Is Torture Ever Right ?

[beecee]

33 minutes ago, Peterkin said:

I honestly restricted my response to what was relevant to the topic. Your political views are not. Your views on religion are not. Your tolerances and intolerances are not.

Nice try, but no cigar. You raised the issue of people with so called different values and such...you first mentioned the jihadist with relation to the terrorist...You're the one that deliberatly took my remark out of context...now you are demanding they are off topic! 😆 So why did you take it out of context? If it was off topic, why simply didn't you just ignore it? No side stepping now!!

33 minutes ago, Peterkin said:

What's relevant is the basis of your definition of right and wrong. You base the definition of right and wrong on your reasons for doing something. He bases the definition of right and wrong on his reasons for doing something. You have that in common - even if nothing else. 

Again, I'm saying I agree with you. I'm saying that sometimes doing what may be classed as morally wrong under normal circumstances, is desirable and morally right under other extreme circumstances. eg: If perhaps some of the terrorists in the 9/11 terrorism had of been caught before they undertook their plan. I'm saying that no matter how small the possibility of success is, that we are duty bound to try them all in those circumstances. I'm not acting as an apologist for murderers, terrorists, religious fanatics, criminals and pedaphile scum.

On 2/13/2022 at 7:29 AM, Peterkin said:

Sometimes I do wrong for what I consider a compelling reason, but I refuse to pretend that my compelling reason makes it right.

So again, stop uneccessarily beating up on yourself!!!

 

Edited February 14, 2022 by beecee

[Peterkin]

33 minutes ago, beecee said:

Nice try, but no cigar.

I don't smoke anymore.

33 minutes ago, beecee said:

I'm saying that sometimes doing what may be classed as morally wrong under normal circumstances, is desirable and morally right under other extreme circumstances.

I know you said that. And that was fine. Then you said that wrong turns to right when you say it does. Some people agree with you. I don't think wrong ever stops being wrong, even when some other thing is even more wrong.  

36 minutes ago, beecee said:

So again, stop uneccessarily beating up on yourself!!!

 

We are not in positions to absolve each other.

[beecee]

23 minutes ago, Peterkin said:

I don't smoke anymore.

I have never smoked, so still one up on you.

23 minutes ago, Peterkin said:

I know you said that. And that was fine. Then you said that wrong turns to right when you say it does. Some people agree with you. I don't think wrong ever stops being wrong, even when some other thing is even more wrong.  

I'm saying wrong turns to right, when you are morally obliged to reverse what is normally seen as morally wrong, eg, torture. If for example you failed to act and a child dies, or thousands of people are killed, society would turn against you, and you would probably turn against your self and conduct more self flagellation.

23 minutes ago, Peterkin said:

We are not in positions to absolve each other.

It's just that seeing you in so much indecision and pain brings a tear to my eye and a lump to my throat! Like my old Rotty mate, I'm a big softy at heart. 

Edited February 14, 2022 by beecee

[Peterkin]

1 hour ago, beecee said:

It's just that seeing you in so much indecision and pain brings a tear to my eye

I recommend eyedrops and new prescription lenses.

[Intoscience]

On 2/11/2022 at 10:23 AM, joigus said:

So we're back to what is right. Good point. Let me get back to it later, please. Last night I was thinking about that same question, but I have to finesse my argument, because the way I thought about it, it might sound as if I mean something else.

Yes, in the context of the situation. I think one of the issues of this discussion is how people have/are interpreting the term "right". 

On 2/11/2022 at 12:06 PM, dimreepr said:

Different question, different thread and a different memory of the claim's made.

Don't derail this thread for a cheap shot, I'd be happy to answer you both in the appropriate forum.

You either mis-interpret my intentions, or this is a cheap shot of your own?

I will assume misinterpretation,

In the context of this thread and based on what we are discussing then there are many similarities as Beecee has already pointed out. 

For example, lets say the bomber has his finger on the detonator all attempts to negotiate with him have failed, is it the "right" thing to do to shoot him dead? i.e Is the choice to shoot him dead an option that should be considered once there are no other options left? - Is the choice to torture him in hope of retrieving information that may lead to preventing the bomb from detonating an option that should be considered when there are no other options left?

We can argue the statistics all day long, unless either options are doomed to 100% failure every time in all scenarios then are they not valid options to consider? And would they not be the "right" (the lesser of the 2 evils) thing to do at that defining moment when all else as failed? probably 99% of the time - no, but for 1% of the time it might just work in which case the answer would be - yes. So in answer to the OP based on the original premise of "is it ever right" then in this context and with this reasoning I believe the answer is yes. 

My point is that, in extreme circumstances, moral judgment and values are called into question and one has to consider the merits of the "lesser evil act". 

 

[dimreepr]

17 hours ago, beecee said:

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

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

Which part of this sentence "sure, if we live forever we'll probably encounter such an unlikely scenario, and you'll be right." is tripping you up?

 

6 hours ago, Intoscience said:

 

For example, lets say the bomber has his finger on the detonator all attempts to negotiate with him have failed, is it the "right" thing to do to shoot him dead? i.e Is the choice to shoot him dead an option that should be considered once there are no other options left? - Is the choice to torture him in hope of retrieving information that may lead to preventing the bomb from detonating an option that should be considered when there are no other options left?

 

It's a different question:

1. There is absolutely no doubt who the perp is.

2. They ignore all the warnings and cannot be placated.

3. We have no choice but to stop them.

4. And putting an end to their obvious distress, might even be a kindness.

OTOH

1. There is always a doubt, when the perp is witnessed by a third party.

2. They might be ignorant of the crime and any amount of persuasion, won't change that fact.

3. Adding to their distress, can never be a kindness...

Edited February 14, 2022 by dimreepr

[Intoscience]

44 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

It's a different question:

1. There is absolutely no doubt who the perp is. True, in the particular scenario presented

2. They ignore all the warnings and cannot be placated. Applies to both examples

3. We have no choice but to stop them. Applies to both examples (though should read - No choice but to attempt to stop them)

4. And putting an end to their obvious distress, might even be a kindness. Might be, are you sure of this? Just an assumption irrelevant to the question.

OTOH

1. There is always a doubt, when the perp is witnessed by a third party. Assuming this is the intel you have, perp could happily admit guilt, especially if they feel in control and confident in the outcome.

2. They might be ignorant of the crime and any amount of persuasion, won't change that fact. How do you know unless you try?

3. Adding to their distress, can never be a kindness... Nope, but is this a priority at that particular moment? 

(My reply's in bold)

I'm not saying your points are not valid in certain situations, I'm just stating that they are irrelevant to the OP. 

If a scenario is possible, even if unlikely probable, then it counts towards the answer for the OP.

We can argue over the if's, but's and maybe's all day long, keep going back and forth... it doesn't change anything. 

Edited February 14, 2022 by Intoscience

[dimreepr]

Just now, Intoscience said:

I'm not saying your points are not valid in certain situations, I'm just stating that they are irrelevant to the OP. 

If a scenario is possible, even if unlikely probable, then it counts towards the answer for the OP.

We can argue over the if's, but's and maybe's all day long, keep going back and forth... it doesn't change anything. 

We can only play the hand we're dealt; how is that irrelevant to the OP?

 

[Intoscience]

11 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

We can only play the hand we're dealt; how is that irrelevant to the OP?

 

Because you are arguing with me over the difference between killing or torturing someone (which there are plenty).

However, I used the examples to show that though differing, killing and torturing are both terrible tactics that might be employed to achieve a similar outcome (save innocent lives), so for that act, share the same moral standing. They both, dependent on the situation, could be the "lesser" of the 2 evils and therefore the "right" thing to do.   

Edited February 14, 2022 by Intoscience

[dimreepr]

3 minutes ago, Intoscience said:

Because you are arguing with me over the difference between killing or torturing someone (which there are plenty).

However, I used the examples to show that though differing, killing and torturing are both terrible tactics that might be employed to achieve a similar outcome (save innocent lives), so for that act, share the same moral standing. They both, dependent on the situation, could be the "lesser" of the 2 evils and therefore the "right" thing to do.   

That's like asking, if I kill them with enough respect am I allowed to smile... 🖖

[Intoscience]

6 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

That's like asking, if I kill them with enough respect am I allowed to smile... 🖖

I'm sure some would.

Bottom line is, is it generally accepted that killing/torturing 1 to save many a more desirable outcome than killing many to save the life or suffering of 1? 

In other words, is the lesser of the 2 evils the right choice to make?

Edited February 14, 2022 by Intoscience

[dimreepr]

2 minutes ago, Intoscience said:

Bottom line is

The bottom line is, Kirk is a terrible captain...

[beecee]

6 hours ago, dimreepr said:

Which part of this sentence "sure, if we live forever we'll probably encounter such an unlikely scenario, and you'll be right." is tripping you up?

I understand after crossing swords with you in other threads, that your posts reflect sympathies and care  towards the criminal, the terrorist, the pedaphiles, Hitler  etc. I have also explained many times, that such a warped life philosophy is unworkable. 

I also understand that rarely do any of your posts answer questions directly. Still, let me ask again.....(1) In the kidnapper case, after all avenues have been exhausted, and (2) with the captured terrorist and the potential for saving thousands of lives, would you undertake what is seen normally, as morally wrong, to at least attempt to save their lives? 

Or would you maintain your pretentious moral high ground under all circumstances?

As a result of your "maintaing of your so called values", would you face the parents of the dead child, or the relatives of the thousands that were killed by the terrorist?

(not to mention of course, the condemation of society in general)

5 hours ago, dimreepr said:

The bottom line is, Kirk is a terrible captain...

The bottom line is that you as usual refuse to answer directly.

6 hours ago, dimreepr said:

OTOH

1. There is always a doubt, when the perp is witnessed by a third party.

?? You mean like the real life example I gave of the low life human caught raping a little girl, and then stabbing one of her rescuers in that other thread? 

6 hours ago, dimreepr said:

2. They might be ignorant of the crime and any amount of persuasion, won't change that fact.

Ignorant of the evil of callous murder and blowing up thousands of people? Were you not earleir in this thread, waffling about the kidnappers and the terrorists scenarios being unreal? or unlkely? or words to that effect? You understand the meaning of hypocrisy?

6 hours ago, dimreepr said:

3. Adding to their distress, can never be a kindness...

The so called distress of the pedaphile, the criminal, the terrorist,  would be of no concern to me, in the situations as described. I'm not acting as an apologist for murderers, terrorists, religious fanatics, criminals and pedaphile scum.

In summing up, you are adept at playing word games. All agree torture is wrong. But sometimes, in certain circumstances, doing wrong and abandoning the immorality of torture, is justified on those pedaphiles, terrorists, hardened criminals, that ignore the standards of morality in a society. They, the pedaphiles, terrorists, hardened criminals, have set their bar of immorality.

Edited February 14, 2022 by beecee

[Intoscience]

16 hours ago, dimreepr said:

The bottom line is, Kirk is a terrible captain...

Depends on your point of view. 

[Agent Smith]

Buddhist ethics to the rescue (I think).

Torture is permissible e.g. to make a terrorist disclose the location of a time bomb which s/he claims will kill thousands of people.

However, whoever tortures the terrorist in the above scenario, will have to be punished (for torturing the terrorist).

That way, we can avoid having to admit torture is acceptable (the torturer is punished) and still torture (for the greater good).

🤔

[joigus]

  

On 2/13/2022 at 6:39 PM, zapatos said:

Even without any actual experimental data, I accept that most people on this site would in under one minute give up the location of the $100 they have hidden in their homes once the burglar begins ripping out their fingernails. 

The important differential fact with respect to our case at hand is that most of us here are not sociopaths. Now, I don't know about papers corroborating this, but at least according to neuroendocrinologist Robert Sapolsky, sociopaths have a significantly higher pain threshold than socially typical individuals. I picked this from his Stanford lectures on Human Behavioural Biology. I'm searching for the references to papers that ascertain this point.

 

On 2/13/2022 at 9:09 PM, beecee said:

And normally so would I. The point though is that in either of the thought experiments given, all other avenues have been exhausted, and failed. Why then see it as 100% imperitive that the lesser wrong in question, be tried, even if only a 1% chance of success. We have the life of a little child at stake, not to mention that of thousands of innocent vicitims. Perhaps threaten, (in the case of the terrorist) him with some action/s that may exclude him from ever meeting his god in any supposed next life.

Your suggestion of playing with the terrorists' mind I find much more acceptable, for many reasons. Truth serum, flooding his pituitary with oxytocin, or whatever other chemical that facilitates collaboration. Combination of use of chemicals with psychological manipulation. Have these possibilities been tried to the point that we know there is no other possibility but torture? Both Zapatos and you seem to be anchoring the bulk of your reasoning to this 'last resort' argument. I'm not sure it is to be applied here, and I would need a lot more convincing.

These are not matters to be improvised in the face of a compelling case --however hypothetical it may be. A protocol should be established on the basis of maximum likelihood of producing results in a reasonable time to deploy an efficient rescue operation in the case you propose. If there were hard scientific proof that torture would lead to the desired results for the profile that we're talking about (sociopaths), that would be another matter. But I don't think that's the case.

16 hours ago, Intoscience said:

Yes, in the context of the situation. I think one of the issues of this discussion is how people have/are interpreting the term "right". 

This is the most difficult aspect, I think.

As to right or wrong, I don't think any of us can provide a philosophical reasoning establishing beyond any doubt whether a course of action is or isn't wrong --either irrespective of circumstances or otherwise. At some point we must adopt some kind of axiom, so to speak. I remember a conversation with a German person many years ago on reasons why bullfighting* should be banned --we both agreed that it should. Silly me, I said that torturing an animal is simply wrong. She said that she didn't think that was a reason. That the reason is that the animal doesn't have a choice in the matter. Well, I can think of thousands of ways to twist that philosophically, but I won't dwell into that. Sometimes we need principles, something that's to be considered as completely off the table. There's a reason why we call those "principles."

* I'm not comparing the example with the matter at hand. The fact that both my example, and our topic here, have to do with torture is just coincidental. One is for the sake of a lesser evil; the other is for the sake of entertainment. I, of course, understand that.

[dimreepr]

17 hours ago, beecee said:

I understand after crossing swords with you in other threads, that your posts reflect sympathies and care  towards the criminal, the terrorist, the pedaphiles, Hitler  etc. I have also explained many times, that such a warped life philosophy is unworkable. 

Different thread and a different memory of what was written there.

Let's discuss it there.

17 hours ago, beecee said:

Ignorant of the evil of callous murder and blowing up thousands of people? Were you not earleir in this thread, waffling about the kidnappers and the terrorists scenarios being unreal? or unlkely? or words to that effect? You understand the meaning of hypocrisy?

We left jedwood justice a long time ago; besides, up till now there has never been a scenario, as per your justifications, therefore there is zero evidence that it ever could work.

[Intoscience]

1 hour ago, joigus said:

 This is the most difficult aspect, I think.

As to right or wrong, I don't think any of us can provide a philosophical reasoning establishing beyond any doubt whether a course of action is or isn't wrong --either irrespective of circumstances or otherwise. At some point we must adopt some kind of axiom, so to speak. I remember a conversation with a German person many years ago on reasons why bullfighting* should be banned --we both agreed that it should. Silly me, I said that torturing an animal is simply wrong. She said that she didn't think that was a reason. That the reason is that the animal doesn't have a choice in the matter. Well, I can think of thousands of ways to twist that philosophically, but I won't dwell into that. Sometimes we need principles, something that's to be considered as completely off the table. There's a reason why we call those "principles."

* I'm not comparing the example with the matter at hand. The fact that both my example, and our topic here, have to do with torture is just coincidental. One is for the sake of a lesser evil; the other is for the sake of entertainment. I, of course, understand that.

I agree, and this is why it's better (probably) to try and simplify, rather than complicate it any further than needs to be. I tried myself not to dwell on the philosophy of right and wrong, the if's and but's etc... on consideration for the answer to the OP.

We all know that every situation that may arise will be unique to some degree and thus require different considerations. But the question wasn't centred around any specific scenario, those were introduced as examples by other posters.

The question was - is it ever right? The premise being, could it possibly be the "right" (best course of action / lesser of the 2 evils) thing to do in a certain situation. "Right" meaning do something (attempt) rather than do nothing.  I think that there could be a plausible situation where it could be the "right" thing to do, so therefore for that reason alone answered  yes  

[dimreepr]

2 hours ago, Agent Smith said:

Buddhist ethics to the rescue (I think).

Torture is permissible e.g. to make a terrorist disclose the location of a time bomb which s/he claims will kill thousands of people.

However, whoever tortures the terrorist in the above scenario, will have to be punished (for torturing the terrorist).

That way, we can avoid having to admit torture is acceptable (the torturer is punished) and still torture (for the greater good).

🤔

That doesn't seem very Buddhist to me, he thaught about thing's... 😉 

Buddha would have said, the accuser will be punished by karma...

17 minutes ago, Intoscience said:

The question was - is it ever right? The premise being, could it possibly be the "right" (best course of action / lesser of the 2 evils) thing to do in a certain situation. "Right" meaning do something (attempt) rather than do nothing.  I think that there could be a plausible situation where it could be the "right" thing to do, so therefore for that reason alone answered  yes  

The thing is - is it ever right, is different question to the core of the premise; which is, is it right now (with what we know)?

[Intoscience]

18 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

  Buddha would have said, the accuser will be punished by karma...

A sacrifice that may be required to achieve the greater good. 

18 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

The thing is - is it ever right, is different question to the core of the premise; which is, is it right now (with what we know)?

Which is what?

Edited February 15, 2022 by Intoscience

[dimreepr]

2 minutes ago, Intoscience said:

A sacrifice that may be required to achieve the greater good. 

What sacrifice?

Karma doesn't require a sacrifice... 😉 

[Intoscience]

Just now, dimreepr said:

What sacrifice?

Karma doesn't require a sacrifice... 😉 

The suffering/punishment of the accuser. 

[dimreepr]

1 minute ago, Intoscience said:

The suffering/punishment of the accuser. 

Is that a sacrifice or a consequence? 

[Intoscience]

1 minute ago, dimreepr said:

Is that a sacrifice or a consequence? 

Could be either or both, a choice or a duty. 

[dimreepr]

Just now, Intoscience said:

Could be either or both, a choice or a duty. 

Indeed, karma is unique to you.

Do bad things and karma bites your hand, do good things and karma lick's your hand and wag's its tail... 🙏