about it. It's a difficult one.

 

Edited February 8, 2022 by beecee

[swansont]

3 hours ago, beecee said:

Yes most assuredly, and as stipulated in the OP.....

Yes, which means one is discussing a vanishingly narrow slice of the issue. Hence my "heavy lifting" comment.

[Intoscience]

1 hour ago, swansont said:

Yes, which means one is discussing a vanishingly narrow slice of the issue. Hence my "heavy lifting" comment.

This is true, however the OP is discussing whether or not torture is "ever right". Meaning, is there any scenario, even if statistically unlikely but hypothetically possible where torture can be morally justified?

So long as those details are a possibility, no matter how narrow a slice it maybe, then the issue is relevant to the discussion.  

[mistermack]

Agreed. I worded the OP quite carefully, but people are dodging the question, carefully avoiding answering like a barefoot scotsman doing the sword dance.

All of these "what if he's innocent" and "heavy lifting" comments are question-dodging and derailing the thread. The title is clear and the OP is clearly worded too. 

If you want to anwer a different question, by all means start another thread. But if your answer to this one is "no", then I'd be interested in why you think that. 

[Peterkin]

1 hour ago, Intoscience said:

So long as those details are a possibility, no matter how narrow a slice it maybe, then the issue is relevant to the discussion.  

That all happened on Page 1.

No, even in the very remote possibility of torture being the only available path to a positive outcome, it is never right. 

Even in the unlikely situation where it is the lesser of two wrongs, it is still wrong. 

The perpetrator of such a wrong may be able to justify it on a grey scale, but cannot make it ethically correct.

32 minutes ago, mistermack said:

All of these "what if he's innocent" and "heavy lifting" comments are question-dodging and derailing the thread. The title is clear and the OP is clearly worded too. 

The question has been answered, on its own terms. Repeatedly. The contrived scenario, however, is very far from any real situation in which real people have to make real decisions.

[mistermack]

23 minutes ago, Peterkin said:

No, even in the very remote possibility of torture being the only available path to a positive outcome, it is never right. 

And just to be doubly clear, are you saying that you would not do it, and you would ban it, if it was your decision to make?

[Phi for All]

21 minutes ago, mistermack said:

If you want to anwer a different question, by all means start another thread. But if your answer to this one is "no", then I'd be interested in why you think that. 

Frankly, I'm appalled at the suggestion that a father torture a kidnapper for information about the location of his child. I might be interested in discussing the effects of torture on the torturer (especially in the case of the father pressing the kidnapper on the whereabouts of his child). The assumption is that there's nothing worse than losing your child, coupled with the assumption that recovering the child should be done at any cost.

But you've reduced my interest in your OP by insisting on the parameters you have. The way you're approaching this, anyone who answers "no" has to argue against an unlimited amount of scenarios you can dream up. It feels cherry-picked and designed to appeal to emotion.

 

[mistermack]

Well, I KNOW that torture is a terrible thing, and should be prohibited. That's hardly worth a thread, it's almost universally agreed. It's debating the obvious.

That's why this thread is asking, do you think it would EVER be right, under extreme circumstances. If you don't specify that, then it's not really worth a debate at all.