Is Torture Ever Right ?

[Peterkin]

9 minutes ago, MSC said:

I do only see cons

The pros are in a previous post.

[MSC]

5 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

If you say yes, you have to accept that you and your loved one's might be the victim.

A reality we live in each and every day, whether we answer yes or no. Being alive risks becoming a victim of something. I could go out and be mugged and shot, my home could be invaded by criminals, an asteroid might kill us all tomorrow. 

While I don't think there is much room for maybe, and sitting on the fence, I'd not judge someone for saying they don't know what the best answer is. 

[Peterkin]

13 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

If you say maybe, you have to accept  Guantanamo bay. 

I see the others, how the logic follows. I don't see how SCOTUS-approved systemic torture by an accredited government agency has to be accepted on the same principle as considering what I might do in a desperate situation. 

[dimreepr]

2 minutes ago, MSC said:

While I don't think there is much room for maybe, and sitting on the fence, I'd not judge someone for saying they don't know what the best answer is. 

I'd never judge someone who doesn't know, but I would challenge someone who thinks they do...

4 minutes ago, Peterkin said:

I see the others, how the logic follows. I don't see how SCOTUS-approved systemic torture by an accredited government agency has to be accepted on the same principle as considering what I might do in a desperate situation. 

It doesn't, when I say maybe read apathy.

[Peterkin]

8 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

when I say maybe read apathy.

OK Always, or just in this instance?

[MSC]

4 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

I'd never judge someone who doesn't know, but I would challenge someone who thinks they do...

Same! I think I had been studying philosophy for about 8 months before I just started to hate the phrase "I know..." 

Now I do just take it as a challenge, because it just sounds so arrogant to say to me now. "We know" is worse though I think. Hate it when people assume I know shit 😆 

[dimreepr]

5 minutes ago, Peterkin said:

OK Always, or just in this instance?

Just this, for now... 😉

[Intoscience]

On 3/25/2022 at 1:14 PM, MSC said:

I think that is fair to say, but a bit unrealistic. Earlier, I made the point; that if you have enough time to try everything else first, chances are the situation is not as time sensitive as we make out. 

There is one other factor here that we are not mentioning; Individual skill and competency. One individual may just not be skilled or experienced enough to get the information humanely,while another person is. In the scenarios involving law enforcement being the ones to decide on torture, chances are that if the current team or individual is not getting results with the humane methods in a timely enough manner, the task will be reassigned to someone else before anyone ever brings up torture. 

So when all else fails, do we think about moving onto torture first or move onto someone else trying everything else first? From interrogation, profiling and investigation there is a lot of different methods, strategies and tactics that are involved. How long roughly do you think it would take 2-3 different individuals or teams to go through trying all of it? Hours? Days? Weeks? 

Fair enough,

I don't agree though,

I did state "all available methods within the time frame"  which I appreciate can be open to interpretation and a bit ambiguous.

When I consider this approach I'm imaging a situation where things are a little desperate and this creates a rather chaotic environment. Obviously a calm and calculated approach should be adopted as much as possible.   

On 3/25/2022 at 1:48 PM, Peterkin said:

I seem to be the only one who presented a list for criticism.

I didn't pretend it would be objective, any more than the decision itself could be disinterested; I didn't pretend that I had fewer unknown factors to start with than I would have in real life. Indeed, I was basing my list on a possible situation, rather than a scripted formula.

I counted two ifs and no buts. But math isn't my strong suit.

Math is not my strong suit either, though I wasn't counting, it was more of a flippant comment from me because quickly reading it I felt the list was biased towards all the "maybe" negatives. Which in my very humble opinion are out weighed by the one possible positive of saving innocent lives.

Maybe my approach to all this is just wrong and you folk are trying desperately to educate me in my error. I don't know and never claim to do so, but my opinion is that the act of torture is a far lesser wrong that the act of taking innocent lives. 

I cant get over this (my under lined).    

[joigus]

On 3/25/2022 at 2:14 PM, MSC said:

I think that is fair to say, but a bit unrealistic. Earlier, I made the point; that if you have enough time to try everything else first, chances are the situation is not as time sensitive as we make out. 

There is one other factor here that we are not mentioning; Individual skill and competency. One individual may just not be skilled or experienced enough to get the information humanely,while another person is.

 

On 3/25/2022 at 2:48 PM, MSC said:

I feel as if the whole "Try everything possible" argument implies that the ends always justifies the means. Which is not something I believe to be true. I mean, we could have this same discussion where the only difference is we all agree on the physical torture aspect but disagree on how far we should go. 

 

Brilliant points there!

[dimreepr]

2 hours ago, joigus said:

 

Brilliant points there!

I can't stop thinking about your brilliant question and how many people would think that justice is served, if that 'evil rapist' was cured with an injection of pleasure. 

[Peterkin]

7 hours ago, Intoscience said:

 I wasn't counting, it was more of a flippant comment from me because quickly reading it I felt the list was biased towards all the "maybe" negatives.

It's my list; "maybe" has been my steadfast answer throughout. It would remain my answer, even if I stepped back to third person POV, due to my previous acquaintance with investigative procedure and police personnel.

7 hours ago, Intoscience said:

Maybe my approach to all this is just wrong and you folk are trying desperately to educate me in my error.

We present our position; you present yours. There is no prize for winning. There is no ultimate necessity (or, indeed, possibility) for a consensus.  

7 hours ago, Intoscience said:

I don't know and never claim to do so, but my opinion is that the act of torture is a far lesser wrong that the act of taking innocent lives. 

This is where I do see an error: presenting those two acts as an either/or choice for you to make.

They're not. The question isn't whether you would kill a thousand people rather than torture one. Somebody else has decided on the killing; an agent has been dispatched to place the bomb: one wrong has already been done.  If the people are killed, somebody else - Anonymous - kills them, not you.  But it is you, personally, voluntarily and purposefully, who inflict extreme pain on one human being, one flesh-and-blood - presumed guilty - boy or girl.  

You're not asked to choose between the killing and the torture, as if one cancelled the other; you're not asked to push the red button to detonate the bomb and kill those unseen people, or push the green button to cause agony to one unknown person while saving a thousand others. Although that's what such on-paper exercises seem like, in the real world, where we have to live out our ethics, it doesn't work this way.You are often forced to choose one course of action over another available course of action on your assessment of its probability of success. 

Edited March 28, 2022 by Peterkin

[joigus]

6 hours ago, dimreepr said:

I can't stop thinking about your brilliant question and how many people would think that justice is served, if that 'evil rapist' was cured with an injection of pleasure. 

Yeah, there's an element of revenge there, I think. Tit for tat is very strongly etched in our behaviours, biologically. It's very hard to let go of it. And thanks, DR.

[Intoscience]

16 hours ago, Peterkin said:

We present our position; you present yours. There is no prize for winning. There is no ultimate necessity (or, indeed, possibility) for a consensus.

I don't consider this thread (or any for that matter) a competition so I'm not sure where you got that idea.

16 hours ago, Peterkin said:

This is where I do see an error: presenting those two acts as an either/or choice for you to make.

They're not. The question isn't whether you would kill a thousand people rather than torture one. Somebody else has decided on the killing; an agent has been dispatched to place the bomb: one wrong has already been done.  If the people are killed, somebody else - Anonymous - kills them, not you.  But it is you, personally, voluntarily and purposefully, who inflict extreme pain on one human being, one flesh-and-blood - presumed guilty - boy or girl. 

But I see it as a moral choice, yes it could be one that I may have voluntary chosen to make, or one that was forced on me as part of my job and responsibility.  

16 hours ago, Peterkin said:

You're not asked to choose between the killing and the torture, as if one cancelled the other; you're not asked to push the red button to detonate the bomb and kill those unseen people, or push the green button to cause agony to one unknown person while saving a thousand others. Although that's what such on-paper exercises seem like, in the real world, where we have to live out our ethics, it doesn't work this way.You are often forced to choose one course of action over another available course of action on your assessment of its probability of success

Yes, and like I said, I see it as a moral duty to try and save lives and if the situation becomes so unfortunate that I have to inflict pain on another to do that then I see this as a necessary evil for the greater good.  

Edited March 29, 2022 by Intoscience

[Peterkin]

7 hours ago, Intoscience said:

I don't consider this thread (or any for that matter) a competition so I'm not sure where you got that idea.

From there:

On 3/28/2022 at 2:59 AM, Intoscience said:

Maybe my approach to all this is just wrong and you folk are trying desperately to educate me in my error.

All I did was answer the questions as they were put and explain my reasoning and POV for that opinion; not trying to convince or educate anyone and certainly nowhere near invested enough to be called 'desperate'. 

I stated my position. I never expected to change yours.

Edited March 29, 2022 by Peterkin

[Intoscience]

16 hours ago, Peterkin said:

From there:

All I did was answer the questions as they were put and explain my reasoning and POV for that opinion; not trying to convince or educate anyone and certainly nowhere near invested enough to be called 'desperate'. 

I stated my position. I never expected to change yours.

Ok, fair enough. I was just stating that my opinion could be wrong and that I would happily change my opinion should I be convinced to do so.

I could have worded it better, I didn't expect it to be interpreted as the way you did so.

[dimreepr]

On 3/29/2022 at 7:34 AM, Intoscience said:

I don't consider this thread (or any for that matter) a competition so I'm not sure where you got that idea.

But I see it as a moral choice, yes it could be one that I may have voluntary chosen to make, or one that was forced on me as part of my job and responsibility.  

Yes, and like I said, I see it as a moral duty to try and save lives and if the situation becomes so unfortunate that I have to inflict pain on another to do that then I see this as a necessary evil for the greater good.  

I do get what you're saying, I can't imagine what I'd be prepared to do if I'd witnessed someone raping my 7 year old daughter/son (I once put a kid in hospital for taking the piss), but it wouldn't really be me, rationally deciding the moral value of my action's.

And that's the whole point, in a nutshell; if it's not you that dishes out the pain, then it's morally wrong. 

Edited March 30, 2022 by dimreepr

[MSC]

7 hours ago, dimreepr said:

but it wouldn't really be me, rationally deciding the moral value of my action's.

Although as reasons go, being psychologically bound to do whatever your parental instincts tell you to do to protect your young, is a pretty good one and is bound to provoke the most sympathy from those that still can rationally decide/discuss the moral value of your actions. 

 

[dimreepr]

16 hours ago, MSC said:

Although as reasons go, being psychologically bound to do whatever your parental instincts tell you to do to protect your young, is a pretty good one and is bound to provoke the most sympathy from those that still can rationally decide/discuss the moral value of your actions. 

 

Indeed, let's hope our court's are allowed to continue to judge for themselves.

[Kittenpuncher]

On 2/6/2022 at 7:51 AM, mistermack said:

I think like many other ethical questions, this question is not as simple as it sounds. 

Firistly, to declare my position, I don't believe anything is objectively right or wrong. The ethics, to me, come from our situation in society, and our evolution as social mammals. 

But in light of the human condition, is torture ever right? (and religion doesn't really have an answer, George Bush and the Spanish Inquisition come to mind)

 

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. Forgetting the legal and practical issues, if you had a free hand, (if you were dictator say) would you use torture to get the location of the child? I would.

(you have to assume that there was no doubt at all that the pedophile you held was truly guilty)

I would ignore the slippery slope argument, and go ahead. But I wouldn't be happy or sure about it. It's a difficult one.

I would too!

People are treated like little creampuffs of innocence but they are not. Lots of people deserve to suffer greatly.

Most people are really casual about having a "torture all the innocents" mentality and it's not a thing of saveth make

If they're going to feed on the injustice of the government not punishing them, you know... *Mad scientist laugh* 

Maybe a bit of "justice" will toughen them up for the next time they're keeping secrets

Besides, you never know how many magic spells you'll break but you can always assume that it's going to be lots and lots

[Cognizant]

I can be mistaken but if a person is so rotten inside that he/she "understands" only torture, it's correct to apply torture (in case of pedophiles, maniac killers and so on). In all other cases torture should be banned.