Is Torture Ever Right ?

[Genady]

57 minutes ago, Peterkin said:

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?

None of the above. It exists in mathematical sense. Like a solution of an equation exists. Regardless we know it or not. 

[Prometheus]

3 hours ago, joigus said:

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.

I'd be happy with any attempt to try to quantify the efficacy of torture. I've never claimed torture is 100% ineffective, just that it's efficacy needs to be considered for any practical discussion. If my lighter works 50% of the time, i'll still say it's working. But if my parachute works 50% of the time... i won't be saying anything before long. If people want a purely theoretical discussion, just say we assume torture is effective, in the same manner we have assumed in this thread no innocent people are tortured.

 

 

5 minutes ago, Genady said:

None of the above. It exists in mathematical sense. Like a solution of an equation exists. Regardless we know it or not. 

That's consistent with Plato's idea of ethics (apparently it's why he studied mathematics, he was looking for a source of absolute ethics). I see ethics as an entirely human creation. It manifests in the universe only in the relations of humans, (so far as we know. -perhaps other species have a primitive capacity). That should go some way to explain why i 'refuse' to answer the question - i just don't see ethics as something that can exist in isolation like a Platonic ideal. So what if i answer yes or no - it's never going to happen; there will always be doubts of the efficacy of the torture and the possibility that you are torturing an innocent person. All the theoretically pure scenarios i explore will at best not change this, at worst give me an inflated sense of my moral righteousness, and i probably have too much of that already.

[Genady]

3 minutes ago, Prometheus said:

That's consistent with Plato's idea of ethics (apparently it's why he studied mathematics, he was looking for a source of absolute ethics). I see ethics as an entirely human creation. It manifests in the universe only in the relations of humans, (so far as we know. -perhaps other species have a primitive capacity). That should go some way to explain why i 'refuse' to answer the question - i just don't see ethics as something that can exist in isolation like a Platonic ideal. So what if i answer yes or no - it's never going to happen; there will always be doubts of the efficacy of the torture and the possibility that you are torturing an innocent person. All the theoretically pure scenarios i explore will at best not change this, at worst give me an inflated sense of my moral righteousness, and i probably have too much of that already.

I don't care about Plato. Mathematical sense is not the same as philosophical sense, whatever that could mean (as I said, I don't care.) It is very specific. For example, the number pi has a one billionth digit. That digit exists. It is unique. It doesn't matter if we have it calculated already or not.

Being or not being a human creation also doesn't matter for the existence. An equation, for example, might be a human creation. Nevertheless, it has or it doesn't have a solution, regardless of humans. Same with ethics. A Platonic ideal is not required. Isolation is not required. 

[Prometheus]

2 minutes ago, Genady said:

Nevertheless, it has or it doesn't have a solution, regardless of humans. Same with ethics.

I disagree it's the same with ethics. We can prove the billionth digit of pi exists - by finding it. How would you prove the absolute rightness of some ethical conundrum with that same precision? Pi can be defined in terms with no reference to humans, or any other agents. How do we define an ethical act without reference to humans (or some other agent).

To state that ethics has a definitive answer is a common position, especially amongst the religious, but it's not one we can prove either way. Although this may well be at the root of the different positions in this thread, maybe this point is going too far off topic and requires its own thread?

[Genady]

4 minutes ago, Prometheus said:

I disagree it's the same with ethics. We can prove the billionth digit of pi exists - by finding it. How would you prove the absolute rightness of some ethical conundrum with that same precision? Pi can be defined in terms with no reference to humans, or any other agents. How do we define an ethical act without reference to humans (or some other agent).

To state that ethics has a definitive answer is a common position, especially amongst the religious, but it's not one we can prove either way. Although this may well be at the root of the different positions in this thread, maybe this point is going too far off topic and requires its own thread?

Our ability or inability to prove something or to construct something in math doesn't affect its existence. The same with ethics.

I am not religious. Just logical. The existence of a "chart" mentioned by @Peterkin above, as a list, set of rules, result of a procedure, ..., is "Genady's conjecture."

I don't think it is OT. It is my answer to the OP question.

[beecee]

5 hours ago, joigus said:

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.

I'm simply of the opinion, that every means possible, should be tried within the framework of the two situations being discussed. The above would be part and parcel of that, yes.

3 hours ago, zapatos said:

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

Yep, we all agree with that.

4 hours ago, Peterkin said:

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

As most laws in democratic westernised societies abide with. But we all would in rare circumsatnces see a need to step outside.

4 hours ago, Peterkin said:

There is no "we".

Yes there is. Society would be the judge of the moral right of doing a wrong to save the life of a child or thousands of innocent people. You would probably be given a medal.

3 hours ago, Peterkin said:

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'm not that interested in your philoosphical rundown on the situation. To me its simply a matter of the moral right of doing a designated wrong, for the good of the majority. Ask Mr Spock. And I believe we all would make that morally right decision, to do wrong, and in any westernised democratic society, that would be applauded.

 

1 hour ago, Prometheus said:

 it's never going to happen; there will always be doubts of the efficacy of the torture and the possibility that you are torturing an innocent person.

I don't accept that we can never know with 100% certainty, the guilt of a person. I gave examples of that in the justice/punishment thread. 

1 hour ago, Prometheus said:

I'd be happy with any attempt to try to quantify the efficacy of torture. I've never claimed torture is 100% ineffective, just that it's efficacy needs to be considered for any practical discussion. 

When thousands of innocent lives are at stake, every possible means need be implemented to at least attempt to save them.

 

[Peterkin]

21 minutes ago, beecee said:

Yes there is. Society would be the judge of the moral right of doing a wrong to save the life of a child or thousands of innocent people. You would probably be given a medal.

There is no "we" making the decision; the scenario does not allow time for a referendum. One person has to give the order; one of a few person(s) carry out the prescribed torture; somebody has to decide when to stop; somebody has to assess the information elicited.

There is no "we" judging it, either. Even assuming the operation went to plan, and even assuming every member of the entire society learned accurately the particulars, this could only happen after the fact. And they would not all react in the same way. Some would vote for the medal; some would vote for impeachment; some would shrug; some would tut-tut.  

28 minutes ago, beecee said:

I gave examples of that in the justice/punishment thread. 

Those examples do not relate to a situation in which you require information; they relate to a situation in which you already have the information. 

[beecee]

22 minutes ago, Peterkin said:

There is no "we" making the decision; the scenario does not allow time for a referendum. One person has to give the order; one of a few person(s) carry out the prescribed torture; somebody has to decide when to stop; somebody has to assess the information elicited.

There certainly is a we, despite your philosophical procrastinations. Like I said, in those extreme rare situations, the law enforcements, and society would be certainly supportive, rather then risking the death of a child or thousands of innocents, just simply to maintain some seemingly faked moral high ground.

22 minutes ago, Peterkin said:

There is no "we" judging it, either. Even assuming the operation went to plan, and even assuming every member of the entire society learned accurately the particulars, this could only happen after the fact. And they would not all react in the same way. Some would vote for the medal; some would vote for impeachment; some would shrug; some would tut-tut.   

I prefer reality over philosophical possibilities, and am pretty sure the vast majority of society would support such actions, be they wrong or right, (as defined by you) The lives of the many, ( the innocents) or the child, outweigh, any so called moral consideration for pedaphiles, terrorists, criminals etc. That's what a normal westernised society would support, and more importantly, that's what a normal westernised society would expect. 

22 minutes ago, Peterkin said:

Those examples do not relate to a situation in which you require information; they relate to a situation in which you already have the information. 

Stop being so damn obtuse. They/it relates to a situation where 100% certainty of the guilt of a person is determined, and the relevant point I was making.

 

Edited February 17, 2022 by beecee

[Peterkin]

3 hours ago, beecee said:

They/it relates to a situation where 100% certainty of the guilt of a person is determined,

So, what more information do you need to extract by torture?

Never mind, since you speak for all of modern western civilization, whatever you say will be right.

4 hours ago, Genady said:

Our ability or inability to prove something or to construct something in math doesn't affect its existence. The same with ethics.

For the subscriber, no proof is required; for the skeptic, no proof will be offered? OK

[beecee]

2 minutes ago, Peterkin said:

So, what more information do you need to extract by torture?

Never mind, since you speak for all of modern western civilization, whatever you say will be right.

Certainly more right then simply philosophical utterings. Read the last Brittanica link I gave.

[Peterkin]

1 minute ago, beecee said:

Certainly more right then simply philosophical utterings.

Yeah! What kind of obtusamus would bring philosophy (ptui! ptui!) into a philosophy forum? 

4 minutes ago, beecee said:

Read the last Brittanica link I gave.

Was it this one? https://www.britannica.com/summary/torture

Quote

By 1800 torture was illegal in many European countries, but it became common again in the 20th century, notably in Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union, and it is still widely practiced in Latin America, Africa, and the Middle East. In 1984 the United Nations adopted an international convention against torture and other forms of cruel, inhuman, and degrading treatment.

 

[Genady]

18 minutes ago, Peterkin said:

For the subscriber, no proof is required; for the skeptic, no proof will be offered? OK

I didn't say anything about proof being required or offered. The above sentence has nothing to do with my claims.

[beecee]

27 minutes ago, Peterkin said:

So, what more information do you need to extract by torture?

Are you with it? 🙄 You know, in relation to the current situations, the where abouts of the child, and in the case of the terrorist, the whereabouts of the bomb device.

17 minutes ago, Peterkin said:

Yeah! What kind of obtusamus would bring philosophy (ptui! ptui!) into a philosophy forum? 

Was it this one? https://www.britannica.com/summary/torture

Oh, I have nothing against philosophy as I have said many times, except when it is taken to irrelevant  lengths as has happened here with one or two....

"Philosophy consists very largely of one philosopher arguing that all others are jackasses. He usually proves it, and I should add that he also usually proves that he is one himself".

Henry Louis Mencken. (1880-1956). Minority Report, H. L. Mencken's Notebooks. Knopf, 1956.

And no that wasn't the link, my mistake, but I certainly agree with the mandate by the united nations. The link I was referring to was.......

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/torture/

3. The Moral Justification for One-off Acts of Torture in Emergencies

Before turning in detail to the arguments on this issue, let us consider some putative examples of the justified use of torture. The first is a policing example, the second a terrorist example. Arguably, both examples are realistic, albeit the terrorist ticking bomb scenario is often claimed by moral absolutists to be utterly fanciful. Certainly, the policing example is realistic; indeed, it was provided by a former police officer from his own experience. Moreover, it is widely reported in the media that Al Qaeda, for example, has in the past sought to acquire a nuclear device to detonate in a western city and the 9/11 attacks and bombings in Bali, London, Madrid and Mumbai should leave no doubt whatsoever that Al Qaeda would use such a device if they could get their hands on one. So is it entirely fanciful that there could be such an attack and that an Al Qaeda operative known (on the basis of intercepted communications) to be a member of the cell involved in the planned attack might not be arrested, interrogated and tortured(?) prior to the detonation? At any rate, these are the two most popular kinds of example discussed in the literature. These cases include the real-life Daschner case involving the threat to torture a kidnapper by German police in 2002 which resulted in the kidnapper disclosing the location of a kidnapped child (Miller 2005).

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

 

and much more as I previously noted but obviously you failed to read.

Examples of two scenarios have been gone into fairly thoroughly, both similar to what we are discussing, and which you have agreed you would probably also do wrong to achieve a morally correct outcome.

Edited February 18, 2022 by beecee

[Peterkin]

24 minutes ago, Genady said:

I didn't say anything about proof being required or offered. The above sentence has nothing to do with my claims.

That's perfectly true. You simply claimed. 

 

20 minutes ago, beecee said:

You know, in relation to the current situations, the where abouts of the child, and in the case of the terrorist, the whereabouts of the bomb device.

If you caught them red-handed, in the very act of committing the crime, as in the examples you keep referring to, you already have the child and the bomb. If you didn't catch them in the act, you don't have proof of guilt.

23 minutes ago, beecee said:

Examples of two scenarios have been gone into fairly thoroughly, both similar to what we are discussing, and which you have agreed you would probably also do wrong to achieve a morally correct outcome.

Yes. And? It would still be wrong if I did it. If you did it, if the CIA did it, if Stalin's or Torquemada's minions did; whatever outcome is valued by the users, it still remains wrong.

[Intoscience]

19 hours ago, joigus said:

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.

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.   

13 hours ago, Peterkin said:

There is no "we" making the decision; the scenario does not allow time for a referendum. One person has to give the order; one of a few person(s) carry out the prescribed torture; somebody has to decide when to stop; somebody has to assess the information elicited.

There is no "we" judging it, either. Even assuming the operation went to plan, and even assuming every member of the entire society learned accurately the particulars, this could only happen after the fact. And they would not all react in the same way.

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? 

Edited February 18, 2022 by Intoscience

[Peterkin]

6 hours ago, Intoscience said:

Dammed if you do, dammed if you don't.

Exactly.

6 hours ago, Intoscience said:

Which one could you live with? 

I don't know. If I did a bad thing to prevent a worse thing, and it turned out as I hoped, I could probably forgive myself.

I don't think I'd ever stop wondering whether it was the best decision I could have made, second- and third-guessing, dreaming about the alternate outcomes that were narrowly avoided. At least, that's what has happened when I've chosen the lesser evil in some real-life situation. I suspect it would be like that for most people who are not accustomed to making life-and-death decisions. Living with a guilt is not the same as being at peace with it. 

[dimreepr]

16 hours ago, beecee said:

"Philosophy consists very largely of one philosopher arguing that all others are jackasses. He usually proves it, and I should add that he also usually proves that he is one himself".

Henry Louis Mencken. (1880-1956). Minority Report, H. L. Mencken's Notebooks. Knopf, 1956.

This is not proof that philosophy never work's. 

On 2/17/2022 at 2:14 PM, joigus said:

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.

Indeed +1

I don't want to be a gadfly, I want to be a teacher...

[Peterkin]

Mencken was hardly an expert on philosophy.... though he fancied himself the expert on every-damn-thing, and had harsh views on most of it. 

[dimreepr]

8 hours ago, Intoscience said:

Dammed if you do, dammed if you don't.

Which one could you live with?

I can forgive myself either way, but it's a lot easier if I don't dam/age myself... 😉

[beecee]

18 hours ago, Peterkin said:

If you caught them red-handed, in the very act of committing the crime, as in the examples you keep referring to, you already have the child and the bomb. If you didn't catch them in the act, you don't have proof of guilt.

Not at all. There are plenty of scenarios where 100% certainty of guilt is the only logical conclusion. Stop making excuses for pedaphiles and terrorists.

18 hours ago, Peterkin said:

Yes. And? It would still be wrong if I did it. If you did it, if the CIA did it, if Stalin's or Torquemada's minions did; whatever outcome is valued by the users, it still remains wrong.

 As long as you do your best to achieve a morally correct outcome, I am not really concerned about how wrong it is. If you stopped trying to justify and philosophise, you would see that.

3 hours ago, Peterkin said:

I don't know. If I did a bad thing to prevent a worse thing, and it turned out as I hoped, I could probably forgive myself.

And you would get a medal and have the support of your fellow human beings.

2 hours ago, dimreepr said:

This is not proof that philosophy never work's. 

You need to keep up. I have never said that philosophy never works.

2 hours ago, Peterkin said:

Mencken was hardly an expert on philosophy.... though he fancied himself the expert on every-damn-thing, and had harsh views on most of it. 

Did he? After doing some research on him, he appears to have had many a good/admirable thought and some not so admirable, just like you and me. And certainly no harsher view then even contemplating not undertaking all means possible to save the lives of thousands of innocent people. Either way he has as much right to comment on philosophy as you do. 

I'm often staggered in how personal philosophers take criticism of philosophy, as per the uproar over Lawrence Krauss'remarks, and the so called limits of science. Leonard Susskind who is another that has had to cop the wrath of philosophers. My own for what its worth, similar to Krauss and the fact that Philosophy deals with general foundational questions. Those are well established as Krauss was actually saying. Anyway here's some more you may like.

"Metaphysics is a dark ocean without shores or lighthouse, strewn with many a philosophic wreck".

Immanuel Kant (1724-1804) German Philosopher

"Philosophy of science is about as useful to scientists as ornithology is to birds".

Attributed to Richard Feynman (1918-88) U.S. Physicist. Nobel Prize 1965.

"Philosophy is to science as pornography is to sex: it is cheaper, easier and some people prefer it".

Steve Jones (biologist)

1 hour ago, dimreepr said:

I can forgive myself either way, but it's a lot easier if I don't dam/age myself... 😉

Nothing really to forgive, if one is at least trying to achieve the best morally correct outcome.

 

[Peterkin]

1 hour ago, beecee said:

As long as you do your best to achieve a morally correct outcome, I am not really concerned about how wrong it is. If you stopped trying to justify and philosophise, you would see that.

I see that you don't care. I see that I do care. I have no problem with your not caring; it just doesn't influence me. 

1 hour ago, beecee said:

And you would get a medal and have the support of your fellow human beings.

You can have the medal. I would not accept plaudits for torturing somebody.

1 hour ago, beecee said:

Either way he has as much right to comment on philosophy as you do. 

The right to comment on everything doesn't make you an expert on anything.

1 hour ago, beecee said:

There are plenty of scenarios where 100% certainty of guilt is the only logical conclusion.

So, you've downgraded the criteria from proof, to certainty to logical conclusion. Next come probability and inference, followed by educated and wild guesses.

[beecee]

22 minutes ago, Peterkin said:

I see that you don't care. I see that I do care. I have no problem with your not caring; it just doesn't influence me. 

🤣 I'm mortified!

22 minutes ago, Peterkin said:

You can have the medal. I would not accept plaudits for torturing somebody.

Not actually interested in any medals either, but potentially saving the lives of innocents, by making the morally correct choice is comforting enough.

22 minutes ago, Peterkin said:

The right to comment on everything doesn't make you an expert on anything.

Is he commenting on everything? I don't think so.

22 minutes ago, Peterkin said:

So, you've downgraded the criteria from proof, to certainty to logical conclusion. Next come probability and inference, followed by educated and wild guesses.

See it as anyway you like, in your vane efforts to influence, mine and others morally correct views, they of course remains as is.  

Edited February 18, 2022 by beecee

[dimreepr]

16 hours ago, beecee said:

Not at all. There are plenty of scenarios where 100% certainty of guilt is the only logical conclusion. Stop making excuses for pedaphiles and terrorists.

Really? Please elaborate.

Stop making excuses to torture someone you don't like.

16 hours ago, beecee said:

As long as you do your best to achieve a morally correct outcome, I am not really concerned about how wrong it is.

How can it be morally correct, if it's wrong?

16 hours ago, beecee said:

You need to keep up. I have never said that philosophy never works.

Well, you certainly imply it; I assume you mean, the only philosophy that work's is your own... 😇

16 hours ago, beecee said:

Did he? After doing some research on him, he appears to have had many a good/admirable thought

Indeed...

"The older I grow, the more I distrust the familiar doctrine that age brings wisdom.” - Mencken

16 hours ago, beecee said:

There are plenty of scenarios where 100% certainty of guilt is the only logical conclusion.

Without a trial you're down to common sense; you've been a member here long enough to know how unreliable common sense is... 😉🙏

14 hours ago, beecee said:

See it as anyway you like, in your vane efforts to influence, mine and others morally correct views, they of course remains as is.

I've given up trying to influence you, but there's plenty of people who read what's written on this site; some of whom are open too a different way of thinking...

Edited February 19, 2022 by dimreepr

[Genady]

I think that Right and Wrong, including their application to torture in general or in specific cases, is a matter of personal taste. The latter develops under effects of individual, social, and environmental factors.

[dimreepr]

12 minutes ago, Genady said:

I think that Right and Wrong, including their application to torture in general or in specific cases, is a matter of personal taste. The latter develops under effects of individual, social, and environmental factors.

Indeed, it depends on how badly you want revenge...