Is Torture Ever Right ?

[Peterkin]

15 minutes ago, beecee said:

What does your old book on philosophy tell you to say about that?

That you contradicted yourself. But that's okay, as long as you're sure.

[beecee]

5 minutes ago, Peterkin said:

That you contradicted yourself. But that's okay, as long as you're sure.

🤣 Is that the best you can do? No I havn't contradicted myself, and my views have remained absolute and stable throughout your poor attempts to confuse the issue you already admit you would do yourself. Anyway ignoring further your non sequitur, and the rest of the rhetoric from our pretend philosophical experts, in essence again, we all rightly  regard torture as morally degrading, and  torturers, in general, as the most morally degraded of human beings; but in some certain rare cases, where guilt is certain and/or beyond any reasonable doubt, the moral justification of torture is a no brainer. To repeat, morality is decided by the consquences of one's action/s. The lesser evil of saving thousands of innocent lives, outweighs by many degrees, the so called wrong of torturing the criminal/terrorist.

In addition to the above set of moral considerations, the following points also need be considered...The terrorist is culpable  and responsible on two aspects...Firstly, the terrorist is instigating two immoral problems, (1)forcing the police to choose between undertaking torture to get a result, and (2) threatening thousands of lives. 

In other words he alone is the architect of his own demise, when he refuses to spill the beans, and after all means have been tried, the powers that be, only have torture left.

And as I have already previously linked to https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/torture/ entitled Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy there are some interesting comments.........

4. The Moral Justification for Legalised and Institutionalised Torture

We have seen that there are likely to exist, in the real world, one-off emergency situations in which arguably torture is, all things considered, the morally best action to perform. It may seem to follow that institutional arrangements should be in place to facilitate torture in such situations. However, it is perfectly consistent to concede that torture might be morally justifiable in certain one-off emergency situations and yet oppose any legalization or institutionalization of torture.

Of course much of the above will be ignored as that is our pretend philosopher's right to do, ( commonly referred to as a copout) 

[beecee]

19 hours ago, dimreepr said:

This isn't a playground "I know you are, but what am I"; I'm not demanding anything, I'm asking a question that's fundamental to the topic.

Can you answer the following dimreeper that I asked you back at pages 9 and 10 and repeated a couple of times, as you didn't answer?

6 minutes ago, beecee said:

As is often the case with you dimreeper, your many answers are cryptic and generally never to the point, but a general two step/waltz around those points. Let me ask you straight out. (1) If in the case of the kidnapper, being assured of his guilt, would you still refuse all aspects of obtaining information, no matter how small, that may pevent to death of a child, including the generally held immoral act of torture?...perhaps your child? (2) Would you in the case of the terrorist, continue to act morally, despite the imminent death of thousands of innocent people, and not use torture after all else has failed?

Now dimreeper, I'm not going to hold you to a simple yes or no answer, but I would like an answer without any pretentious philosophical rhetoric.

 

 

Edited March 2, 2022 by beecee

[dimreepr]

3 hours ago, beecee said:

Can you answer the following dimreeper that I asked you back at pages 9 and 10 and repeated a couple of times, as you didn't answer?

 

OK, to show good faith I'll answer again (in the dim hope that you'll do the same); BTW, you not liking my answer, doesn't mean it's not an answer.

3 hours ago, beecee said:

(1) If in the case of the kidnapper, being assured of his guilt, would you still refuse all aspects of obtaining information, no matter how small, that may pevent to death of a child, including the generally held immoral act of torture?

No, I wouldn't refuse all attempts to extract information and yes I would draw the line at torture, because no matter how small can't be calculated (unless you can provide the numbers).

3 hours ago, beecee said:

(2) Would you in the case of the terrorist, continue to act morally, despite the imminent death of thousands of innocent people, and not use torture after all else has failed?

How do you know the sandwhich and cup of tea has failed? (because no matter how small can't be calculated (unless you can provide the numbers).)

3 hours ago, beecee said:

Now dimreeper, I'm not going to hold you to a simple yes or no answer, but I would like an answer without any pretentious philosophical rhetoric.

How does one pretend to be philosophical?

Now that I have answered you in good faith, it's your turn (he asks knowing the answer, does that make me insane?)

 

Edited March 2, 2022 by dimreepr

[Peterkin]

You know Einstein wasn't a psychologist , right? And that there is no such medically recognized condition as 'insanity'? And that the attitude described in the little poster is routinely exhibited by duly (democratically or otherwise) elected heads of state?

Does that tell us anything about the efficacy of torture as a law-enforcement or crisis management procedure? 

[dimreepr]

2 minutes ago, Peterkin said:

You know Einstein wasn't a psychologist , right? And that there is no such medically recognized condition as 'insanity'?

You know I'm joking, right?

[Peterkin]

3 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

You know I'm joking, right?

Yes.

(In fact, I thought that one of your most cogent posts. Just wanted to elaborate on it a little bit - on topic.) 

[dimreepr]

4 minutes ago, Peterkin said:

Yes.

(In fact, I thought that one of your most cogent posts. Just wanted to elaborate on it a little bit - on topic.) 

Fairy muff...

[Peterkin]

hehe

[Genady]

26 minutes ago, Peterkin said:

You know Einstein wasn't a psychologist , right? And that there is no such medically recognized condition as 'insanity'? And that the attitude described in the little poster is routinely exhibited by duly (democratically or otherwise) elected heads of state?

Does that tell us anything about the efficacy of torture as a law-enforcement or crisis management procedure? 

I hope you know that, just like so many other "quotes" from Einstein, Einstein never said that.

Quote

There's an early reference to the quote in a 1981 pamphlet produced by Narcotics Anonymous - and organisation run along similar lines to Alcoholics Anonymous:

Not all the women are willing to admit they needed to be “restored to sanity.” In fact, one of them adamantly maintains that she had never reached a point of insanity. But another remarks, “Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.”

Einsteins insanity quote (alternatememories.com)

[dimreepr]

2 minutes ago, Genady said:

Einstein never said that.

Did he need too???

It's my heart that sets us apart... 

[Peterkin]

52 minutes ago, Genady said:

I hope you know that, just like so many other "quotes" from Einstein, Einstein never said that.

I didn't feel that altered the little nudge I wanted to give the continuing, popular assumption that torture produces the desired results.  This belief has been in effect, repeated in a thousand different contexts and guises, for thousands of years, and authorized by thousands of policy-makers who were all deemed, in their time, to be sane.

Does this not cast a doubt on our concept of sanity?

[Genady]

15 minutes ago, Peterkin said:

Does this not cast a doubt on our concept of sanity?

This question is OT. There is a Psychiatry forum for this, I think.

[Peterkin]

8 minutes ago, Genady said:

This question is OT. There is a Psychiatry forum for this, I think.

For the mind-set required to initiate deliberate, systemmatic, prolonged infliction of pain on another sentient being? And to declare that ethical?

Maybe there is, but it's already here and not in my purview to move.

Edited March 2, 2022 by Peterkin

[beecee]

7 hours ago, dimreepr said:

OK, to show good faith I'll answer again (in the dim hope that you'll do the same); BTW, you not liking my answer, doesn't mean it's not an answer.

Good, coming to your senses I see. As I said previously, we certainly can know with 100% certainty the guilt of a person. The criminal low life may have confessed,,,,the kidnapper may have the child's DNA in his car, in his hair, or under his finger nails. The same of course applies to the low life terrorist. He may have dared us in openly confessing to hving the bomb, he may have the terrorists plans in his pocket of how they managed to get a nuclear device. Now to address a couple of your usual innane "what ifs" or "buts" in your vane attempt to avoid admitting you are wrong. Irrespective, I also said that guilty beyond any reasonable doubt would be morally enough to consider even torture, in the scenarios under discussion. I certainly would find it easier to live with myself in the infinitesimal small chance he was innocent (the terrorist/criminal) rather then have the death of a child or thousands of innocents on my conscience because I had not tried all avenues open to me.  

7 hours ago, dimreepr said:

How do you know the sandwhich and cup of tea has failed? (because no matter how small can't be calculated (unless you can provide the numbers).)

🙄 Because we have already tried all other avenues, even your sweet act of a sandwich and a cup of tea, and they have failed. Did you mention you object being labeled obtuse? 🙄 No, I don't need to crunch the numbers, that's simply your  ploy to somehow paint me into a corner, when in actual fact all you are doing is revealing the futility and immoral aspects of your own pretentious decision in not attempting all avenues open including torture.

7 hours ago, dimreepr said:

No, I wouldn't refuse all attempts to extract information and yes I would draw the line at torture, because no matter how small can't be calculated (unless you can provide the numbers).

Then you havn't tried all attempts at extracting information, and you pretentiously maintaining your passive stance have cost the lives of a little child and/or thousands of other innocents. In short, I totally reject your actions in not attempting every means possible to save the lives of innocents, in favour of condoning respect for some low life criminal. But hey! we have sorted all that out in another thread!

7 hours ago, dimreepr said:

How does one pretend to be philosophical?

You have 19 pages of examples of that in this thread, with your's and one other's answers and also avoidance of answers to questions.

"There is no statement so absurd that no philosopher will make it".

Cicero, Marcus Tullius (106-43 BCE) Roman statesman. De Divinatione

7 hours ago, dimreepr said:

Now that I have answered you in good faith, it's your turn (he asks knowing the answer, does that make me insane?)

Not sure really if you have answered in good faith. I suppose the way you wear your passive philosophical stance like a badge of honour, and with such religious fervour, may indicate a form of fanaticism, or delusion? 

5 hours ago, dimreepr said:

Did he need too???

It's my heart that sets us apart... 

What does your heart tell you about the kidnapped child or the thousands of innocents about to be vapourised, or more importantly, the real life case I raised in the other thread of the deranged low life raping the little girl in the toilet block and then when caught in the act, stabbing one of the rescuers. My heart lies exclusively with those victims, rather then attempting to shore up supports for some unworkable flagging philosophical stance.

5 hours ago, Peterkin said:

Does that tell us anything about the efficacy of torture as a law-enforcement or crisis management procedure? 

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

Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy 

4. The Moral Justification for Legalised and Institutionalised Torture

"We have seen that there are likely to exist, in the real world, one-off emergency situations in which arguably torture is, all things considered, the morally best action to perform. It may seem to follow that institutional arrangements should be in place to facilitate torture in such situations. However, it is perfectly consistent to concede that torture might be morally justifiable in certain one-off emergency situations and yet oppose any legalization or institutionalization of torture".

Edited March 2, 2022 by beecee

[Peterkin]

2 hours ago, beecee said:

arguably

done

[beecee]

3 hours ago, Peterkin said:

done

For every logical, morally correct scenario, there will always be some smart arse philosopher with some less then logical, and less then morally incorrect argument against. I call it arguement for argument's sake...or opposition for opposition's sake.

"There is no statement so absurd that no philosopher will make it".

Cicero, Marcus Tullius (106-43 BCE) Roman statesman. De Divinatione

[dimreepr]

15 hours ago, beecee said:

As I said previously, we certainly can know with 100% certainty the guilt of a person. The criminal low life may have confessed

Your more likely to get a voluntary confession from an innocent person than a criminal.

Quote

Voluntary false confessions are explained by the internal psychological states or needs of the confessor or by external pressure brought to bear on the confessor by someone other than the police or someone in authority. Voluntary false confessions are frequently attributed to underlying psychological or psychiatric disorders. For example, individuals may feel compelled to falsely confess out of a desire for attention, because they desire to punish themselves, or because they are genuinely out of touch with reality. However, voluntary false confessions may also arise from completely rational motives: for example, out of a desire to protect the true perpetrator.

So far from certain guilt, in fact there's a strong argument to say it's less than a 40% of torturing the guilty person.

16 hours ago, beecee said:

the kidnapper may have the child's DNA in his car, in his hair, or under his finger nails

There could be any number of reason's for that, including contamination/mistakes and a reasonable excuse, all of which need to be explored in a court of law to determine guilt; and even then it will be less than 100% certain.

16 hours ago, beecee said:

Then you havn't tried all attempts at extracting information, and you pretentiously maintaining your passive stance have cost the lives of a little child and/or thousands of other innocents.

You know what I meant, why are you being deliberately obtuse?

10 hours ago, beecee said:

I call it arguement for argument's sake...or opposition for opposition's sake.

Those who smelt it, surely dealt it.

 

16 hours ago, beecee said:

Not sure really if you have answered in good faith. I suppose the way you wear your passive philosophical stance like a badge of honour, and with such religious fervour, may indicate a form of fanaticism, or delusion? 

Assuming you're a freind, whatever you've done in the past, is not religious or delusional, it's self preservation; because one day it maybe your innocent arse on the line...

It's not a badge of honour, it's a membership badge that I'm proud of...

[dimreepr]

Forgiving your brother's is a lesson, force can't teach...

[Peterkin]

2 hours ago, dimreepr said:

There could be any number of reason's for that [the child's DNA], including contamination/mistakes and a reasonable excuse, all of which need to be explored in a court of law to determine guilt; and even then it will be less than 100% certain.

The DNA was always a herring. It takes days or weeks to get the lab results. Much the same with fibers and hairs: laboratory turnaround time precludes the use of physical evidence to prove guilt in time to justify torture. That decision has to be made fast, based on nothing that you can take to court.

Except in a carefully scripted thought-experiment, guilt is not established at the outset. The people who torture know this; they're looking for a shortcut to the desired result, whether that's preventing a further crime, gaining information about the prisoner's accomplices or extracting a confession. Police are not always skilled at torture, and have no easy access to trained contractors, the way spy agencies and armies do. That partly accounts for 'accidental' deaths in custody and a high rate of wrongful convictions in the US. In non-modern, non-democratic, non-westernized countries, it's routine operating procedure for prisoners of military action - overt or covert - political dissidents, ethnic minorities, religious nonconformists and other suspected shit-disturbers. 

All this was covered in the first two pages.  

[beecee]

8 hours ago, dimreepr said:

Your more likely to get a voluntary confession from an innocent person than a criminal.

Nonsense! An innocent person wouldn't be seen as 100% guilty, not withstanding your usual antics and obtuseness. 

8 hours ago, dimreepr said:

So far from certain guilt, in fact there's a strong argument to say it's less than a 40% of torturing the guilty person.

😄 Not sure where you dragged that philosophical  silly notion and figure from, but could have a good guess.

8 hours ago, dimreepr said:

There could be any number of reason's for that, including contamination/mistakes and a reasonable excuse, all of which need to be explored in a court of law to determine guilt; and even then it will be less than 100% certain.

Not at all, particularly if he choses to play the arrogant evil low life. And in the circumstances, my sympathies lie with the possible rescue of the child, not with some kidnapper and possible rapist/pedaphile, who has set his or her morality bar at trash can level.

8 hours ago, dimreepr said:

You know what I meant, why are you being deliberately obtuse?

Yes, I know what you meant...you said you would try all avenues to extract the information but stop at torture...here. If that isn't what you really meant, then you need comprehensive English lessons.

On 3/2/2022 at 11:28 PM, dimreepr said:

No, I wouldn't refuse all attempts to extract information and yes I woulddraw the line at torture, because no matter how small can't be calculated (unless you can provide the numbers).

 

8 hours ago, dimreepr said:

Those who smelt it, surely dealt it.

 

I'll let that rant go through to the keeper.

8 hours ago, dimreepr said:

It's not a badge of honour, it's a membership badge that I'm proud of...

So is QANON.

6 hours ago, dimreepr said:

Forgiving your brother's is a lesson, force can't teach...

I always forgive my brother's misgivings and deeds, all without any philosophical nonsense or membership of any club, after he has served his necessary punishment in jail....you know those things you want to see ripped down. 🥱 

5 hours ago, Peterkin said:

The DNA was always a herring. It takes days or weeks to get the lab results. Much the same with fibers and hairs: laboratory turnaround time precludes the use of physical evidence to prove guilt in time to justify torture. That decision has to be made fast, based on nothing that you can take to court.

Exactly, the decision is made fast as possible.

5 hours ago, Peterkin said:

Except in a carefully scripted thought-experiment, guilt is not established at the outset. The people who torture know this; they're looking for a shortcut to the desired result, whether that's preventing a further crime, gaining information about the prisoner's accomplices or extracting a confession.

No wrong again, certainly not exclusively. The following again from the encyclopedia of philosophy Stanford.

4 The Moral Justification for Legalised and Institutionalised Torture

"We have seen that there are likely to exist, in the real world, one-off emergency situations in which arguably torture is, all things considered, the morally best action to perform. It may seem to follow that institutional arrangements should be in place to facilitate torture in such situations. However, it is perfectly consistent to concede that torture might be morally justifiable in certain one-off emergency situations and yet oppose any legalization or institutionalization of torture".

 

5 hours ago, Peterkin said:

All this was covered in the first two pages.  

And yet here you are....still arguing for the sake of argument, a point that you yourself have admitted you would undertake. 

Edited March 3, 2022 by beecee

[Peterkin]

Quote

they're looking for a shortcut to the desired result, whether that's preventing a further crime, gaining information about the prisoner's accomplices or extracting a confession.

 

9 minutes ago, beecee said:

No wrong again, certainly not exclusively.

In the same old same old same old same *sigh* Sanford quote, what is it they are arguably accomplishing in these one-off emergency situations, other than:

1. preventing a further crime (as, eg the murder of a child)

2. gaining information about the prisoner's accomplices (as eg where the other terrorist planted the bomb)

and 3. extracting a confession (as eg:

On 3/2/2022 at 2:56 PM, beecee said:

we certainly can know with 100% certainty the guilt of a person. The criminal low life may have confessed,,

?

[beecee]

37 minutes ago, Peterkin said:

In the same old same old same old same *sigh* Sanford quote, what is it they are arguably accomplishing in these one-off emergency situations, other than:?

Certainly more reliable then the same old, same old, same old fence sitting, philosophy practising, that you and dimmy are contributing. 🥱 

And yet here you are....still arguing for the sake of argument, a point that you yourself have admitted you would undertake. 

Edited March 3, 2022 by beecee

[Peterkin]

26 minutes ago, beecee said:

Certainly more reliable then he same old, same old, same old fence sitting, philosophy practising, that you and dimmy are contributing

to accomplish what, other than

1. preventing a further crime

2. gaining information

and 3. extracting a confession?

[beecee]

8 hours ago, dimreepr said:

Assuming you're a freind, whatever you've done in the past, is not religious or delusional, it's self preservation; because one day it maybe your innocent arse on the line...

My apologies, I seem to have forgotten to comment on the above.....You seem to be of the attitude, that all governments, police forces etc are bad. You seem to be saying that the police forces around the democratic westernised world, go around arresting as many innocent people as possible. You always seem to focus your sympathy on the evils of society. Why is that? Sure there are bad eggs in any and all sections of society, even the Vatican, but there are far more reasonable, decent people out there who simply want what's best for all. My advice is you could do more then just uttering philsophical rantings on a science forum, to help what is sometimes wrong with society in general. I could say more but I wont. 🤕

4 minutes ago, Peterkin said:

to accomplish what, other than

1. preventing a further crime

2. gaining information

and 3. extracting a confession?

Yes to all three of course. Prevent further crime, gain necessary info, and extracting a confession that may save innocent lives. Do you have any problem with that?

And yet here you are....still arguing for the sake of argument, a point that you yourself have admitted you would undertake. 

Edited March 3, 2022 by beecee