Is Torture Ever Right ?

[MigL]

... and sometimes, people can't live with themselves, or look in the mirror, when they do nothing to retaliate against the person who did harm to their loved ones.
Both can leave emotional scars.

Some deny this, and claim to be virtuous, while others know themselves, and that we are all animals.

( thought I'd contribute my 'two cents' after 26 pages )

[MSC]

1 hour ago, MigL said:

and sometimes, people can't live with themselves, or look in the mirror, when they do nothing to retaliate against the person who did harm to their loved ones.
Both can leave emotional scars.

Some deny this, and claim to be virtuous, while others know themselves, and that we are all animals

True. I suppose it is up to the individual on which scars to bare. I don't think anyone can really come out of this sort of situation smelling like roses... The smell of roses is overrated anyway!

2 hours ago, dimreepr said:

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

Baaaa! 😆 

Edited March 23, 2022 by MSC

[Intoscience]

18 hours ago, MSC said:

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? 

I've tried not to invoke feelings into the discussion as they can blur the situation.

However, 

I share your sympathy and empathy, but this is my point. You are focussing too much on feelings rather than logical justification. 

Again you assume that you are making the decision/doing the torturing. If you were unaware that torture was used as a method to attempt and/or save your child how would you feel about that? 

The difference between a child and an adult is that adults are expected to understand and take responsibility for their actions. Children (dependent on age) are still learning and the level of responsibility is much lower. 

Of course there will be mental scares for many in such a traumatic situation, this is unavoidable, regardless of the outcome.  Again, this is why I try not to focus on such, since its inevitable. 

No one is arguing that torture is not an "evil" / morally wrong act. The question is, is it morally less evil than the act that will unfold should torture not be employed? 

If so, then the answer to the OP, logically, has to be yes. 

I believe that in certain situations, the objective view of the vast majority of civilised, intelligent sane people would agree.  

12 hours ago, MSC said:

True. I suppose it is up to the individual on which scars to bare. I don't think anyone can really come out of this sort of situation smelling like roses... The smell of roses is overrated anyway!

Baaaa! 😆 

We all have scares to bare, the question is which scars are the preferred ones should you have the option to choose? 

18 hours ago, Peterkin said:

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.  

     

From your post I get the impression that you are happy to kill someone but not to torture someone, simply because its "in our nature"?

Survival is our natural instinct not killing, killing just happens to be a method that can be employed for survival or preservation, whether that be for food, defence or war. Torture, in certain extreme situations could be employed as a tactic of defence, preservation or survival. 

You can compare the morality of both since they both are methods that can cause harm to others in an attempt to preserve life.

Edited March 24, 2022 by Intoscience
spelling

[Intoscience]

6 minutes ago, RobertAskew said:

I think that many people have the opinion that what is considered morally wrong or right are absolutes. It's quite easy to disagree with such a presumption - because everything is relative

Yes, and It's a spectrum - sometimes personal, sometimes a consensus, and sometimes logical. 

I have assumed the OP's question covers all these and consideration for the answer should be for every possible situation across the whole spectrum. 

[dimreepr]

9 minutes ago, Intoscience said:

Yes, and It's a spectrum - sometimes personal, sometimes a consensus, and sometimes logical. 

Which end of the spectrum, is the wrongest?

[Intoscience]

14 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

Which end of the spectrum, is the wrongest?

Could depend on your personal beliefs, 

However, I guess an act which is considered the most despicable by the general consensus of all humanity.  Which I guess would be the senseless act of taking innocent life in the most painful and most suffering way imaginable.

But I'm sure you will pick at my guess.

What would you consider to be the "wrongest"?  

[dimreepr]

5 minutes ago, Intoscience said:

What would you consider to be the "wrongest"?  

The wrongest is, causing pain to other's because I'm in pain... 

 

[Peterkin]

6 hours ago, Intoscience said:

No one is arguing that torture is not an "evil" / morally wrong act. The question is, is it morally less evil than the act that will unfold should torture not be employed? 

You can pose that in the form of an ethics question, but it isn't.

"Is torture an acceptable tool for law enforcement?" is an ethics question.

"Where does torture rate on the scale of human evils?" is a question of personal or social values; it's a question of cultural world-views and personal convictions.

In one belief system, the loss of a thousand lives is as nothing to the destruction of a single human soul, because the innocents will be saved and rewarded, and the one who traded his soul for their [temporary, earthbound] lives is damned for eternity.

In another, prolonging the lives of many absolutely justifies causing a few to suffer. 

In yet another, using evil methods, even once, for any reason, corrupts the system and fatally poisons the body politic. Conversely, one might be convinced that whatever works to preserve the system is right bu definition.  

It's not an ethics question; it's a bookkeeping question.

[Intoscience]

19 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

The wrongest is, causing pain to other's because I'm in pain... 

 

True, but pain is also a spectrum and the resulting effects range in severity. 

I currently have a sore big toe which is very painful and causing me much discomfort, affecting my sleep, concertation and mood in general.  

Edited March 24, 2022 by Intoscience
spelling

[Peterkin]

6 hours ago, Intoscience said:

From your post I get the impression that you are happy to kill someone but not to torture someone, simply because its "in our nature"?

It's not about my happiness - I don't even eat meat and I'm so unhappy about warfare that I've entirely given up on my species. It's about the reality of human experience and the basis of human values. The two acts are not comparable in any code of natural or civilized behaviour.

The comparison I attempted to make is:

In all the vast range of kinds and immense numbers of victims of killing, only a very small segment - the unauthorized killing of a member in good standing of one's own society - is generally considered wrong. And even in that small segment, exceptions are permitted. 

In the very small range of torture, all of it is counter to nature, and it's generally considered wrong, but some exceptions are permitted.

The moral equation is hugely disproportionate in all respects.

Edited March 24, 2022 by Peterkin

[dimreepr]

6 minutes ago, Intoscience said:

True, but pain is also a spectrum and the resulting effects range in severity. 

True, but do you kick your wife, or the wall???

[Intoscience]

2 minutes ago, Peterkin said:

You can pose that in the form of an ethics question, but it isn't.

"Is torture an acceptable tool for law enforcement?" is an ethics question.

"Where does torture rate on the scale of human evils?" is a question of personal or social values; it's a question of cultural world-views and personal convictions.

Doesn't really matter for the OP's question. Ethics, book keeping or how ever you want to categorise it as. The question was "is torture ever right?" if you can justify it's use in any shape or form then the answer is yes.

In my mind and for all sorts of reasons, but mainly logically, I feel it could be justified in a plausibly possible real life scenario.

In a nutshell - The rights of the perp is far less valuable than the lives of the innocent/s in peril.   

8 minutes ago, Peterkin said:

It's not about my happiness; it's about the reality of human experience and the basis of human values. The two acts are not comparable in any code of natural or civilized behaviour.

But if it's about human values then how can you compare the rights of a perp against the lives of innocent people?

2 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

True, but do you kick your wife, or the wall???

Well my wife often makes me want to kick the wall, or rather, bash my head against it!

[Peterkin]

13 minutes ago, Intoscience said:

True, but pain is also a spectrum and the resulting effects range in severity. 

So what? How does your pain justify  hitting dimreepr's toe with a mallet? 

33 minutes ago, Intoscience said:

However, I guess an act which is considered the most despicable by the general consensus of all humanity.  Which I guess would be the senseless act of taking innocent life in the most painful and most suffering way imaginable.

So, that would be.... torture. Not bombing? Not genocide?

[Intoscience]

6 minutes ago, Peterkin said:

So what? How does your pain justify  hitting dimreepr's toe with a mallet? 

Because like moral acts, pain and suffering range in severity, and the resulting outcome/effects of the act/pain/suffering ranges in severity.

The question is, what severity is the most acceptable?  

My toe hurts! 

Edited March 24, 2022 by Intoscience
spelling

[dimreepr]

18 minutes ago, Intoscience said:

True, but pain is also a spectrum and the resulting effects range in severity. 

I currently have a sore big toe which is very painful and causing me much discomfort, effecting my sleep, concertation and mood in general.  

And I've got a tooth-ache, I didn't take it out on you...

[Intoscience]

9 minutes ago, Peterkin said:

So what? How does your pain justify  hitting dimreepr's toe with a mallet? 

Hitting dimreeper's toe will not make mine better. However if I whacked his toe and it saved a life then would you not argue that the pain and suffering dimreeper endured was worth the resulting outcome? (dimreeper may not agree but i suspect he/she is a considerate soul who would happily endure some suffering to aid another)

5 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

And I've got a tooth-ache, I didn't take it out on you...

But you are welcome to if it eases your pain!

Edited March 24, 2022 by Intoscience
spelling

[Peterkin]

11 minutes ago, Intoscience said:

Doesn't really matter for the OP's question. Ethics, book keeping or how ever you want to categorise it as. The question was "is torture ever right?" if you can justify it's use in any shape or form then the answer is yes.

"Right" is defined by the value system in which it is applied. Logic works within a defined set of acceptable limits; based on a mutually agreed set of assumptions.

If you assume that there are different categories of human: for example, guilty and innocent ones, and also assume that human lives are valuable, and also assume that the innocent ones are more valuable than the guilty ones, and also assume that each innocent is worth the same, so that the value of innocents depends on their number, rather than their degree of innocence and the value of guilty perpetrators is nullified by their placement in the 'presumed guilty' category, rather than their number or degree of guilt, then the logic of [slowly and horribly] smashing a guilty one in order to [hopefully] save one or more innocents is perfectly sound.

On another set of assumption, it isn't.   

If your justification is accepted in a system, then the the answer is Yes. If your justification is rejected in the system, the answer is No.

[Intoscience]

17 minutes ago, Peterkin said:

So, that would be.... torture. Not bombing? Not genocide?

Why would torture in the scenarios we are discussing result in the death of an innocent person? 

[Peterkin]

23 minutes ago, Intoscience said:

My toe hurts! 

It's not relevant! Neither is how little or much pain is acceptable. 

8 minutes ago, Intoscience said:

Why would torture in the scenarios we are discussing result in the death of an innocent person? 

 

58 minutes ago, Intoscience said:

I guess an act which is considered the most despicable by the general consensus of all humanity.Which I guess would be the senseless act of taking innocent life in the most painful and most suffering way imaginable.

It wouldn't be in the scenario in which it is assumed that the suspect you're torturing is not an innocent, that your hurting him is sensible and that you stop before killing him.

But it would be the worst crime in your book, if you had the wrong man [an innocent] and the torture got out of control [took his life]  before yielding results [senseless]. 

So putting the same method on the other side of a legal line makes the worst thing the right thing, based on those assumptions.

Edited March 24, 2022 by Peterkin

[Intoscience]

2 minutes ago, Peterkin said:

"Right" is defined by the value system in which it is applied. Logic works within a defined set of acceptable limits; based on a mutually agreed set of assumptions.

If you assume that there are different categories of human: for example, guilty and innocent ones, and also assume that human lives are valuable, and also assume that the innocent ones are more valuable than the guilty ones, and also assume that each innocent is worth the same, so that the value of innocents depends on their number, rather than their degree of innocence and the value of guilty perpetrators is nullified by their placement in the 'presumed guilty' category, rather than their number or degree of guilt, then the logic of [slowly and horribly] smashing a guilty one in order to [hopefully] save one or more innocents is perfectly sound.

On another set of assumption, it isn't.   

If your justification is accepted in a system, then the the answer is Yes. If your justification is rejected in the system, the answer is No.

We do categorise humans, their guilt, innocence and value... based on their actions within the society they live. We have parameters within which these are set and which by the justice system operates. How else would we operate law and order, crime and punishment?   A perfect example of this is when the death penalty is applied, (which by the way I don't condone even though I may personally feel its just for certain crimes) where it is deemed that the perps life no longer has any value in society. 

[dimreepr]

7 minutes ago, Intoscience said:

Why would torture in the scenarios we are discussing result in the death of an innocent person? 

Why wouldn't it???

[Intoscience]

17 minutes ago, Peterkin said:

It's not relevant! Neither is how little or much pain is acceptable. 

 

It wouldn't be in the scenario in which it is assumed that the suspect you're torturing isn't innocent, that your hurting hims is sensible and that you stop before killing him. But it would be the worst crime in your book. So putting the same method on the other side of a legal line makes the worst thing the right thing, based on those assumptions.

Of course its relevant, you are arguing that the pain and suffering of the perp is the same as the loss of innocent lives.

If the perp is identified as guilty beyond reasonable doubt within the time frame left then the act of torture is not a worse crime than the act of killing innocent lives. 

I said the senseless pain and suffering resulting in death of innocent lives. How does that apply to a criminal identified as guilty beyond reasonable doubt?

9 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

Why wouldn't it???

Why should it? many people have been tortured and survived. No one ever said that the torture should last until the perp dies. 

Edited March 24, 2022 by Intoscience
spelling

[dimreepr]

9 minutes ago, Intoscience said:

Of course its relevant, you are arguing that the pain and suffering of the perp is the same as the loss of innocent lives.

If the perp is identified as guilty beyond reasonable doubt within the time frame left then the act of torture is not a worse crime than the act of killing innocent lives. 

I said the senseless pain and suffering resulting in death of innocent lives. How does that apply to a criminal identified as guilty beyond reasonable doubt?

Why should it? many people have been tortured and survived. No one ever said that the torture should last until the perp dies. 

You seem to have a different understanding of what is relevant... 

Edited March 24, 2022 by dimreepr

[Peterkin]

15 minutes ago, Intoscience said:

Of course its relevant, you are arguing that the pain and suffering of the perp is the same as the loss of innocent lives.

No. I said your toe is not relevant to any of those things.

And no to the second statement, as well. I am arguing that by your logic the worst thing is the right thing, if a certain set of assumptions is accepted.

15 minutes ago, Intoscience said:

If the perp is identified as guilty beyond reasonable doubt within the time frame left

That's one of the assumptions.

15 minutes ago, Intoscience said:

No one ever said that the torture should last until the perp dies. 

That's another of the assumptions.

The third is that torturing the prisoner will save the innocents.

Edited March 24, 2022 by Peterkin

[Intoscience]

15 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

You seem to have a different understanding of what is relevant... 

looks like it.

What is relevant to answering the OP is whether or not there is any plausible realistic situation where the use of torture may result in a generally preferred outcome.

Would the use of torture be justified if it attempted/resulted in preventing an atrocity worse than that of the act of the actual torture employed. 

Go ahead and continue to complicate it with if's and but's and anything else you would like to throw in the mix. If you can honestly answer with - Any and all acts of torture are as equally as atrocious as the pain/suffering resulting in the death of innocent live/s then I feel that along with my wife, I find myself kicking/banging my head against the wall. 

15 minutes ago, Peterkin said:

No. I said your toe is not relevant to any of those things.

And no to the second statement, as well. I am arguing that by your logic the worst thing is the right thing, if a certain set of assumptions is accepted.

That's one of the assumptions.

That's another of the assumptions.

The third is that torturing the prisoner will save the innocents.

Doesn't matter, for the purpose of answering the OP. There only has to be one plausible situation where the perp is not only assumed guilty but found guilty before or after the event whether or not the outcome was/is successful or not.  If the act of torture in any attempt was found to be/is justified then the answer is = yes.  

Edited March 24, 2022 by Intoscience