Is Torture Ever Right ?

[Peterkin]

2 hours ago, beecee said:

Abide by the law and you are unlikley to be arrested.

The likelyhood varies with where you live and what colour or class you are.

2 hours ago, beecee said:

Yep, you would consider torture if all else had failed. But now are chosing to be philsophically controversial

No, it's never varied. I didn't agree with you the first time, the second time, the third time, the twenty-seventh time.... and still don't. I have not commented on your personality, tried to second-guess your motivations or reasoning or derided you philosophy. I simply disagree with your position on this subject. I have attempted to explain why.

2 hours ago, beecee said:

But thankfully they rae in the minority.

You think so? Lucky man!

2 hours ago, beecee said:

Police forces, all around the world, like the military are necessary evils.

True, and unfortunate. I would prefer them to be a necessary good. To some degree, limiting their power mitigates the evil and holding them to an ethical standard enhances the good. 

Edited March 18, 2022 by Peterkin

[beecee]

1 hour ago, Peterkin said:

The likelyhood varies with where you live and what colour or class you are.

Not where I come from....Getting arrested wrongfully is rare.

1 hour ago, Peterkin said:

No, it's never varied. I didn't agree with you the first time, the second time, the third time, the twenty-seventh time.... and still don't. I have not commented on your personality, tried to second-guess your motivations or reasoning or derided you philosophy. I simply disagree with your position on this subject. I have attempted to explain why.

Yes you did. You said you would consider it. And now you are attempting to cover your tracks by being philsophically controversial. 🥱 The evidence is here over many pages.

1 hour ago, Peterkin said:

You think so? Lucky man!

If you live in a society where evil is more prevalent then good, you need to do something practical about it, instead of rhetorical  rants. But in reality I don't believe you do. And please, if you don't like insults and are offended and put off by them, then cease your childish condescending posts.

1 hour ago, Peterkin said:

True, and unfortunate. I would prefer them to be a necessary good. To some degree, limiting their power mitigates the evil and holding them to an ethical standard enhances the good. 

No limitations of power necessary, simply jail the bad guys. They (the police) of couse do have ethical standards to uphold, which the majority do, but like everything, there will always be exceptions and bad eggs, just as we have moral exceptions for considering torture. Why make it harder for that which you would cry out to for protection tomorrow, if you had a violent home invasion or an assault on your person. If everyone was law abiding, we would not need them. Again I certainly question your unworkable philsophy. 

 

Edited March 18, 2022 by beecee

[dimreepr]

16 hours ago, beecee said:

Not from where I sit. From here I see you as rather pretentious with a "holier then thou" persona. Snowflake where I come from is a term used (sometimes insultingly) for a gay person. I simply see you as a philsophical fanatic. You need to be more like your Gramps.

The only difference between me and my gramps is, I wasn't in the firing line when I decided to conscientiously object to hurting people.

16 hours ago, beecee said:

Yes it is, and sometimes the crowd is wrong, but mostly right. A shame you cannot admit that.

Admit what, that witches are real?

Now who's being obtuse.

17 hours ago, beecee said:

Again that may sound like a "smart" question to you...to me it sounds weird and dumb and is self explanatory to any reasonable, normal folk. 

No, just another question you haven't answered; is that normal for folks on this site?

17 hours ago, beecee said:

Question to you...Do you have any sympathy at all for the actual real victims, both in the thought experiments given, and the real life situations I gave in the justice/punishment thread? Any at all? I mean do they even fit into your justice equation? 

You seem to think Hitler, as a baby is not evil and could be steered down a path of peace.

I agree, so my sympathy is with baby people... 😉

Even you could be taught to be less judgmental, if you were taught by Jesuit's, according to Jesuit's... 

[Peterkin]

8 hours ago, beecee said:

Not where I come from....Getting arrested wrongfully is rare.

So, your notion of  right and wrong is localized, as well as situational.

I'm inclined to consider my personal ethics as they relate to the entire world. 

8 hours ago, beecee said:

You said you would consider it.

I was forced to repeat that a bum-numbing number of times. It was true then; it's true now; I see no controversy. I would consider taking an action I know is wrong if I truly believed I could thereby prevent something even worse. I don't know whether I would have the fortitude to carry it out, but i would consider it. And it would still be wrong. That's not tracks; that's never been concealed; that's never changed. What I don't understand is why you are so reluctant to accept that simple answer.  

 

8 hours ago, beecee said:

The evidence is here over many pages.

Yes.

8 hours ago, beecee said:

If you live in a society where evil is more prevalent then good, you need to do something practical about it,

Raging against the machinery of evil is part of doing something practical about it. Demanding and supporting legislation that curbs the power of bullies in law enforcement and civil service is doing something practical about it. Bringing abusers to book is doing something practical about it. Attempting to convince those who have not yet entrenched on the side of evil is doing something practical about it. 

 

8 hours ago, beecee said:

And please, if you don't like insults and are offended and put off by them, then cease your childish condescending posts.

Okay. I didn't realize my 'rant' ("Lucky man!") rose to the insult level you've been dishing, but if I've underestimated your sensitivity, I'm sorry. It won't happen again. )

8 hours ago, beecee said:

there will always be exceptions and bad eggs, just as we have moral exceptions for considering torture.

Why are abusive cops 'bad eggs', while abusive civilians are 'scum'? What, precisely, is the difference between how they should be treated? How should the law treat a 'bad egg' who has exempted himself from moral obligation; who has been been using the uniform, the weapons and the authority vested in him by the people he swore to serve and protect - using it, instead, to terrify, humiliate and physically maltreat citizens, guilty or innocent, in order to obtain false or true confessions, in order to subject those citizens to further just or unjust punishment - and who intends to continue in this mode of operation for decades more, abusing who knows how many more of the trusting citizenry? Does he deserve better or worse treatment than the suspected criminal?

 

8 hours ago, beecee said:

Why make it harder for that which you would cry out to for protection tomorrow, if you had a violent home invasion or an assault on your person.

Because I do not want that home invasion and violent assault to be committed by the agents whose salary I pay.

 

https://www.vox.com/2014/10/29/7083371/swat-no-knock-raids-police-killed-civilians-dangerous-work-drugs

Quote

In theory, no-knock raids are supposed to be used in only the most dangerous situations. So what might be most surprising about them is how infrequently police officers get killed when they bust into suspected criminals' homes unannounced.

In reality, though, no-knock raids are a common tactic, even in less-than-dangerous circumstances. There are a staggering 20,000 or more estimated no-knock raids every year across America. By the numbers, it's clear that no-knock SWAT raids are far more dangerous to civilians than they are to police.

 

Edited March 18, 2022 by Peterkin

[Peterkin]

9 hours ago, beecee said:

Again I certainly question your unworkable philsophy. 

I never claimed that my philosophy of life needs to be "workable" in everyone's terms, or, for that matter, anyone's but my own. I never claimed to represent anyone's view by my own.  

[Dropship]

On 2/6/2022 at 2:51 PM, mistermack said:

Imagine an innocent toddler has been abducted by a couple of pedophiles, and you have one in captivity, and he knows where the other is keeping the child, but he won't tell...would you use torture to get the location of the child? I would.

It'd be best to try other methods first, such as reminding him that things would go a lot easier for him at his trial if the jury was told he'd co-operated with the police by telling them where his mate was.

Also it might be a good idea to tell him that he'd be in for a big cash reward for informing the police.

[MSC]

18 hours ago, Peterkin said:

I don't believe Spock pronounced on the guilt and innocence of individuals in question, nor what specific needs the many may have that requires torturing a few, or how that specific need manifests in a decision between actions. Also, I'm not all sure he would be convinced by the 100% guilty/no other option scenario.

I'm also struggling to recall if Spock ever once engaged in or condoned torture specifically. Pretty sure it's against starfleet regs though. 

The only thing I have personally to say on the subject; is that besides torture just being completely unreliable for gaining credible Intel, it's the last resort of fools that are too lazy to be creative with diplomacy or trickery. Trickery is useful in the hostage/bomb scenario, there was an episode of criminal minds where the terrorist was just straight up tricked by making him lose track of time and making him believe the attack had already happened, so gives away the location hours before it is due because he was brought a prayer mat at the wrong times everyday and he couldn't see the sun from his cell. That was a pretty good episode. Highly recommend. 

Now, nomatter what methods are used, you'll never be 100% certain if someone is lying or not until later, but lying to them is fair game and is easily less morally contentious than torture. 

That being said, I can think of scenarios where I personally would torture someone. If a pedo put my kids somewhere and I get a hold of him before the police do, I honestly don't know what I'd do in that situation. But it could be torture. I hope to never be in such an emotional state or a situation like that where I'd have to find that out. However if it was a stranger I didn't know and had done nothing to harm me personally, I'd never be able to do it. Interrogate, maybe. Torture, never. 

 

10 hours ago, beecee said:

No limitations of power necessary, simply jail the bad guys. They (the police) of couse do have ethical standards to uphold, which the majority do, but like everything, there will always be exceptions and bad eggs, just as we have moral exceptions for considering torture. Why make it harder for that which you would cry out to for protection tomorrow, if you had a violent home invasion or an assault on your person. If everyone was law abiding, we would not need them. Again I certainly question your unworkable philsophy.

In what way is being against torture some controversial philosophy?

Speaking of which, all philosophies are controversial depending on the audience of the philosopher. 

Are you suggesting all law enforcement bodies ought to be allowed to torture people when they feel it is justified and that somehow the majority of people all believe the same as you? Even if that were true, which I doubt, appealing to the majority means little and does nothing to give your arguments any credibility. If the majority of people believed the earth was flat, they would just be wrong. 

I'm just trying to understand what your position is exactly, as a lot of what you have said sounds far more controversial than anything Peterkin has said. Clearly you are in favour of torture in some situations. Can you give us some examples?

10 hours ago, beecee said:

If you live in a society where evil is more prevalent then good, you need to do something practical about it, instead of rhetorical  rants. But in reality I don't believe you do. And please, if you don't like insults and are offended and put off by them, then cease your childish condescending posts.

Condescending posts aren't against the rules, especially when someone is being childish by threatening insults. Pretty sure insults are against the rules however. I doubt I'd be that offended by insults from you to be honest. 

The insults rule however is simply about no ad hom. It just makes your arguments look weaker. 

Edited March 18, 2022 by MSC

[Peterkin]

37 minutes ago, Dropship said:

It'd be best to try other methods first, such as reminding him that things would go a lot easier for him at his trial if the jury was told he'd co-operated with the police by telling them where his mate was.

He probably knows - or definitely does, if the police have given him access to legal representation - that if he can goad the police into using illegal tactics to elicit information, it will all be inadmissible in court, and he'll walk anyway --- if he still can walk; if not, big cash settlement in exchange for not going to the tabloids.  

Found a jurist for our side. Granted, he was far ahead of his time.

Quote

It is better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer’.

These words of 18^th century English jurist William Blackstone resonate just as loudly today as they did back then in relation to the magnitude of the injustice created by imprisoning innocent people.

Quote

there are at least seventy high-profile, reported cases of wrongful convictions in Australia, from Lindsay Chamberlain, to the Mickelberg brother, John Button and Andrew Mallard – all of whom were eventually released from prison (except Peter Mickelberg who died behind bars) after it became clear they should not have been convicted in the first place.

Quote

In theory, when an innocent person is accused of a crime, there should not be enough evidence to prove that person’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. However, the cases discussed above show that there are exceptions to this assumption, including cases in which innocent people are pressured into pleading guilty.

https://lop.parl.ca/sites/PublicWebsite/default/en_CA/ResearchPublications/202077E

Police are fallible. Prosecutors are fallible. Judges are fallible. They should not be granted divine powers.

Edited March 18, 2022 by Peterkin

[swansont]

12 hours ago, beecee said:

And please, if you don't like insults and are offended and put off by them, then cease your childish condescending posts.

!

Moderator Note

I think everyone would be better off with fewer insults and condescension all around, and more focusing on discussing the topic

 

[beecee]

7 hours ago, dimreepr said:

The only difference between me and my gramps is, I wasn't in the firing line when I decided to conscientiously object to hurting people.

I have more respect for your gramps then your philsophy and your obvious  nonchalance towards innocent victims.

7 hours ago, dimreepr said:

Admit what, that witches are real?

Now who's being obtuse.

Admit that there will always be evil in this world and why we need jails. And really, you need to move away from that mirror.

7 hours ago, dimreepr said:

No, just another question you haven't answered; is that normal for folks on this site?

It is certainly apparently normal for would be pretentious philosophers.

7 hours ago, dimreepr said:

You seem to think Hitler, as a baby is not evil and could be steered down a path of peace.

I agree, so my sympathy is with baby people... 😉

Even you could be taught to be less judgmental, if you were taught by Jesuit's, according to Jesuit's... 

Being obtuse again? Or avoiding backing yourself into your familiar corner? The question was.....

14 hours ago, beecee said:

 Question to you...Do you have any sympathy at all for the actual real victims, both in the thought experiments given, and the real life situations I gave in the justice/punishment thread? Any at all? I mean do they even fit into your justice equation? 

But if you don't want to answer, that's OK....I can probably gauge the truthful answer anyway, quite accurately. And my judging is only applicable to those that we can be 100% certain of guilt, or beyond reasonable doubt. 

6 hours ago, Peterkin said:

So, your notion of  right and wrong is localized, as well as situational.

I'm inclined to consider my personal ethics as they relate to the entire world. 

No, my notion of right or wrong is that same notion that would be held by the majority in any westernised democratic society. eg: sympathy towards the victims of crime, terrorism and such, and the ethics and morality of at least attempting to free/help them from the criminals, terrorists and paedophiles, in what ever manner it entails. Your own personal ethics actually appear to disregard the status quo, just for the sake of it.

6 hours ago, Peterkin said:

I was forced to repeat that a bum-numbing number of times. It was true then; it's true now; I see no controversy. I would consider taking an action I know is wrong if I truly believed I could thereby prevent something even worse.

  I didn't create the controversy, you did. First let me thank you for confirming that what I said about you considering it was correct. The controversy is that you are unable to recognise the moral correctness of your decision, and prefer to indulge in self flaggelation. 

6 hours ago, Peterkin said:

Raging against the machinery of evil is part of doing something practical about it. Demanding and supporting legislation that curbs the power of bullies in law enforcement and civil service is doing something practical about it. Bringing abusers to book is doing something practical about it. Attempting to convince those who have not yet entrenched on the side of evil is doing something practical about it. 

So, again, what are you practically doing about it?

6 hours ago, Peterkin said:

Okay. I didn't realize my 'rant' ("Lucky man!") rose to the insult level you've been dishing, but if I've underestimated your sensitivity, I'm sorry. It won't happen again. )

No sensitivity regarding what you said at all, simply recognising that fact, and of course your own sensitivities. While we are at it, its actually nice to see people interested enough, to give me those neg reps. While it certainly will not diminish my moral ethics one iota, it is nice to see, and hope it at least gives you some comfort with your own ranting and philosophical rhetoric.

6 hours ago, Peterkin said:

Why are abusive cops 'bad eggs', while abusive civilians are 'scum'? What, precisely, is the difference between how they should be treated? How should the law treat a 'bad egg' who has exempted himself from moral obligation; who has been been using the uniform, the weapons and the authority vested in him by the people he swore to serve and protect - using it, instead, to terrify, humiliate and physically maltreat citizens, guilty or innocent, in order to obtain false or true confessions, in order to subject those citizens to further just or unjust punishment - and who intends to continue in this mode of operation for decades more, abusing who knows how many more of the trusting citizenry? Does he deserve better or worse treatment than the suspected criminal?

Bad eggs, scum? *shrug* Wow talk about silly pedant!! If it makes you happy, then please interchange both terms at your pleasure. And of course the bad egg copper, (oops sorry, the scum copper) should get the same treatment as any criminal does. Why would you even ask that? It changes nothing though re the fact, that the vast majority of police are good people, and are there to help us when required. Perhaps at this time, you should focus on the number of police that have been killed or maimed in the line of duty?

6 hours ago, Peterkin said:

Because I do not want that home invasion and violent assault to be committed by the agents whose salary I pay.

Can you dig up some figures re the number of invasions and assaults by police, compared to the numbers of invasions and assaults as carried out by other low life and criminals? Please? 🙄 Or is this just another question avoidance exersise?

Not familar with this "knock on"terminology, but in recent times our equivelent SWAT teams have arrested dozens of people over the whole of Sydney and NSW and in the process, have smashed a world wide drug smuggling catel. Not sure if any innocents were caught up in it, if any at all, but certaily those arrested all had some connection/s. It's called keeping our kids safe. 

 

 

5 hours ago, Peterkin said:

I never claimed that my philosophy of life needs to be "workable" in everyone's terms, or, for that matter, anyone's but my own. I never claimed to represent anyone's view by my own.  

You certainly appear to be trying to shove it down my throat.

4 hours ago, MSC said:

 That being said, I can think of scenarios where I personally would torture someone. 

In what way is being against torture some controversial philosophy?

I'm just trying to understand what your position is exactly, as a lot of what you have said sounds far more controversial than anything Peterkin has said. Clearly you are in favour of torture in some situations. Can you give us some examples?

While it is all down here in black and white, let me sum up my position for you. I am 100% in favour of the UN edicts and also Australian laws against torture, as is. 

That doesn't mean though that it is possible on some rare occasions, where torture may need to be considered, after all else has failed....even as dimmy said, after a cup of tea and a biscuit approach. Peterkin has also admitted he would consider it, the difference being, while he would consider it, he still considers it to be wrong. I'm saying in those rare moments, its use after all else has been tried, is morally correct decision.

What I'm against, is the philsophical mumbo jumbo in this thread by a couple, rather then answering practical questions, with practical morally correct solutions.  While I understand how those thoughts may upset the philsophers amongst us, my own views on philosophy are similar to Krauss, DeGrasse-Tyson, and other reputable scientific figures. 

4 hours ago, MSC said:

In what way is being against torture some controversial philosophy?

Speaking of which, all philosophies are controversial depending on the audience of the philosopher. 

You have misinterpreted what I have been saying. We are all against torture, and it is not controversial in most western democratic countries. We still though need to recognise that on rare occasions its uses after all other mthods have been exhausted, maybe needed.

4 hours ago, MSC said:

I'm also struggling to recall if Spock ever once engaged in or condoned torture specifically. Pretty sure it's against starfleet regs though. 

A question asked on page one, was what is torture? Simply being locked up for a crime maybe seen as torture by some.  We have a problem in Australia, specifically in the Northern Territory, where a large number of indigenous folk, have taken their own lives rather then be in jail....

3 hours ago, Peterkin said:

Police are fallible. Prosecutors are fallible. Judges are fallible. They should not be granted divine powers.

They are not granted divine powers, whatever that means. They are granted reasonable powers to help keep our communities safe, and yes, on occasions they do err. 

Edited March 18, 2022 by beecee

[Peterkin]

45 minutes ago, beecee said:

So, again, what are you practically doing about it?

Whatever lies within the power of a voting citizen of a modern westernized democratic country.

 

45 minutes ago, beecee said:

Your own personal ethics actually appear to disregard the status quo, just for the sake of it.

For the  sake of ethics, yes, I disregard the status quo. 

45 minutes ago, beecee said:

The controversy is that you are unable to recognise the moral correctness of your decision, and prefer to indulge in self flaggelation. 

I don't see how that's a controversy. I do not believe that I caused the controversy by holding what you assert is a minority opinion. I think that controversy has been in effect for six thousand years.

 

45 minutes ago, beecee said:

While we are at it, its actually nice to see people interested enough, to give me those neg reps.

If you think that's me, you're mistaken. I don't give reps because I don't like the concept. That, too, may be a minority opinion.

45 minutes ago, beecee said:

Can you dig up some figures re the number of invasions and assaults by police, compared to the numbers of invasions and assaults as carried out by other low life and criminals?

Pardon? Is that the statistical comparison we're looking for as standard? Whether the police, who are payed, armed, empowered and authorized to protect the population are more or less harmful to the population than the criminals themselves? And then what? If the cause less death, injury, trauma and damage to householders than armed burglars do, they should be given power to do more? 

Sorry, I cannot accept that as a status quo. 

 

45 minutes ago, beecee said:

You certainly appear to be trying to shove it down my throat.

I am typing into a little box on my computer screen in the relative comfort of my house on the far side of the globe. As are you. No throats involved; no compulsion to read; no form of coercion available. 

 

 

 

 

Edited March 18, 2022 by Peterkin

[beecee]

20 minutes ago, Peterkin said:

Whatever lies within the power of a voting citizen of a modern westernized democratic country.

I see....so forum rhetorical rants.

20 minutes ago, Peterkin said:

For the  sake of ethics, yes, I disregard the status quo. 

The status quo in this case meaning, exercising every means possible to free or save the innocent victims in the circumstances under discussion, before considering torture.

20 minutes ago, Peterkin said:

I don't see how that's a controversy. I do not believe that I caused the controversy by holding what you assert is a minority opinion. I think that controversy has been in effect for six thousand years.

That's OK, at least you have endeavoured to try all means possible, before considering torture. No need to get your knickers in a knot over that.

20 minutes ago, Peterkin said:

If you think that's me, you're mistaken. I don't give reps because I don't like the concept. That, too, may be a minority opinion.

Oh I know who it is, I think. he spat the dummy and took his cricket bat home a couple of days ago. 

20 minutes ago, Peterkin said:

Pardon? Is that the statistical comparison we're looking for as standard? Whether the police, who are payed, armed, empowered and authorized to protect the population are more or less harmful to the population than the criminals themselves? Sorry, I cannot accept that as a status quo. 

??? I'm saying while we have crooked cops, crooked politicians, and crooked normal folk, they are in the minority, but still need to be weeded out, and receive just punishment for their crimes. Ask yourself, where do policeman come from? Or where do politicians come from?

Edited March 18, 2022 by beecee

[Peterkin]

44 minutes ago, beecee said:

Ask yourself, where do policeman come from? Or where do politicians come from?

Before they were little innocent babies? ( Depends whom you ask, but the version I prefer is evolution. ) After they were little innocent babies, just as the criminals were little innocent babies, their personalities, just like the personalities of the criminals, were formed by their genetic heritage, nurture or lack of it, their native talents and intelligence, their environment, their culture, their education or lack of it, the entertainments, literature and games they were exposed to, the role models by whom they were influenced, the expectations and responses of authority figures, the good or bad relationships they had with other people, the good or bad health and luck that befell them, their enmities and alliances, their ambitions and yearnings, the opportunities and temptations they encountered and the obstacles intervening between them and their desired objectives. Some of them become violent, antisocial and corrupted - bad, lowlife, crooked eggs or apples.

And therefore, it seems to me, if changing the environment to one that corrupts fewer people in the first place (ie. systemic crime prevention through social justice) is completely and hopelessly unworkable, as I have been informed on more than one occasion, then the next best thing to attempt is to put more obstacles between the people and the factors which corrupt them. In the case of law-enforcers, it is done through legislation and reform. In the case of law-breakers, it is done through crime prevention and effective corrections.    

Edited March 18, 2022 by Peterkin

[beecee]

I posted this philosophy account on page 8...worth another showing...

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

Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy

Torture:

First published Tue Feb 7, 2006; substantive revision Fri May 5, 2017

It is divide into headings, the fourth heading being.....

 

• 4. The Moral Justification for Legalised and Institutionalised Torture
•  
• extracts from case studies......

• 3.1 Case Study – The Beating

• In this case study torture of the car thief can be provided with a substantial moral justification, even if it does not convince everyone. Consider the following points: (1) The police reasonably believe that torturing the car thief will probably save an innocent life; (2) the police know that there is no other way to save the life; (3) the threat to life is more or less imminent; (4) the baby is innocent; (5) the car thief is known not to be an innocent – his action is known to have caused the threat to the baby, and he is refusing to allow the baby’s life to be saved.

 

3.2 Case Study – The Terrorist and the Ticking Bomb

In this case study there is also a substantial moral justification for torture, albeit one that many moral absolutists do not find compelling. Consider the following points: (1) The police reasonably believe that torturing the terrorist will probably save thousands of innocent lives; (2) the police know that there is no other way to save those lives; (3) the threat to life is more or less imminent; (4) the thousands about to be murdered are innocent – the terrorist has no good, let alone decisive, justificatory moral reason for murdering them; (5) the terrorist is known to be (jointly with the other terrorists) morally responsible for planning, transporting, and arming the nuclear device and, if it explodes, he will be (jointly with the other terrorists) morally responsible for the murder of thousands.

In addition to the above set of moral considerations, consider the following points. The terrorist is culpable on two counts. Firstly, the terrorist is forcing the police to choose between two evils, namely, torturing the terrorist or allowing thousands of lives to be lost. Were the terrorist to do what he ought to do, namely, disclose the location of the ticking bomb, the police could refrain from torturing him. This would be true of the terrorist, even if he were not actively participating in the bombing project. Secondly, the terrorist is in the process of completing his (jointly undertaken) action of murdering thousands of innocent people. He has already undertaken his individual actions of, say, transporting and arming the nuclear device; he has performed these individual actions (in the context of other individual actions performed by the other members of the terrorist cell) in order to realise the end (shared by the other members of the cell) of murdering thousands of Londoners. In refusing to disclose the location of the device the terrorist is preventing the police from preventing him from completing his (joint) action of murdering thousands of innocent people.^[14] To this extent the terrorist is in a different situation from a bystander who happens to know where the bomb is planted but will not reveal its whereabouts, and in a different situation from someone who might have inadvertently put life at risk (Miller (2005); Hill (2007)).

Some commentators on scenarios of this kind are reluctant to concede that the police are morally entitled – let alone morally obliged – to torture the offender. How do these commentators justify their position?

In conclusion, the view that it is, all things considered, morally wrong to torture the terrorist in the scenario outlined faces very serious objections; and it is difficult to see how these objections can be met. It is plausible, therefore, that there are some imaginable circumstances in which it is morally permissible to torture someone.

3 minutes ago, Peterkin said:

Before they were little innocent babies? ( Depends whom you ask, but the version I prefer is evolution. )  

You know in what context the question/s were asked. The obvious answer of course is from society in general, you, me, dimmy, the bloke next door...people that before they became coppers and politicians, were just like us. 

6 minutes ago, Peterkin said:

 Some of them become violent, antisocial and corrupted - bad, lowlife eggs and apples.   

yet some of them having experienced the worst life can throw at them, rose above that and become world recognised respected individuals...yes and others fail to rise above it and instead took the easy way out.

8 minutes ago, Peterkin said:

And therefore, it seems to me, if changing the environment to one that corrupts fewer people on both sides of the law is completely and hopelessly unworkable, as I have been informed on more than one occasion, then the next best thing to attempt is putting more obstacles between them and corruption. In the case of officials, this is done through legislation and reform. In the case of law-breakers, it is done through crime prevention and effective corrections.    

I'm all for attempts at changing the environment to one that corrupts fewer people, and whatever else it takes to reduce corruption and crime, and just as I reiterated in the justice/punishment thread. That does not detract though from the facts that no matter what society does, there will always be those that will throw it back in your face and take advantage of it. That's why we have jails, and always will.

I vote for our Labor government as our best to look after the environment and the electorate in general...I have solar panels, a water tank and actively do my best to reduce my carbon footprint...I now drive less then 12,000 kms a year and make use of public transport where ever possible...I  regularly attend council meetings re new developments etc, and voice my opinions often...I also have attended NSW Police information services about crime prevention and neighbourhood watch programs we have...and myself and my wife actively participate in world vision and the sponsoring of two children, and have done that for 12 years. If there was anything more practically I could do I would. 

 

[MSC]

8 hours ago, beecee said:

What I'm against, is the philsophical mumbo jumbo in this thread by a couple, rather then answering practical questions, with practical morally correct solutions.  While I understand how those thoughts may upset the philsophers amongst us, my own views on philosophy are similar to Krauss, DeGrasse-Tyson, and other reputable scientific figures. 

Ethics is a branch of philosophy. What did you expect? It seems the "mumbo jumbo" you dislike the least is people pointing out where your logic breaks down. That's not their fault. It isn't anyone's job here to be convinced by fallacy ridden arguments or to hold your hand to the finish line. 

You can base your opinions about philosophy on non-philosophers if you would like, but it isn't a convincing appeal to authority. Especially when pragmatism is a philosophy and all science is born of natural philosophy. 

Right now, I want to know why you believe that your moral views must be within the majority in western democracies and why this assumption is correct?

Could you torture someone as a job? If everyone else tells you that you had no choice, that you did the right thing, will that do anything to actually stop you from remembering everything you did to the person? Their screams and cries, the feeling of the flesh and bones being damaged by you. Would being morally correct stop you from feeling shame or guilt? Would it stop you from feeling like an innocent person yourself?

Let's imagine another scenario, you are accused of one of these horrible crimes, somebody wants to torture you for information but you are innocent. You are tortured mercilessly for hours on end; by the time they realize you are innocent, you've been horribly disfigured and will likely live with pain the rest of your life and you gave a false confession just to make the pain stop. How would you feel about torture then? Here is a question you might not have considered; is choosing not to torture someone, even if someone might die if we don't, morally wrong?

Ethics is not easy. Doing what is right; isn't always going to make you feel good. Sometimes, our choices are all so dire, that ultimately none of them are good ones, but some might be less bad than others. 

In the end, we have to be able to live with ourselves, with our choices and actions. If evil exists, and we fight it, we must take a care not to become something worse than the monsters we want to keep at bay. 

I'm not without some sympathy for your situation. Philosophers have a habit of sounding pretentious and condescending and we argue in a very different way than others, but you need to understand that our studies involve a lot of the terminology and theory about argumentation, logic and debate explicitly. 

7 hours ago, beecee said:

If there was anything more practically I could do I would. 

Learn more philosophy. This isn't meant as an attack but is a sincere suggestion. Knowledge is power.

Ultimately none of us really know enough to know whom is right. Learning philosophy at least, helps you figure out how to argue for your own views more convincingly but also helps you figure out how to question and consider your own and others views on things.

I can send you some useful links on that front. You seem like an intelligent person who could stand to benefit a lot from learning this stuff.

[Peterkin]

17 hours ago, beecee said:

It is plausible, therefore, that there are some imaginable circumstances in which it is morally permissible to torture someone.

I can't help noticing the equivocal language of this authority

He's as careful in the choice of words as I am, but seems less sure of his position. I don't blame him: it's a difficult question. Each of us can only answer with any confidence from our own subjective perspective.

 

[beecee]

15 hours ago, MSC said:

Ethics is a branch of philosophy. What did you expect? It seems the "mumbo jumbo" you dislike the least is people pointing out where your logic breaks down. That's not their fault. It isn't anyone's job here to be convinced by fallacy ridden arguments or to hold your hand to the finish line. 

You can base your opinions about philosophy on non-philosophers if you would like, but it isn't a convincing appeal to authority. Especially when pragmatism is a philosophy and all science is born of natural philosophy. 

Sure, I understand that, re ethics and pragmatism, but I reject the premise that in the situations being discussed, and probably other situations, that doing everything that is humanly possible, before consideration of torture, is not the morally correct decision. At least when innocent lives are at stake. Yep, I also fully understand that all of science is born of natural philsophy...but many areas that were once the sole domain of metaphysics and philosophy, are now also the domain of the science of cosmology.

15 hours ago, MSC said:

Right now, I want to know why you believe that your moral views must be within the majority in western democracies and why this assumption is correct?

With all due respect, I believe you know that answer. It concerns itself with the rights of innocent people to be able to go about there normal lives, without threats from paedophiles, terrorists, and criminals, irrespective of circumstances. The question was asked earlier, and I don't believe I answered it, if it was my own flesh and blood, say a Brother, or a Father in the position of the paedophile or terrorist, my position would be the same. 

15 hours ago, MSC said:

Could you torture someone as a job? If everyone else tells you that you had no choice, that you did the right thing, will that do anything to actually stop you from remembering everything you did to the person? Their screams and cries, the feeling of the flesh and bones being damaged by you. Would being morally correct stop you from feeling shame or guilt? Would it stop you from feeling like an innocent person yourself?

Truthfully, I really don't know. Perhaps if it was my Mrs or Son within the area where the nuclear bomb was, or were the actual vicitm of the kidnapper, I may say yes. Personally, I have a phobia with regards to the sight of open wounds, blood and guts etc. As a previous regular blood donor of 76 donations, I have never ever watched them actually go about taking the stuff, instead concentrating on the pretty nurses walking by or a travel brochure. Either way if all else had been tried, before any torture, and success was achieved, I don't believe I would feel ashamed or guilty. No, I could not do it, nor would I ever consider doing it as a job.

15 hours ago, MSC said:

Let's imagine another scenario, you are accused of one of these horrible crimes, somebody wants to torture you for information but you are innocent. You are tortured mercilessly for hours on end; by the time they realize you are innocent, you've been horribly disfigured and will likely live with pain the rest of your life and you gave a false confession just to make the pain stop. How would you feel about torture then? Here is a question you might not have considered; is choosing not to torture someone, even if someone might die if we don't, morally wrong?

While I see the above scenario as totally unreal, yeah, sure, I would be pissed off in the extreme, and would probably do whatever it took to get out of that situation. But quickly, a reminder...we are talking about the 100% positive guilt of a person and beyond any reasonable doubt.

15 hours ago, MSC said:

Ethics is not easy. Doing what is right; isn't always going to make you feel good. Sometimes, our choices are all so dire, that ultimately none of them are good ones, but some might be less bad than others. 

In the end, we have to be able to live with ourselves, with our choices and actions. If evil exists, and we fight it, we must take a care not to become something worse than the monsters we want to keep at bay. 

Agreed, mostly. I could give a few personal examples, but they would be mostly off topic. What the heck!!! When we moved into the are we now live, my Son was around 3 or 4 years old. He quickly made friends with another little boy the same age two houses down the street. After a time, my Son would come inside after playing, upset and crying. The wife and I would ask him what was wrong. He said Andrew had hit him. The wife by the way is very religious, (and obviously tolerent putting up with me) she would tell him not to worry and words to the effect of truning the other cheek. This went on for a few weeks and four or five times, he would come inside crying that Andrew had hit him. Finally one day when the Mrs wasn't home, it happened again. I grabbed my Son and told him, if he came inside crying again, I would whack him and that when Andrew ever hit him again, to hit him back, as hard as he could. The inevitable happened and Andrew again one arvo, hit my Son while I was actually in the garden. My Son did what I told him and whacked him back, hard. It was Andrew's turn to run inside crying. It never happened again and Andrew and my Son, both now in theeir 40's are still the best of mates, were the best man at each other's weddings, and his parents and ourselves are also very socially connected. BTW, when they were kids and the hitting was going on,  Andrew was being egged on by his two older brothers!

Did I do the right thing? Or should I have aligned with the Mrs concept of turning the other cheek? 

 

15 hours ago, MSC said:

I'm not without some sympathy for your situation. Philosophers have a habit of sounding pretentious and condescending and we argue in a very different way than others, but you need to understand that our studies involve a lot of the terminology and theory about argumentation, logic and debate explicitly. 

Ironically, you have just posted a post addressed to me, where you have so far failed to be pretentious and condescending. I appreciate that.

15 hours ago, MSC said:

Learn more philosophy. This isn't meant as an attack but is a sincere suggestion. Knowledge is power.

Thanks for that, and I understand. In reality, I do and have read most of the philsophical threads. My commnets in such threads may be minimal, but I am generally listening.

15 hours ago, MSC said:

Ultimately none of us really know enough to know whom is right. Learning philosophy at least, helps you figure out how to argue for your own views more convincingly but also helps you figure out how to question and consider your own and others views on things.

I can send you some useful links on that front. You seem like an intelligent person who could stand to benefit a lot from learning this stuff.

I'm a fairly open sort of person, and really try hard to understand another's position...sometimes that is fruitful, other times, I see it as an unworkable philsophy, (as in the justice/punishment thread) I also try and be as realistic as possible. My education is actually limited, when compared to most here...I left school at 15.5 years old after achieving what we called the Intermediate certificate, did an apprentiship in Fitting/maching/welding. I have been mostly blessed with good luck, although I believe in many cases, we make our own good luck, and moments of complete disaster. I hope I have rose above those moments. Perhaps I could have gone much further with education and knowledge, if I wasn't so attracted towards the good life and having fun. While having no qualifications in science, I am truely attracted and endowed with following as much science as I can and the scientific methodology. (and of course philosophy, despite my less then positive critique of that discipline) 

Any links you send will be read and digested. And finally, I hope you don't mind, but I just gave you an up vote on your very considered and open post.

15 hours ago, MSC said:

Ethics is a branch of philosophy. You can base your opinions about philosophy on non-philosophers if you would like, but it isn't a convincing appeal to authority.

I'm thinking of starting a thread on the "soft or social sciences" such as sociology, psychology and philosophy. I would say off topic here. Not so much as a critique on my part, but to gauge thoughts by others and knowledge.

Edited March 19, 2022 by beecee

[dimreepr]

16 hours ago, beecee said:

Agreed, mostly. I could give a few personal examples, but they would be mostly off topic. What the heck!!! When we moved into the are we now live, my Son was around 3 or 4 years old. He quickly made friends with another little boy the same age two houses down the street. After a time, my Son would come inside after playing, upset and crying. The wife and I would ask him what was wrong. He said Andrew had hit him. The wife by the way is very religious, (and obviously tolerent putting up with me) she would tell him not to worry and words to the effect of truning the other cheek. This went on for a few weeks and four or five times, he would come inside crying that Andrew had hit him. Finally one day when the Mrs wasn't home, it happened again. I grabbed my Son and told him, if he came inside crying again, I would whack him and that when Andrew ever hit him again, to hit him back, as hard as he could. The inevitable happened and Andrew again one arvo, hit my Son while I was actually in the garden. My Son did what I told him and whacked him back, hard. It was Andrew's turn to run inside crying. It never happened again and Andrew and my Son, both now in theeir 40's are still the best of mates, were the best man at each other's weddings, and his parents and ourselves are also very socially connected. BTW, when they were kids and the hitting was going on,  Andrew was being egged on by his two older brothers!

Did I do the right thing? Or should I have aligned with the Mrs concept of turning the other cheek? 

There's nothing wrong in standing up for/defending yourself, but it was your instinct/bias talking, not your reason; for instance, I was a very angry young man from a broken home and I once put a kid in hospital, because he was calling me woody woodpecker (my sir name is wood); that's what convince me that violence is less than an answer.

Sure it may have worked well for your son, but that just reinforced your bias; meeting force with force just creates a bully, when the motive is revenge...

17 hours ago, beecee said:

No, I could not do it, nor would I ever consider doing it as a job.

The problem is, in your scenario, to be 100% certain you, personally, would have to witness the crime (even then there's wiggle room as I've explained), which logically mean's only you can administer the torture in certainty of the facts.

And given the, natural, uncertainty of how we see the world, to persuade someone else to do ones dirty work, makes one no better than Hitler...

[MSC]

19 hours ago, beecee said:

With all due respect, I believe you know that answer. It concerns itself with the rights of innocent people to be able to go about there normal lives, without threats from paedophiles, terrorists, and criminals, irrespective of circumstances. The question was asked earlier, and I don't believe I answered it, if it was my own flesh and blood, say a Brother, or a Father in the position of the paedophile or terrorist, my position would be the same

The suspects of crimes and even the convicts also have rights in western societies. Namely, the right to no cruel or inhumane punishments. Right to legal counsel etc. In order to agree with you that your claim is in the majority, I'd need to see some opinion polling on torture. Even if you turn out to be correct on that point, being in the majority doesn't make your argument more likely to be correct. If I was a German in 1939 and believed that Jewish people were less than human (which I don't) I'd be a part of the German majority at the time. It would not make me any less incorrect.

19 hours ago, beecee said:

Did I do the right thing? Or should I have aligned with the Mrs concept of turning the other cheek? 

I believe in teaching children the principles of self defense. Turning the other cheek is all well and good unless by doing so you are enabling bullying behaviors or putting your own life/well being at risk. So I think you did the right thing in the long run in that situation and it sounds like there were no ill consequences. I'm a parent myself so it may be biasing me toward agreeing with you here but then I think adults ought to adhere to self defense principles also. 

19 hours ago, beecee said:

Ironically, you have just posted a post addressed to me, where you have so far failed to be pretentious and condescending. I appreciate that.

Oh dear, I'll be canceled for sure this time! 😆 well I'm glad I managed because I wasn't sure. I am perfectly capable of being both (without realizing it of course) but on my good days, where I'm really trying to put myself into the shoes of the person I'm conversing with, I find myself surprised that I'm actually being listened to and appreciated. So thank you, really I mean that. 

19 hours ago, beecee said:

I'm a fairly open sort of person, and really try hard to understand another's position...sometimes that is fruitful, other times, I see it as an unworkable philsophy, (as in the justice/punishment thread) I also try and be as realistic as possible. My education is actually limited, when compared to most here...I left school at 15.5 years old after achieving what we called the Intermediate certificate, did an apprentiship in Fitting/maching/welding. I have been mostly blessed with good luck, although I believe in many cases, we make our own good luck, and moments of complete disaster. I hope I have rose above those moments. Perhaps I could have gone much further with education and knowledge, if I wasn't so attracted towards the good life and having fun. While having no qualifications in science, I am truely attracted and endowed with following as much science as I can and the scientific methodology. (and of course philosophy, despite my less then positive critique of that discipline) 

Sounds very familiar! Except I had to wait until I was 16 to legally leave school. Then I tried to join the army. Physics was my self learning passion for awhile, then it was psychology, then philosophy and now ethics (plus a number of other fields and subfields around those.) I've had dialogues and conversations with 100s of professionals in those fields. I think the first person I contacted myself, was Peter Higgs, when I was 14... this was before the Higgs boson was finally discovered, but even then I was fascinated by his work. 

Personally; I don't know how successful you'll be in learning philosophy through implication by watching debates or discussions. However in this golden information age we find ourselves in; getting into massive debt for a thorough education in something is now no longer required. 

There are two YouTube channels I think you would really like. Crash course and The School of life. Crash course philosophy is exactly what it sounds like and is a great starting point and it can point you to names and concepts to research yourself. 

School of life has bio videos on different philosophers/philosophies.

SEP - Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy is pretty good. I've been fortunate enough to speak to some of the editors there and they are really amazing people who want to put out as much free knowledge as they can and they are interested to hear how people respond to their work. 

IEP - Internet encyclopedia of philosophy is a good resource, I don't use it as much as SEP but still worth a look in. 

Project Gutenberg - This is a free online library of classic and out of print books. Want to read Marcus Aurelius mediations? Its there. Want to read it in Latin? It's there. From philosophy, physics to cooking and gardening; it has books on everything. Some of them being 1000s of years old. 

I have one last scenario; You have been interrogating a terrorism suspect. You are reasonably sure he knows where there is a bomb in a densely populated area. You try everything short of torture to try and get the location. You think you are close to breaking him, but your CO comes in and tells you that the bomb just went off, killing 1000 people. Whom is responsible for those deaths? You, for not torturing? Or the terrorist who set the situation up in the first place?

What if you did torture, got an answer that turned out to be a lie and 1000 people still died? Whom is responsible then? 

3 hours ago, dimreepr said:

There's nothing wrong in standing up for/defending yourself, but it was your instinct/bias talking, not your reason; for instance, I was a very angry young man from a broken home and I once put a kid in hospital, because he was calling me woody woodpecker (my sir name is wood); that's what convince me that violence is less than an answer.

Sure it may have worked well for your son, but that just reinforced your bias; meeting force with force just creates a bully, when the motive is revenge..

But the motive was clearly self defense and teaching an important lesson to the instigating child, that people can hit back and that it hurts. He was four at the time so I doubt he'd understand what it actually feels like to be hit or how it makes others feel. Learning to turn the other cheek is fine, until you're turning it for a knife. I agree with you that ultimately violence isn't the answer, but sometimes when reasonable answers are not or aren't going to be listened to, you either need to walk away or take a swing. Walking away isn't an option for a 4 year old whom has no control over where he goes or lives. Just my two cents really. That said, I probably would have confronted the parents myself first when it was clearly getting out of hand and let them know I've told my kid to hit back if their kid strikes again, and to get their shit together. 

 

3 hours ago, dimreepr said:

Sure it may have worked well for your son, but that just reinforced your bias; meeting force with force just creates a bully, when the motive is revenge...

I'd only say it reinforces the bias if the context of the situation changes and the same response is still given. For example if this had been happening between adults, and the advice is to hit back instead of calling the police, that could be a problem... then again if another adult where to hit me for no good reason, it might not be safe for me to assume they are only going to hit once and give me time to call the police. Hmmmm.. this is hard 😆 

3 hours ago, dimreepr said:

The problem is, in your scenario, to be 100% certain you, personally, would have to witness the crime (even then there's wiggle room as I've explained), which logically mean's only you can administer the torture in certainty of the facts.

This was one of my thoughts too. How do you know guilt has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt? Who decides that you do, without a judicial process to determine that? The judicial process exists out of recognition that no one person can truly know anything beyond a reasonable doubt and that justified certainty is difficult to reach. 

If I was a suspect In a crime like this, torturing me is probably the most effective way to make me hate a person enough that I would lie, just to see them fail. I doubt I'm the only person that feels that way either. Not that I'd ever do something like this; this is just me thinking about what it would be like to be in their self centered sociopathic shoes. 

 

[Peterkin]

3 hours ago, dimreepr said:

The problem is, in your scenario, to be 100% certain you, personally, would have to witness the crime (even then there's wiggle room as I've explained), which logically mean's only you can administer the torture in certainty of the facts.

If someone in a position to extract information from the suspect had witnessed the crime, they could have stopped the crime - or at the very least be in first-hand possession of the facts, which nullifies the entire if-all-else-fails-resort-to-torture scenario. Even in the terrorist and bomb scenario, there can only be a high degree of certainty - never 100%.

It would then be up to the agent to set the bar of acceptable risk. In the imagined situation, all agents have impeccable characters and exceptionally high standards; in real life, if the law says

On 3/19/2022 at 10:57 AM, Peterkin said:

 there are some imaginable circumstances in which it is morally permissible to torture someone.

the agent in question tends to set the bar lower than if it's absolutely forbidden.

[beecee]

2 hours ago, MSC said:

The suspects of crimes and even the convicts also have rights in western societies. Namely, the right to no cruel or inhumane punishments. Right to legal counsel etc. In order to agree with you that your claim is in the majority, I'd need to see some opinion polling on torture. Even if you turn out to be correct on that point, being in the majority doesn't make your argument more likely to be correct. If I was a German in 1939 and believed that Jewish people were less than human (which I don't) I'd be a part of the German majority at the time. It would not make me any less incorrect.

Totally agree about the rights of alleged criminals etc. Under normal circumstances. And of course generally speaking the majority being right as absolute is a furphy, as your example attests to. But I would say that German society in that era were ignorant of what Hitler was doing, except of course, the isolated good he did do in its economic recovery after the great depression and autobahns. Plus brainwashing with regards to Jewish people through movie advertisments etc, did not detail ( I think) the objective of extermination. A better example imo of the majority being wrong, was the election of Trump.

No I havn't got any polling figures on what the majority may think in the current examples, but I am still confident that the sympathies would lie with the innocent potential victims.

2 hours ago, MSC said:

I believe in teaching children the principles of self defense. Turning the other cheek is all well and good unless by doing so you are enabling bullying behaviors or putting your own life/well being at risk. So I think you did the right thing in the long run in that situation and it sounds like there were no ill consequences. I'm a parent myself so it may be biasing me toward agreeing with you here but then I think adults ought to adhere to self defense principles also. 

My Mrs, as a practising Christian, still has doubts I did the right thing. 😁

2 hours ago, MSC said:

Oh dear, I'll be canceled for sure this time! 😆 well I'm glad I managed because I wasn't sure. I am perfectly capable of being both (without realizing it of course) but on my good days, where I'm really trying to put myself into the shoes of the person I'm conversing with, I find myself surprised that I'm actually being listened to and appreciated. So thank you, really I mean that. 

Don't get too comfy, I still disagree on many points, but I certainly hope other would be philsopher types, takes heed of your approach. 😉

2 hours ago, MSC said:

Personally; I don't know how successful you'll be in learning philosophy through implication by watching debates or discussions. However in this golden information age we find ourselves in; getting into massive debt for a thorough education in something is now no longer required. 

I'm also 77 years old, 78 in July so while believing we are never too old to learn, I certainly can be a stubborn old bastard.

2 hours ago, MSC said:

I have one last scenario; You have been interrogating a terrorism suspect. You are reasonably sure he knows where there is a bomb in a densely populated area. You try everything short of torture to try and get the location. You think you are close to breaking him, but your CO comes in and tells you that the bomb just went off, killing 1000 people. Whom is responsible for those deaths? You, for not torturing? Or the terrorist who set the situation up in the first place?

(1) The terrorist of course. (2) I probably will have regrets that I didn't use all means open to me to extract the info, but of course it is the terrorist responsible for the outcome. 

2 hours ago, MSC said:

What if you did torture, got an answer that turned out to be a lie and 1000 people still died? Whom is responsible then? 

Of course that is a possible outcome, but at least we have tried all avenues open to help save the innocents. Not sure if I raised it with you earlier, but on page 1 the question was asked, what is torture? Sometimes simply locking a criminal up can be seen as torture. We have a problem in Australia re deaths in custody, nearly all concerning indigenous people. 

 

2 hours ago, Peterkin said:

the agent in question tends to set the bar lower than if it's absolutely forbidden.

The criminal, paedohpile, or terrorist has no absolute forbidden minimum. Why should we when we are 100% sure of his guilt, or he has been found guilty beyond any reasonable doubt, offer him the benefits of the reasonable ethical morality of a normal democratic western society, particularly when many innocent lives are at stake.

[Peterkin]

27 minutes ago, beecee said:

The criminal, paedohpile, or terrorist has no absolute forbidden minimum.

Of course he does! It's 0 - no exceptions, no special cases. That's why he's being arrested, questioned, tortured, tried, convicted and sentenced.

Quote

Why should we when we are 100% sure of his guilt, or he has been found guilty beyond any reasonable doubt, offer him the benefits of the reasonable ethical morality of a normal democratic western society, particularly when many innocent lives are at stake.

Beyond a reasonable doubt" can be as low as 51% certainty, and rarely, if ever as high as 100%. In any case, wouldn't that happen after the threat to all those innocents has been neutralized, after he trial, after the evidence is collected, vetted and presented to a jury, not before the interrogation, and not because of confession obtained by torture?   Carts and horses, hearses and tumbrils.

Edited March 20, 2022 by Peterkin

[beecee]

4 hours ago, MSC said:

This was one of my thoughts too. How do you know guilt has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt? Who decides that you do, without a judicial process to determine that? The judicial process exists out of recognition that no one person can truly know anything beyond a reasonable doubt and that justified certainty is difficult to reach. 

On the highlighted part, my answer would be so that justice is not only done, but is seen to be done. I still reject the notion that we can never know a person's guilt. We had an horrific case that I raised in the justice/punishment thread, of a paedophile that was out on parole for previous offences, abducting a little girl, raping and torturing her in a toilet cubicle, then stabbing one of her rescuers when discovered.

https://www.news.com.au/national/nsw-act/crime/alleged-dance-hall-bathroom-sex-attacker-released-early-after-previous-assault/news-story/5ef5423868b66fb7939c29c1485cfda8

"Major questions are being asked as the man arrested over an alleged sexual assault of a young girl in a dance studio bathroom was on parole".

https://www.news.com.au/national/nsw-act/news/friends-of-koragahs-good-samaritan-say-hes-been-left-devastated-by-attack/news-story/a2db1459eb0198a3fc4371227af6706d

"It has been said that we use the term “hero” too liberally in Australia — but you’d be hard-pushed to find someone more deserving of the plaudit than Nick Gilio.

The southern Sydney dad was just spending time with his daughter when, moments later, stabbed while saving a seven-year-old girl from a horrifying alleged sex attack in a dance studio bathroom on Thursday last week".

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

50 minutes ago, Peterkin said:

Of course he does! It's 0 - no exceptions, no special cases. That's why he's being arrested, questioned, tortured, tried, convicted and sentenced.  

Yep, exactly as I said, the criminal, paedophile, terrorist, has no absolute forbidden minimum. 

50 minutes ago, Peterkin said:

Beyond a reasonable doubt" can be as low as 51% certainty, and rarely, if ever as high as 100%. In any case  wouldn't that happen after the trial, after the evidence is collected, vetted and presented to a jury, not before the interrogation, and not because of confession obtained by torture?    

Is that so? 51%? Can you give me any reference determining that figure? 

I would logically say that "beyond any reasonable doubt" means, that there is no other reasonable explanation that can come from the evidence presented at trial, and that it is clear and convincing evidence. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reasonable_doubt

Legal systems have tended to avoid quantifying the reasonable doubt standard (for example as "over 90% probability")^[2] although legal scholars from a variety of analytical perspectives have argued in favor of quantification of the criminal standard of proof.

https://www.google.com/search?q=is+beyond+reasoanble+doubt+51%%3F&rlz=1C1RXQR_en-GBAU952AU952&oq=is+beyond+reasoanble+doubt+51%%3F&aqs=chrome..69i57j33i10i160.16856j0j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

 legal authorities who venture to assign a numerical value to “beyond a reasonable doubt” place it in the certainty range of 98 or 99 percent.

https://academic.oup.com/lpr/article/5/2/159/927739

quantification of the ‘proof beyond reasonable doubt’ standard

 

Abstract

There are many reasons for objecting to quantifying the ‘proof beyond reasonable doubt’ standard of criminal law as a percentage probability. They are divided into ethical and policy reasons, on the one hand, and reasons arising from the nature of logical probabilities, on the other. It is argued that these reasons are substantial and suggest that the criminal standard of proof should not be given a precise number. But those reasons do not rule out a minimal imprecise number. ‘Well above 80%’ is suggested as a standard, implying that any attempt by a prosecutor or jury to take the ‘proof beyond reasonable doubt’ standard to be 80% or less should be ruled out as a matter of law.

 

Edited March 20, 2022 by beecee

[Peterkin]

1 hour ago, beecee said:

as I said, the criminal, paedophile, terrorist, has no absolute forbidden minimum.

Those are crimes. They are against the law. They are forbidden. Even a little bit of those things is forbidden. Any of things things above 0 is absolutely forbidden. There is no minimum allowed and no jurist has pronounced on imagined situations in which the sexual abuse of a child or terrorism may be permissible.

1 hour ago, beecee said:

Can you give me any reference determining that figure? 

Of course not! There is no figure. 51% is the baseline of 'more likely than not', because below that line, no jury [in a democratic, modern westernized society, I hope] returns a guilty verdict. Above 50%, the determination of what's reasonable is locked inside the jurors' heads. They may be instructed to observe a standard that seems reasonable to the judge, but they can't be legally held to it; once the trial commences, it's up to them - and nobody else can know what convinces them. 

Not that it's relevant to the use of torture in order to obtain information before there is any evidence. The trial doesn't take place until months after the victims have been killed or saved or discovered never to have been in danger at all (the other egg was less bad and left the child in safe, warm place; unbeknownst to the captured conspirator, the bomb was a dud ) - so it simply doesn't enter into the law enforcement agency's available choice of investigative techniques.

 

Edited March 20, 2022 by Peterkin

[beecee]

5 hours ago, MSC said:

I have one last scenario;

Can I give another take on that? Philsophy in general, imvho, is a collection of scenarios, moral standings, ethics, nature of reality, truth, (if truth exists at all) and can be sometimes pedantic in its application. It involves imo  from observational data that I have seen, one philsopher arguing that others are wrong...Catholicism, Buddhism, Atheism, etc etc....Should we have police forces? jails? (my answer, while evil exists, ( and it always will)  of course, yes)  is it morally acceptable to sometimes lie to a person? (my answer, yes sometimes) ( of which there is a thread) Is it wrong to re-enforce a child's belief in Santa Clause and fairies etc? (my answer, No) Likewise and analogous, while torture is inherently wrong, it is not and cannot be seen as an absolute. There can be and maybe exceptions in rare circumstances, and when innocent victims are involved.

35 minutes ago, Peterkin said:

Of course not!

Don't worry, I have given those figures and links.....

I would logically say that "beyond any reasonable doubt" means, that there is no other reasonable explanation that can come from the evidence presented at trial, and that it is clear and convincing evidence. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reasonable_doubt

Legal systems have tended to avoid quantifying the reasonable doubt standard (for example as "over 90% probability")^[2] although legal scholars from a variety of analytical perspectives have argued in favor of quantification of the criminal standard of proof.

https://www.google.com/search?q=is+beyond+reasoanble+doubt+51%%3F&rlz=1C1RXQR_en-GBAU952AU952&oq=is+beyond+reasoanble+doubt+51%%3F&aqs=chrome..69i57j33i10i160.16856j0j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

 legal authorities who venture to assign a numerical value to “beyond a reasonable doubt” place it in the certainty range of 98 or 99 percent.

https://academic.oup.com/lpr/article/5/2/159/927739

quantification of the ‘proof beyond reasonable doubt’ standard

 

Abstract

There are many reasons for objecting to quantifying the ‘proof beyond reasonable doubt’ standard of criminal law as a percentage probability. They are divided into ethical and policy reasons, on the one hand, and reasons arising from the nature of logical probabilities, on the other. It is argued that these reasons are substantial and suggest that the criminal standard of proof should not be given a precise number. But those reasons do not rule out a minimal imprecise number. ‘Well above 80%’ is suggested as a standard, implying that any attempt by a prosecutor or jury to take the ‘proof beyond reasonable doubt’ standard to be 80% or less should be ruled out as a matter of law.

35 minutes ago, Peterkin said:

Not that it's relevant to the use of torture to obtain evidence. 

Of course its relevant! Your unsupported statement of 51% with reference to beyond any reasonable doubt, assured that relevancy.

35 minutes ago, Peterkin said:

 It's locked inside the jurors' heads. They may be instructed to observe a standard that seems reasonable to judge, but they can't be legally held to it. Once the trial commences, it's up to them. 

So you are saying the judicial system is no good? And the average person, (juror) is an Idiot and/or dishonest, or ignorant? So, tell me, what do you propose to replace our democratic judicial system? 

35 minutes ago, Peterkin said:

Those are crimes. They are against the law. They are forbidden. Even a little bit of those things is forbidden.

The paedophiles, the kidnappers, the terrorists and the criminals are the perpetrators of their crimes. They chose and set their moral standings at those levels associated with those said crimes which are at sewer level...they know they are against the law, they know they are forbidden in any reasonable society.

The criminal, paedohpile, or terrorist has no absolute forbidden minimum. Why should we when we are 100% sure of his guilt, or he has been found guilty beyond any reasonable doubt, offer him the benefits of the reasonable ethical morality of a normal democratic western society, particularly when many innocent lives are at stake.

Edited March 20, 2022 by beecee