Is Torture Ever Right ?

[Intoscience]

6 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

Indeed, karma is unique to you.

Do bad things and karma bites your hand, do good things and karma lick's your hand and wag's its tail... 🙏 

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

[dimreepr]

2 minutes ago, Intoscience said:

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

How do you know it isn't?

[zapatos]

5 hours ago, joigus said:

The important differential fact with respect to our case at hand is that most of us here are not sociopaths.

What is the 'case at hand'? I never claimed that sociopaths could be tortured to provide valid information.

[joigus]

41 minutes ago, zapatos said:

What is the 'case at hand'? I never claimed that sociopaths could be tortured to provide valid information.

I meant the child abuser or the terrorist that @beecee was talking about. Aren't those sociopaths?

Maybe our wires got crossed there.

[Peterkin]

1 hour ago, joigus said:

I meant the child abuser or the terrorist

We don't know what they are or who they are. They're one-dimensional stereotypes constructed for the sole purpose of formulating a question with only one permissible answer. The scenario as given leaves no room for variances or  considerations that any realistic [human] situation would include. I realize that other such philosophical questions have been posed, with Y/N buttons, but i don't find them useful as thought-experiments.

[zapatos]

2 hours ago, joigus said:

I meant the child abuser or the terrorist that @beecee was talking about. Aren't those sociopaths?

Maybe our wires got crossed there.

I'm not sure a child abuser or terrorist is necessarily a sociopath; I'm not really knowledgeable enough to form an opinion.

I think part of the confusion is that while most people here are discussing broadly the pros and cons of torture, I carved out a small niche to argue that while torture as a policy for, say, the military, may not be viable due to uncertainty of results (and other things), torture DOES/WOULD work on certain individuals. I may be getting swept up into the group of those who are not 'anti-torture' since I've staked a position somewhere between them and those who say 'torture never works and should never be used'.

[beecee]

9 hours ago, joigus said:

  The important differential fact with respect to our case at hand is that most of us here are not sociopaths.

Thankfully, that is probably correct. And I'm pretty sure, if any of the unlikley situations did arise as detailed in this thread, that most all would take, or be satisified with all courses of actions being taken...in fact I will say all that have participated in this thread, despite their philosophical and moral takes on the matter.

9 hours ago, joigus said:

  Your suggestion of playing with the terrorists' mind I find much more acceptable, for many reasons. Truth serum, flooding his pituitary with oxytocin, or whatever other chemical that facilitates collaboration.

 Yep, these are other methods that could be employed. My thoughts primarly were in relation to the jihadist types that believe the next life will be spent with 46 virgins and such. Doing whatever is necessary to have him believe he is being deprived of that, or even entering paradise in the next life. Wasn't something like that used with the killing of Bin-Laden?

9 hours ago, joigus said:

   Well, I can think of thousands of ways to twist that philosophically, but I won't dwell into that. Sometimes we need principles, something that's to be considered as completely off the table. There's a reason why we call those "principles."

😊 That's a good point and I'm glad you didn't dwell on it. While I understand the incredible basics of goodness, logic and sensibilities, laid down by the great philoosphers of the past, and the fact that the foundations/supports of science is built on philosophy, I also am of the opinion that sometimes it can be taken to the nth degree and adds more confusion then anything else, particularly when taken too far. I probably align with the thoughts and opinions of Krauss and DeGrasse-Tyson.

I do try and base my beliefs and thinking on worthwhile principles.

ps; Overall, a nice post. 

7 hours ago, dimreepr said:

Different thread and a different memory of what was written there.

Let's discuss it there.

Already discussed and reasonable outcome achieved imo. I raised it to illustrate your general unworkable philsophy of life, that's all. Quite relevant imo at least.

7 hours ago, dimreepr said:

We left jedwood justice a long time ago; besides, up till now there has never been a scenario, as per your justifications, therefore there is zero evidence that it ever could work.

No one's talking about "jedwood justice" except you and your usual refusal to answer anything directly, instead making obnoxious and silly analogies. Your conclusion is also unscientific. Think "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" 

7 hours ago, dimreepr said:

The thing is - is it ever right, is different question to the core of the premise; which is, is it right now (with what we know)?

It is not only right with what we know now, it is the most logical and desirable outcome, as long a the conditions given were there. In fact as I mentioned to joigus, I am sure all that have participated in this thread, would in those situations, "when the chips are down" be OK with doing whatever was necessary, including yourself dimreeper, despite your moral high ground bluff and bluster to the contrary.

Is that why you refused to answer the questions that would reveal that? I'm sure it is.

Edited February 15, 2022 by beecee

[Intoscience]

11 hours ago, beecee said:

 "when the chips are down" be OK with doing whatever was necessary 

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. 

[joigus]

I've kind of addressed some of these questions before; to what degree of success, I don't know.

We shouldn't wait for the chips to be down. A protocol should be developed when our minds are cool and can think straight. If something separates us from other primates very distinctly, it's our ability to plan for the future.

I perfectly understand that most of us would act differently if we were under extreme pressure, myself including. It doesn't bear thinking. That's precisely why discussions taking place in this vein could be useful. I don't assume any of us is thinking under extreme pressure now.

I also agree that for the most part, this discussion is constructive and interesting.

It's a challenging problem, isn't it?

Experimenting with torture is out of the question.

What do we objectively know about it? Can we infer anything about it without reproducing the experiments?

Somehow I can't picture the inquisitors back in the Sixteenth Century crunching numbers about the efficacy of their methods.  

[dimreepr]

17 hours ago, beecee said:

No one's talking about "jedwood justice" except you

That's exactly what we're talking about, if you condemn a man without trial.

And given the very specific scenarios, there wouldn't be time for a trial until after the, potentially fatal, torture.

17 hours ago, beecee said:

Your conclusion is also unscientific. Think "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" 

It's not evidence of anything, because it hasn't happened...

17 hours ago, beecee said:

It is not only right with what we know now, it is the most logical and desirable outcome, as long a the conditions given were there. In fact as I mentioned to joigus, I am sure all that have participated in this thread, would in those situations, "when the chips are down" be OK with doing whatever was necessary, including yourself dimreeper, despite your moral high ground bluff and bluster to the contrary.

Is that why you refused to answer the questions that would reveal that? I'm sure it is.

Am I your bias? Is that why you don't read my post's properly?

Because whatever I say, you know better...

1 hour ago, joigus said:

I've kind of addressed some of these questions before; to what degree of success, I don't know.

Don't hold your breath.

1 hour ago, joigus said:

I perfectly understand that most of us would act differently if we were under extreme pressure, myself including. It doesn't bear thinking. That's precisely why discussions taking place in this vein could be useful. I don't assume any of us is thinking under extreme pressure now.

Indeed +1

No-one knows how they'll react to a situation they haven't encountered before; we can't know, if we're wired for flight or fight, before the fright.

Edited February 16, 2022 by dimreepr

[beecee]

6 hours ago, dimreepr said:

That's exactly what we're talking about, if you condemn a man without trial.

And given the very specific scenarios, there wouldn't be time for a trial until after the, potentially fatal, torture.

Stop being so obtuse. We are talking about someone whose guilt is certain....you know, like the example in the justice thread, of a real live case of an arsehole caught raping a little girl, then stabbing one of her rescuers. In "when the chips are down" type of situations, when guilt is positive, and when other innocent lives are at stake,  then without a trial is good enough.

 

6 hours ago, dimreepr said:

It's not evidence of anything, because it hasn't happened...

So, you are putting it in the impossible category? Quite conveneint for you and your life philosophy. Of course nonsense aside, we all know it could happen, but let's all hope though none of us are ever put in a position where we may need to put up or shut up. Because as I suggested dimreeper, even you would proceed with the so called wrong solution. You see I believe at heart you are a decent bloke, rather then a pure philosophical heartless being.

6 hours ago, dimreepr said:

Am I your bias? Is that why you don't read my post's properly?

Because whatever I say, you know better...

Who said I know better then you? I'm expressing my opinion, an opinion I believe is right, and an opinion I believe would be supported by the vast majority of citizens in any western society...an opinion that focuses on victims first an foremost, rather then pedaphiles, terrorists, criminals and others that have no moral code with regards to wrong and right...

And of course I do read your posts, and also answer questions asked of me. You should try that instead of pretending the questions don't exist, or that you have answered them previously, when you havn't. 

8 hours ago, joigus said:

I've kind of addressed some of these questions before; to what degree of success, I don't know.

We shouldn't wait for the chips to be down. A protocol should be developed when our minds are cool and can think straight. If something separates us from other primates very distinctly, it's our ability to plan for the future.

The protocol is already developed and I agree totally with it....torture should be banned  and is criminalised in Australian law. I stand by that, but I also recognise that small probability where even the law and lawmakers, may see some exceptions to that, as per the situations described.

8 hours ago, joigus said:

I perfectly understand that most of us would act differently if we were under extreme pressure, myself including. It doesn't bear thinking. That's precisely why discussions taking place in this vein could be useful. I don't assume any of us is thinking under extreme pressure now.

Yes, certainly....the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few...or the one....to quote Mr Spock. I'm pretty sure you and all the others, would act with the care and sympathy, and concern focused on the thousands of potential victims and the little child. 

7 hours ago, dimreepr said:

No-one knows how they'll react to a situation they haven't encountered before; we can't know, if we're wired for flight or fight, before the fright.

Of course you would! In any westernised democratic society, you would act to save the little child to the best of your ability as would the authorities...you would act in whatever method was available and exhaust all those methods to try and achieve success in saving thousands of people. I don't accept, nor do I believe your rhetoric to the contrary. Even with the possibility of you (or the relevant authority) being charged and held responsible. In the event of success, the courts would recognise your (or the relevant authorty) acting under unusual and rare circumstances that involved saving the life of a little child or that of thousands of people. In fact you would probably get a medal. That's called reality.

 

[Intoscience]

On 2/16/2022 at 11:33 AM, joigus said:

I've kind of addressed some of these questions before; to what degree of success, I don't know.

We shouldn't wait for the chips to be down. A protocol should be developed when our minds are cool and can think straight. If something separates us from other primates very distinctly, it's our ability to plan for the future.

I perfectly understand that most of us would act differently if we were under extreme pressure, myself including. It doesn't bear thinking. That's precisely why discussions taking place in this vein could be useful. I don't assume any of us is thinking under extreme pressure now.

I also agree that for the most part, this discussion is constructive and interesting.

It's a challenging problem, isn't it?

Experimenting with torture is out of the question.

What do we objectively know about it? Can we infer anything about it without reproducing the experiments?

Somehow I can't picture the inquisitors back in the Sixteenth Century crunching numbers about the efficacy of their methods.  

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. 

23 hours ago, dimreepr said:

That's exactly what we're talking about, if you condemn a man without trial.

And given the very specific scenarios, there wouldn't be time for a trial until after the, potentially fatal, torture.

No-one knows how they'll react to a situation they haven't encountered before; we can't know, if we're wired for flight or fight, before the fright.

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.  

[joigus]

1 hour ago, Intoscience said:

 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. 

OK. We're reaching a stalemate here. 

I want to be convinced that torture would be effective so much as to grant consideration to use it as a last resort. I intuit that @dimreepr & @Peterkin agree with this particular point.

You want to be convinced that torture would fail 100% of the time, as to grant consideration to use it as a last resort.

If I understood them correctly, @beecee & @zapatos would abide by the latter.

We've narrowed it down, it seems, to some kind of interesting but difficult burden-of-proof argument.

This has to be done in such a way that this kind of evidence is obtained without experiments being performed to ascertain the matter. Ethical considerations on which we all agree being the reason.

Your turn.

Edited February 17, 2022 by joigus
addition

[Peterkin]

I think the stalemate is more the result of answering different questions. I'm not as concerned with the efficacy of torture as the ethics of it.

The question I answered was: not "Does torture ever work?" (Yes, I'm pretty sure it's effective on run-of-the-mill criminals and their victims: it gets results - of some kind.)

but "Is torture ever right?" (No. It is wrong; it is unethical; no expedient makes it right and moral.)

[Genady]

19 minutes ago, Peterkin said:

No. It is wrong; it is unethical; no expedient makes it right and moral.

This looks like an opinion survey rather than a discussion. Then, I have an opinion, too:

Yes, it is not always wrong / unethical / not-right / immoral.

[zapatos]

18 minutes ago, Genady said:

Yes, it is not always wrong / unethical / not-right / immoral.

I agree with this sentiment. That is why it should only be used when we are facing an extreme situation.

[Peterkin]

10 minutes ago, zapatos said:

That is why it should only be used when we are facing an extreme situation.

There is no "we". Each individual faces such decisions alone and lives with the consequences of his decision alone. No two people have the same line of demarcation for "extreme" or the exact point in time when the extreme must be faced.  There is no established or precisely articulated protocol for "should": it's a personal judgment. 

There are two camps here: theoretical ethicists and applied ethicists. For the first, Right and Wrong are fixed constants, non-negotiable; for whatever reason we may resort to a Wrong action, even if it's less wrong than the available options, it's still Wrong. For the second group, Right and Wrong are approximate classifications, situational, subject to interpretation; if you resort to a Wrong action for what you consider a worthy reason, it moves into the Right column. 

[zapatos]

1 minute ago, Peterkin said:

There is no "we".

Okay. I'm relieved to hear that extreme situations don't affect you. For the rest of us as WE face the consequences an extreme situation we'll be wondering how you manage to avoid being impacted by the radioactivity/poison gas/smallpox.

[Genady]

4 minutes ago, Peterkin said:

There is no "we". Each individual faces such decisions alone and lives with the consequences of his decision alone. No two people have the same line of demarcation for "extreme" or the exact point in time when the extreme must be faced.  There is no established or precisely articulated protocol for "should": it's a personal judgment. 

There are two camps here: theoretical ethicists and applied ethicists. For the first, Right and Wrong are fixed constants, non-negotiable; for whatever reason we may resort to a Wrong action, even if it's less wrong than the available options, it's still Wrong. For the second group, Right and Wrong are approximate classifications, situational, subject to interpretation; if you resort to a Wrong action for what you consider a worthy reason, it moves into the Right column. 

I consider myself, in this respect, a theoretical ethicist. And torture in my fixed, non-negotiable notion of Right and Wrong, is not always wrong.

[Peterkin]

20 minutes ago, Genady said:

And torture in my fixed, non-negotiable notion of Right and Wrong, is not always wrong.

 A fixed, movable concept. OK

 

21 minutes ago, zapatos said:

I'm relieved to hear that extreme situations don't affect you.

Where did you get that idea? When and as it affects me, I face it on my own, make my own decision according to my own judgment and live with the consequences.

I don't conceal my personal responsibility in some anonymous "rest of us WE" collective.

Edited February 17, 2022 by Peterkin

[Genady]

Just now, Peterkin said:

 A fixed, movable concept. OK

The concept is not movable. A set of torture cases is large. Some of them fall into the constant concept of Wrong, the others fall into the constant concept of Right.

[Peterkin]

1 minute ago, Genady said:

The concept is not movable. A set of torture cases is large. Some of them fall into the constant concept of Wrong, the others fall into the constant concept of Right.

That clarifies the matter in general. I imagine you have a detailed chart in your head regarding which kinds of torture, used on whom, how long, in which situations. I wonder whether everyone who lists torture in both columns has such a chart. It would be interesting to survey - interesting, but exhausting.

[Genady]

2 minutes ago, Peterkin said:

That clarifies the matter in general. I imagine you have a detailed chart in your head regarding which kinds of torture, used on whom, how long, in which situations. I wonder whether everyone who lists torture in both columns has such a chart. It would be interesting to survey - interesting, but exhausting.

No, I don't have such a chart. I claim that such a chart exists.

[Peterkin]

8 minutes ago, Genady said:

No, I don't have such a chart. I claim that such a chart exists.

That's even more interesting. You mean, it exists, physically, in the world, where it's accessible to anyone? Written down  in a body of philosophical works, indexed and footnoted? Or metaphorically, as a cultural meme or shared idea?

[zapatos]

54 minutes ago, zapatos said:

Okay. I'm relieved to hear that extreme situations don't affect you. 

 

35 minutes ago, Peterkin said:

Where did you get that idea?

Because when I said the following:

1 hour ago, zapatos said:

That is why it should only be used when we are facing an extreme situation.

You responded with:

1 hour ago, Peterkin said:

There is no "we".

As I said. I'm relieved to hear you are not part of the 'we' that has to face extreme situations.

42 minutes ago, Peterkin said:

I don't conceal my personal responsibility in some anonymous "rest of us WE" collective.

Neither do WE, despite your rather insulting insinuation otherwise. But WE DO have to face extreme situations. And when those extreme situations affect more than one person, the appropriate pronoun is "we".