Is Torture Ever Right ?

[dimreepr]

12 minutes ago, Intoscience said:

How do you know you are doing the wrong thing until the results are in?

Well, we all seem to agree that torture is wrong; and I'm quite happy that I haven't tortured anybody.

I can't know how I'd feel if I had, but I bet I'm not going to be happy about it.

[Intoscience]

53 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

Well, we all seem to agree that torture is wrong; and I'm quite happy that I haven't tortured anybody.

I can't know how I'd feel if I had, but I bet I'm not going to be happy about it.

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.

Edited February 23, 2022 by Intoscience

[dimreepr]

Just now, Intoscience said:

"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. 

So, it doesn't make them happy, just glad to be rid of the memory's... 

[zapatos]

I wonder where the cutoff is for those who are opposed to torture under any circumstances.

To protect yourself or others would you:

1. Hit someone?

2. Beat someone?

3. Kill someone?

4. Put someone in stress positions or cause sleep deprivation?

5. Break fingers?

6. Cut off fingers?

7. Go medieval?

I assume the "no-torture" group would not do #7. But what about the others? How far would you go to attempt to save the lives of your children or a subway system full of strangers?

 

Edited February 23, 2022 by zapatos

[Peterkin]

44 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

So, it doesn't make them happy, just glad to be rid of the memory's...

You never get rid of the memory of your transgressions. Nor does your society eradicate its wrongs by giving you a medal. What you put out into the world stays out there forever: your single act is incorporated into the collective actions, the collective conscience of your culture. If one such act is permitted in extenuating circumstances, it's a mere little stain on the social fabric. If one such act is celebrated, it becomes accessible in all circumstances deemed extenuating. If such acts are standard practice in a whole class of circumstances (i.e. national security) it becomes part of the social fabric.

This was well explained on Page 1.

 

8 minutes ago, zapatos said:

How far would you go to attempt to save the lives of your children or a subway system full of strangers?

Those are two very different questions.

Edited February 23, 2022 by Peterkin

[dimreepr]

52 minutes ago, Peterkin said:

This was well explained on Page 1.

It's never well explained, or everyone would get it...

[Peterkin]

On 2/6/2022 at 12:59 PM, TheVat said:

A couple thoughts.  One, the meaning of torture is usually pretty clear to a person on the receiving end.  I invite anyone troubled by definitional issues to undergo waterboarding or electrical shocks and report back to us.  Torturers use methods that leave little ambiguity as to what they are doing to another person.

Second, I think the negative effect of torture is not only on the recipient and on their consequent willingness to say anything to please the torturer, but also its effect on the personality and mental health of the torturer and those in the group and larger society who are supporting the torturer's actions.  Ask yourself, who are you and who do you become when you torture, and who are we as a social community when we approve the torture?

The pedo example is problematic, given that there may be more effective options than relying upon intel given under extreme duress.  It's a tough call, but I think torture degrades mankind far more than it helps children trapped with pedos.   

 

Yes, I think it was.

[Area54]

On 2/21/2022 at 7:31 AM, Intoscience said:

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. 

1. If it works great, you may be in a better position to save lives.
2. If it fails the lives are doomed.
3. 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.  

You are limiting your consideration of the consequences of the torture to the immediate problem. I understand their is considerable evidence that many recruits to terrorist organisation have been motivated by what they consider to be maltreament of relatives/frieds/etc. Even if the torture results in saving lives it may prolong, or extend the conditions that prompted that immediate threat, leading to more deaths and suffering in the long term. When we couple that with the very low probability of extracting useful information from the torture then the act becomes doubtful in the extreme.

 

On 2/21/2022 at 7:31 AM, Intoscience said:

So are the counter arguments.

Not my counter argument. If you think otherwise please point where I have indulged in an absolute. (I awlays avoid them like the plague.)

On 2/21/2022 at 3:05 AM, beecee said:

Well, yes, in the two cases in question, with near positive guilt, of the kidnapper/pedaphile and the terrorist, those actions are evil. Are you questioning that?

You will be familiar with the saying, "Today's terrorist is tomorrow's freedom fighter."

And, "near positive guilt"? You are saying you were not using an absolute? So, to clarify, you are arguing that despite the  uncertain guilt, the highly questionable results of torture and its illegality, you would remain in favour of torturing the suspect?

Please not that a request for clarification is not the equivalent of affirmation of a contrary view, so let's not go down that rabbit hole.

[Intoscience]

2 hours ago, Area54 said:

You are limiting your consideration of the consequences of the torture to the immediate problem. I understand their is considerable evidence that many recruits to terrorist organisation have been motivated by what they consider to be maltreament of relatives/frieds/etc. Even if the torture results in saving lives it may prolong, or extend the conditions that prompted that immediate threat, leading to more deaths and suffering in the long term. When we couple that with the very low probability of extracting useful information from the torture then the act becomes doubtful in the extreme.

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. 

Edited February 23, 2022 by Intoscience

[beecee]

11 hours ago, dimreepr said:

"I stated that Hiroshima and Nagasaki are 'among the most unspeakable crimes in history.' I took no position on just where they stand on the scale of horrors relative to Auschwitz, the bombing of Chungking, Lidice, and so on." -Noam Chomsky

If you think hard enough you can justify anything...
 

You are being deliberately obtuse again. We are not debating the evils of war,  all of us accept that fact.

9 hours ago, dimreepr said:

As per @Prometheus argument, it's possible that killing the next person you see, will save millions of lives, but you can never know.

And just as stupid an argument coming from you. We know the guilt of the kidnapper...we know the guilt of the terrorist bomber. We know that the life of an innocent child is at stake, and the lives of thousands of other innocents if the bomb is detonated. You are delving into fairy stories now, just to bolster your unworkable passive, life philosophy. As I told you in the justice/punishment thread, we will always need jails.

9 hours ago, dimreepr said:

What's possitive about torture?

 Nothing as you have been told many times. It is wrong, but sometimes we need to chose a lesser wrong to overcome a bigger wrong, which makes the lesser wrong the right thing to do and morally correct, despite your pretentious consternations.

9 hours ago, dimreepr said:

I'm only dismissing the possibilty that you can know the consequences, of your action's; what I think is, if you do the wrong thing, you'll probably regret it...

What most people would regret I suggest, is if everything did fail, including torture, and a small child died and thousands of innocents were blown away. In no way in hell would I regret torturing the kidnapper, terrorist or criminal. 

9 hours ago, dimreepr said:

There's no reason to use torture, just a list of excuses...

There is morally every reason to employ every method possible if there is any chance of success. If you didn't and a child did die, or thousands were evaporated, you would have some serious questions to answer and consequences to deal with.

9 hours ago, Intoscience said:

Why do you continue to twist the context?

Glad someone else has picked up on that fact with near all posts from dimreeper. In my opinion, it's simply to shore up the irresponsible nature of his life philosophy in any which way he can. A philosophy which has its priorities totally arse up, imo, and one which is totally unworkable.  I would also add that if he was faced with a similar situation himself, and say with a close family member's life at stake, he would be whistling a different tune.

6 hours ago, dimreepr said:

It's never well explained, or everyone would get it...

I'm waiting for you to get it.

4 hours ago, Area54 said:

You will be familiar with the saying, "Today's terrorist is tomorrow's freedom fighter."

tell that to the 3000 vicitms of 9/11.

4 hours ago, Area54 said:

And, "near positive guilt"? You are saying you were not using an absolute? So, to clarify, you are arguing that despite the  uncertain guilt, the highly questionable results of torture and its illegality, you would remain in favour of torturing the suspect?

Please not that a request for clarification is not the equivalent of affirmation of a contrary view, so let's not go down that rabbit hole.

If there was "absolute" reason, if there was "near certain"  reason, if there was "beyond reasonable doubt"reason, my answer is Yes.

My sympathies and priorities lay with the innocent/victms of kidnappers, terrorists, and criminals.

I mentioned it earlier, in Australia anyway, we have "victim impact statements" made by the victims of crime, and it in many cases adds to the severity and lengths of punishment and jail time the criminals  face.

[Peterkin]

1 hour ago, beecee said:

tell that to the 3000 vicitms of 9/11.

Tell that to the victims of US airstrikes, CIA training camps for terrorists, arms exports to warring factions, and various intrusions in to Muslim countries since 1947.

If you're so keen on the value of numbers, compare those.  

 

Violence begets violence; a culture of violence condones torture. 

Edited February 24, 2022 by Peterkin

[Intoscience]

8 hours ago, beecee said:

There is morally every reason to employ every method possible if there is any chance of success. If you didn't and a child did die, or thousands were evaporated, you would have some serious questions to answer and consequences to deal with.

+1

[joigus]

18 hours ago, zapatos said:

To protect yourself or others would you:

1. Hit someone?

2. Beat someone?

3. Kill someone?

4. Put someone in stress positions or cause sleep deprivation?

5. Break fingers?

6. Cut off fingers?

7. Go medieval?

This list really boils down to:

1. Use physical violence à la Corleone (1-6)

2. Use physical violence à la Torquemada (7)

Which in turn, and except for matters of stylistic approach, both boil down to:

0. Use physical violence.

One might as well list among them the "technique" of throwing a dead-horse's head into someone's bed. Even this last one seems to me far more imaginative, if similarly brutal.

The direction in which I would like to move, which I would more devoutly wish all of us to explore, is not one that lists every single part of a human body on which one can inflict pain. That's not a very useful list, to me at least. I said it before: Using physical pain in its manifold forms is not the only perspective we can adopt.

It strikes me how how much harder fiction writers have speculatively explored this possibility:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Clockwork_Orange_(novel)#Part_2:_The_Ludovico_Technique

And how little effort we, people who love science, are willing to use to explore alternatives that could be more humane, more reasonable, and allegedly more efficient.

Just a thought. It could be split to Speculations, if moderators deem it appropriate.

 

Edited February 24, 2022 by joigus
minor correction

[Intoscience]

10 minutes ago, joigus said:

This list really boils down to:

1. Use physical violence à la Corleone (1-6)

2. Use physical violence à la Torquemada (7)

Which in turn, and except for matters of stylistic approach, both boil down to:

0. Use physical violence.

One might as well list among them the "technique" of throwing a dead-horse's head into someone's bed. Even this last one seems to me far more imaginative, if similarly brutal.

The direction in which I would like to move, which I would more devoutly wish all of us to explore, is not one that lists every single part of a human body on which one can inflict pain. That's not a very useful list, to me at least. I said it before: Using physical pain in its manyfold forms is not the only perspective we can adopt.

It strikes me how how much harder fiction writers have speculatively explored this possibility:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Clockwork_Orange_(novel)#Part_2:_The_Ludovico_Technique

And how little effort we, people who love science, are willing to use to explore alternatives that could be more humane, more reasonable, and allegedly more efficient.

Just a thought. It could be split to Speculations, if moderators deem it appropriate.

 

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% 

[zapatos]

2 hours ago, joigus said:

is not one that lists every single part of a human body on which one can inflict pain. That's not a very useful list, to me at least.

Is that a giant straw man?

[joigus]

20 minutes ago, zapatos said:

Is that a giant straw man?

I think it's more of a middleman with a giant hunger for thinking rationally without clutching at straws.

[dimreepr]

3 hours ago, Intoscience said:

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% 

The answer remains, we can't predict when that 0.01% will be effective, it's like saying "if we torture everyone, then one day I'll be right, and when that day arrives it will be right to torture that person".

14 hours ago, beecee said:

You are being deliberately obtuse again. We are not debating the evils of war,  all of us accept that fact.

FFS take a day off, having a point of view that you don't agree with, is not being obtuse!!! especially since you brought up the American "war on terrorism".

Which is like declaring war on your own imagination and torturing yourself...  

Edited February 24, 2022 by dimreepr

[Intoscience]

8 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

The answer remains, we can't predict when that 0.01% will be effective, it's like saying "if we torture everyone, then one day I'll be right, and when that day arrives it will be right to torture that person".

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. 

[dimreepr]

45 minutes ago, Intoscience said:

1. The perp has to be guilty (or at least have very high odds of being)

Only you catching them in the act can determine 100% guilt without trial, and given the time limit set by the OP, it has to be you that administers the torture (you're not trained and if you get someone else to do it, how do they know your not lying?), and given the OP, torture would be unnecessary since you'd have also secured the child/bomb.

Point's 2 and 3 are therefore irrelevant. 

Edited February 24, 2022 by dimreepr

[zapatos]

1 hour ago, joigus said:

I think it's more of a middleman with a giant hunger for thinking rationally without clutching at straws.

I don't understand. Am I clutching at straws? Am I not thinking rationally?

[dimreepr]

2 minutes ago, zapatos said:

I don't understand. Am I clutching at straws? Am I not thinking rationally?

It depends on why you think it's a strawman...

[joigus]

33 minutes ago, zapatos said:

I don't understand. Am I clutching at straws? Am I not thinking rationally?

No. Not you.

I am the middleman (an intermediary in this bussiness with nothing at stake here), trying to think rationally, but trying not to think in a desperate kind of mood. The rest of it is my lame attempt at playing with words: "straw", "giant". etc.

I don't think my argument was a straw man, as @dimreepr has correctly interpreted.

[Area54]

18 hours ago, Intoscience said:

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. 

I think you are correct. That is what most people would do. However, in my experience most people lack the  strategic perspective, which I think essential, in making such decisions. I choose not to condone an action that has a high probability of spawning an expansion of terror and corrupt behaviour. 

17 hours ago, beecee said:

tell that to the 3000 vicitms of 9/11.

It is this attitude that has contributed to the continuation and expansion of terrorist organisations.  @Peterkin has addressed this concisely.

[zapatos]

22 minutes ago, joigus said:

No. Not you.

I am the middleman (an intermediary in this bussiness with nothing at stake here), trying to think rationally, but trying not to think in a desperate kind of mood. The rest of it is my lame attempt at playing with words: "straw", "giant". etc.

Got it. Thanks.

22 minutes ago, joigus said:

I don't think my argument was a straw man, as @dimreepr has correctly interpreted.

I called it a straw man because you characterized my list as "one that lists every single part of a human body on which one can inflict pain.'"

In fact my list represented an escalating set of actions, starting with an action that most anyone would do and ending with clear, violent torture. I was simply trying to get a feel for how far people will go short of "medieval". 

[dimreepr]

2 minutes ago, zapatos said:

I was simply trying to get a feel for how far people will go short of "medieval". 

I'm pretty far from OK...