Is Torture Ever Right ?

[beecee]

21 minutes ago, Peterkin said:

OK. The answer, then, is NO

My point although only a minor one was on your comment 

22 minutes ago, Peterkin said:

What I think would happen at that trial, assuming it's a fair one,

I mean why the fuck would you assume it's not a fair one? Unless of course you live in Iraq, or Iran, or some African nation controlled by some despot. 

 

[Phi for All]

!

Moderator Note

I'm going to call for more civility here, or I must assume this long thread has run its course. There's been little discussion of late, so I'd like to remind you all that belittling someone else's stance doesn't count as support for your own. You're at a table, not on opposite sides of a fence. 

 

[beecee]

 

Wow! the colour content is quite impresssive, but yeah, I also believe this has run its course, and having made many valid points and many morally correct arguments and assumptions, I will now gladly drop out and concentrate on the hard sciences.

[Peterkin]

46 minutes ago, beecee said:

My point although only a minor one was on your comment 

Quote

Perhaps answer the questions without your long drawn out political opinions and tiresome criticisms of society in general. 

OK. The answer to the OP question was NO: it's never right to torture people or other living things. 

50 minutes ago, beecee said:

why the fuck would you assume it's not a fair one?

Do you mean by saying

Quote

What I think would happen at that trial, assuming it's a fair one,

?

52 minutes ago, beecee said:

Unless of course you live in Iraq, or Iran, or some African nation controlled by some despot. 

Unfunnily enough, people do live in those places, and get tortured there, and authorized law-enforcement agents are never put on trial for torturing prisoners there.

[MSC]

43 minutes ago, beecee said:

I mean why the fuck would you assume it's not a fair one? Unless of course you live in Iraq, or Iran, or some African nation controlled by some despot. 

He didn't even assume that. Strawman. He literally said "assuming it's a fair trial.." and you're now accusing him of having claimed the exact opposite? This comment borders on racist also. Needs to be said.

You really ought to calm down a bit and stop knee jerk reacting to everything we say by going down the pointless route of trying to question the credibility of an entire field while attempting to actually poorly practice it. All the while the irony of that, is lost on you. 

You're not actually attacking our arguments, just philosophy, which is a thinly veiled attack on philosophers. Especially as you are still picking and choosing which philosophers are to be listened to and which ones are not and going so far as to misrepresent their views as if they are the same as yours. They aren't. Kant was a moral absolutist. 

I don't like or agree with everything every philosopher has to say. Some are total assholes to each other, some are not. You can't paint us all with the same brush. The sort of criticisms you are attempting to credit as strictly a problem of philosophy as a field of study, are criticisms that apply to any group of humans. You're not at odds with philosophers or philosophy, you're at odds with human behavior in general... in which case, welcome to the club that you've always been in 😆 

50 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

!

Moderator Note

I'm going to call for more civility here, or I must assume this long thread has run its course. There's been little discussion of late, so I'd like to remind you all that belittling someone else's stance doesn't count as support for your own. You're at a table, not on opposite sides of a fence. 

 

Sorry, hadn't seen this before my last comment. I'm done now. Thank you for weighing in. I also feel the thread has run its course now. 

[koti]

One useful piece of information that this thread gave us is the topic top posters who are most interested in this subject and are most eager to give their invaluable opinion on torture. Lets hear a round of applause for them and lock this thread.

[Intoscience]

16 hours ago, Peterkin said:

I don't think it's the same at all. I can think of no examples of mercy-torture, or torture in self-defence. This defence-of-others (howbeit the others in danger are not present) scenario is the only one the analagy covers. 

I think they are similar not the same, you can compare the morality in a similar fashion and favour or object. 

There are many cases where in "self-defence" or in defence of another, someone gets killed and one could question whether or not this was the "right" thing to do at the time.

Desperate times sometimes seek desperate measures, this was my point.

My focus for answering the OP is centred around the one possibility where an evil act could be the right thing to do and the lesser of the 2 evils. In long consideration and listening to all the arguments presented I cannot honestly change my stance and still suggest that there could plausibly be a real situation where torture is the only option left which is the lesser of the 2 evils. 

Maybe I'm wrong but I believe that if found in such a situation, the vast majority of people, if being honest, would consider and condone the use of torture. 

For example, if your child had been kidnapped and their death was a real possibility. All attempts at retrieving your child had failed, negotiations with the perp, investigations into the location etc... all used and exhausted. Torture was an option on the table as a last resort. Would you not only consider it, but also condone it? 

Basically in this situation you are placing the life of your child in higher value than the rights/life of the perp. This I believe is the "right" thing to do and I believe that majority of people would agree.   

[beecee]

1 hour ago, Intoscience said:

My focus for answering the OP is centred around the one possibility where an evil act could be the right thing to do and the lesser of the 2 evils. In long consideration and listening to all the arguments presented I cannot honestly change my stance and still suggest that there could plausibly be a real situation where torture is the only option left which is the lesser of the 2 evils. 

Maybe I'm wrong but I believe that if found in such a situation, the vast majority of people, if being honest, would consider and condone the use of torture. 

For example, if your child had been kidnapped and their death was a real possibility. All attempts at retrieving your child had failed, negotiations with the perp, investigations into the location etc... all used and exhausted. Torture was an option on the table as a last resort. Would you not only consider it, but also condone it? 

Basically in this situation you are placing the life of your child in higher value than the rights/life of the perp. This I believe is the "right" thing to do and I believe that majority of people would agree.   

You're not wrong, you are certainly correct and spot on. I could add further re some of the deliberate nonsense and lies posted since I said I would leave this thread, particularly from our group of offended philsophers, including MSC, but hey, like you I remain steadfast with my moral ethics.

13 hours ago, MSC said:

This bit is unrelated; but a new rule I've set for myself is to leave it at agreeing to disagree, before things get heated. Which is what I'm going to do now. I've said everything I need to say, if you can convince me that my points are moot, I'll respond again. Until then however take care and remember that this is just a place of open discussion, not a battleground and I bet nearly all of us here have no influence to action any of our suggestions or view points.

And back on page 25 above.....Ooops, sorry, gives self uppercut!

OK, in anticipating more nonsense, and having made my point, I'll leave you to it.

Edited March 23, 2022 by beecee

[StringJunky]

1 hour ago, beecee said:

.... but hey, like you I remain steadfast with my moral ethics.

Therein lies a problem: it is not conducive to an exploratory philosophical discussion to be a wedded to a position.... a bit like arguing with a devout religious person on the existence of god: Yeah!.. No! It's going nowhere. 

Edited March 23, 2022 by StringJunky

[MSC]

5 hours ago, beecee said:

And back on page 25 above.....Ooops, sorry, gives self uppercut!

Yup. I'm the Rincewind of debate (Discworld reference) 🤣 this new rule is hard. Still, I'm young, I'm allowed to make a few more mistakes. What's your excuse, auld yin?

[Peterkin]

5 hours ago, Intoscience said:

I think they are similar not the same, you can compare the morality in a similar fashion and favour or object. 

Thing is, I don't think we can. Killing is natural to us: we're predators and warmongers. The instinct comes from a long line of fiercely territorial carnivores and omnivores. Killing is innate and endemic to us. All societies make laws against murder, wherein murder has a particular legal definition as regards members of the same polity, and doesn't cover the vast majority of armed conflict, law enforcement, punishment and revenge, gladiatorial contest - let alone the vast, unending, unquestioned carnage of farming and hunting.

Rather than a few permissible killings being excepted from a categorical ban on killing, murder (in its several degrees) is the only that's excepted from all the accepted and required killing we do all the time. So, you have to separate causing the death of one species from killing all other species, and put a different moral valuation on it, then scoop the minority cause of human death "murder" out of all the normal kinds of killing, and judge the situational merits of each case.

Torture is exactly the other way around. It is an exceptional kind of interaction of one human with another - one that is not necessary for the maintenance of life, territory and social cohesion. Torture is a sophisticated, intelligent human invention, not an animal instinct.

Yes, I know cats play with their prey; they do that even when it's dead, to prolong the excitement of the hunt. They are unaware of its suffering, don't intend the suffering and get no pleasure: the suffering of the prey is of no benefit to the predator; it's a mere side effect. The suffering of an inquisitor's or sadist's victim is the objective of the exercise.  

     

[MSC]

6 hours ago, Intoscience said:

My focus for answering the OP is centred around the one possibility where an evil act could be the right thing to do and the lesser of the 2 evils. In long consideration and listening to all the arguments presented I cannot honestly change my stance and still suggest that there could plausibly be a real situation where torture is the only option left which is the lesser of the 2 evils. 

Agreed, but we are still calling it an evil, even if it lesser of the two. When the only other option is inaction/apathy, and it's your own child in danger, you will probably choose to torture or condone it's use. I would not say this makes it morally correct, just the least morally incorrect. Even if successful at making safe my child, the memory and knowledge that I have tortured would be something that I'd feel shame about. I think it's because I'm a parent. Yes I can prioritize my own child in this situation, but I can't forget that the person I tortured was once also a child, someone's baby. A part of me will empathize with paternal heartbreak over seeing your child become a monster. 

I'd probably not judge any other parent that ever had or has to do this either. Mostly I am speaking for myself. This is why it is morally incorrect for at least me. Even as a necessary evil, I'll still feel evil afterward. 

Maybe I've just been reading too much Hume and put more stock in moral reasoning through emotional sentiment than I should? 

[Peterkin]

I tried, early on, to distinguish ethics from emotion; principle from visceral response. I'm no longer convinced that can ever be done by human beings who function is a society. Maybe yogis on their mountaintop, or philosopher kings on their thrones.  

[dimreepr]

17 minutes ago, MSC said:

Even if successful at making safe my child, the memory and knowledge that I have tortured would be something that I'd feel shame about. I think it's because I'm a parent.

It's because you've damaged your soul, as Socrates would say...

[MSC]

6 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

It's because you've damaged your soul, as Socrates would say...

I dont really know if I believe in souls. It would certainly damage my mind and my self-image. If it is the parent scenario though, while I'd still say it were morally incorrect to torture, I think this is a situation where paternal instinct is so strong I'd probably have no real choice in the matter. I'd just be bound to do what most mammalian parents would do. Protect their young. In this hypothetical scenario, since I prefer my scenarios to have some realism, since we know I'd still be tried in court for torturing someone because my child was in danger, after the fact, I'd probably enter a temporary insanity plea. 

[dimreepr]

32 minutes ago, MSC said:

Agreed, but we are still calling it an evil, even if it lesser of the two.

Indeed, evil is as rare as a unicorn... 

2 minutes ago, MSC said:

I dont really know if I believe in souls.

I don't think Socrates did either...

[MSC]

7 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

I don't think Socrates did either

Oh you know him. He'd just tell us he is wise for admitting he doesn't know whether or not the soul exists! 

8 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

Indeed, evil is as rare as a unicorn

😆 I've been avoiding the problem of evil literature, but this comment about sums it up! Often written about, but impossible to find. But saying evil doesn't exist, in my experience, opens you up to all manner of strange and unfair accusations. It's a slog.

[dimreepr]

9 minutes ago, MSC said:

Oh you know him. He'd just tell us he is wise for admitting he doesn't know whether or not the soul exists! 

Of course I know him, "he's my brother"... 😇

[TheVat]

I wonder if there are gray areas of torture, like truth serum, that the thread didn't explore?

Quote

Reliability and suggestibility of patients are concerns, and the practice of chemically inducing an involuntary mental state is now widely considered to be a form of torture....

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

You are inducing a involuntary state, which may be emotionally painful for the "perp," but you aren't inducing physical agony.  Leaving aside the highly complex question of relative efficacy, is this a violation of that person that would weigh less heavily (re @MSC feeling of shame, and empathic awareness of perp as a human being) than outright physical assaults?  I don't have a quick answer to this myself, but if we were talking suitcase nuke in Grand Central Station and a certain perp who knows the location, or the heavily massively monstrously overused pedo example, I wonder if the drug cocktail might be worth trying.

[dimreepr]

27 minutes ago, MSC said:

But saying evil doesn't exist, in my experience, opens you up to all manner of strange and unfair accusations.

That depends on your definition of evil...

[Peterkin]

32 minutes ago, TheVat said:

I don't have a quick answer to this myself, but if we were talking suitcase nuke in Grand Central Station and a certain perp who knows the location, or the heavily massively monstrously overused pedo example, I wonder if the drug cocktail might be worth trying.

I would certainly resort to that option before I even considered the jumper cables. For one thing, I imagine - don't know, just find it easier to imagine - they'd be less likely to lie under a chemically induced state of compliance than a mechanically induced one. Faster, too, probably, which is a major consideration in the script. 

(And, if it leaves psychic scars on the subject, I'm more readily persuaded that their origin lies in his own actions and quite easily persuaded that my own psychic scars won't be as deep as if I had laid violent hands on him. These are selfish considerations... Is that wrong?)  

[MSC]

32 minutes ago, TheVat said:

wonder if the drug cocktail might be worth trying.

Probably. Beats nails in the fingertips and a defibrillator easy. LSD is another potential avenue. I'd definitely try drug cocktails over torture. The perp has valuable Intel. Physical torture; especially for the untrained, is a threat to that Intel, as you may accidentally kill the perp before they divulge anything. 

[Peterkin]

37 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

That depends on your definition of evil...

Evil is an emergent property of the valuation process of self-reflective moral entities.

[MSC]

3 minutes ago, Peterkin said:

These are selfish considerations... Is that wrong?

I don't think so. Doing what you can live with is more about personal self awareness. We all need to be able to look at ourselves in the mirror without a mountain of shame and guilt. There is a shortage of consideration on how we treat ourselves in comparison to how much consideration we give to how we treat others. To me, both are relevant factors in most moral situations. 

9 minutes ago, Peterkin said:

Evil is an emergent property of the valuation process of self-reflective moral entities.

Wow. That's a really good definition. I'd have used the word "agents" over "entities" but it makes little difference. 

+1

[dimreepr]

22 minutes ago, MSC said:

I don't think so. Doing what you can live with is more about personal self awareness. We all need to be able to look at ourselves in the mirror without a mountain of shame and guilt. There is a shortage of consideration on how we treat ourselves in comparison to how much consideration we give to how we treat others. To me, both are relevant factors in most moral situations. 

Wow. That's a really good definition. I'd have used the word "agents" over "entities" but it makes little difference. 

+1

One day I'll sparkle, and then I'll make the bugger's eye's water...