Is Torture Ever Right ?

[Peterkin]

It's not particularly helpful, in the current political climate, for entertainment media to embrace all forms of torture, for all kinds of purposes, so full-throatedly. It's contributed, I think, to the general attitude: "Meh, they're scum. Whatever works."  

[beecee]

19 hours ago, Peterkin said:

Violence begets violence; a culture of violence condones torture.

Sadly sometimes violence is necessary. And you have yourself agreed you would use it.

Still, as always there is morally every reason to employ every method possible if there is any chance of success. If you didn't and a child did die, or thousands were evaporated, you would have some serious questions to answer and consequences to deal with.

6 hours ago, dimreepr said:

The answer remains, we can't predict when that 0.01% will be effective, it's like saying "if we torture everyone, then one day I'll be right, and when that day arrives it will be right to torture that person".

Wrong. It's more like saying that while any chance exists in saving innocent lives from  kidnappers, terrorists, and criminals, then we are morally obliged to use them.

6 hours ago, dimreepr said:

FFS take a day off, having a point of view that you don't agree with, is not being obtuse!!! especially since you brought up the American "war on terrorism".

Which is like declaring war on your own imagination and torturing yourself...  

Not my problem that you can't see the differences between war and what we are discussing. 9/11 by the way, was an isolated act of terrorism, that gave rise to the American/Western world war on terrorism. Like I said, stop being obtuse....or ignorant.

6 hours ago, dimreepr said:

Which is like declaring war on your own imagination and torturing yourself...  

  I would be more concerned with your own imaginations and dreams, and philosophical claptrap,  rather then a couple of well thought out experiments where the use of torture maybe morally acceptable, rather then risking the lives of a little child and thousands of other innocents. 

6 hours ago, dimreepr said:

Only you catching them in the act can determine 100% guilt without trial,

Rubbish, as already explained. You repeating that nonsense, does not make it any more factual.

6 hours ago, dimreepr said:

 and given the OP, torture would be unnecessary since you'd have also secured the child/bomb.

?? Are you even in the right thread? 

4 hours ago, joigus said:

I am the middleman (an intermediary in this bussiness with nothing at stake here), trying to think rationally, but trying not to think in a desperate kind of mood. 

Quite admirable, but when the life of a child or thousands of other innocents are at stake, and all rational means to obtain the necessary info has failed, then I fail to see how anyone would not become desperate and/or emotional. And then the cool, calm heads, doing the interrogation think of other means...like torture, to achive the greater good.  We are afterall human beings, and while certainly rationality must and is applied with science, these scenarios are not science, and are by their nature, emotional situations.

4 hours ago, Area54 said:

It is this attitude that has contributed to the continuation and expansion of terrorist organisations.  @Peterkin has addressed this concisely.

 Tell me, what should have been the reaction after the 9/11 attack? The war on terrorism that followed was a direct result of that.

20 hours ago, Peterkin said:

Tell that to the victims of US airstrikes, CIA training camps for terrorists, arms exports to warring factions, and various intrusions in to Muslim countries since 1947.

If you're so keen on the value of numbers, compare those.  

Numbers don't concern me. What concerns me is innocent people being used as pawns by kidnappers, terrorists and criminals. War is evil but we are not debating the evils of war,  all of us accept that fact. 9/11  was the start of that war. Intrusions into muslim countries I'm not that well up on, as you seem to be, but havn't muslims also intruded/invaded other lands of the years?

The average muslim is as peace loving as I am. We have quite a few muslim places of worship in Sydney, and some are even in council, state and federal governments. Sadly though, extremism exists with a few, just as it does with some European Aussies. Thankfully our intelligence has uncovered the identity of these potential terrorists, and they are under a permanent watch program in case of any plans for any terrorist act. 

 

[Peterkin]

1 hour ago, beecee said:

Sadly sometimes violence is necessary.

That's what the terrorist/patriot said, sir.

1 hour ago, beecee said:

And you have yourself agreed you would use it.

Might, if I were desperate/frightened/enraged enough. If I did, it would be an emotional reaction, not a rational decision.  As I also reiterated several times: I don't know my own capacity for evil or the limit of my self-control, but I do know that, if pushed beyond that limit, I would know that what I did was wrong. I might apologize for it; I might perform some act of atonement. I would not pretend it was good, just because I couldn't find a better way to get what I needed.  

 

1 hour ago, beecee said:

If you didn't and a child did die, or thousands were evaporated, you would have some serious questions to answer and consequences to deal with.

And even more, if I did do it and failed. So?

[beecee]

1 hour ago, Peterkin said:

That's what the terrorist/patriot said, sir.

I didn't call you a terrorist/patriot, even though you agreed you would undertake torture, sir.

1 hour ago, Peterkin said:

Might, if I were desperate/frightened/enraged enough. If I did, it would be an emotional reaction, not a rational decision.  As I also reiterated several times: I don't know my own capacity for evil or the limit of my self-control, but I do know that, if pushed beyond that limit, I would know that what I did was wrong. I might apologize for it; I might perform some act of atonement. I would not pretend it was good, just because I couldn't find a better way to get what I needed.  

We are emotional beings, you and dimmy must accept that, no matter how hard you try to be purely rational Dr Spock. While rationality certainly applies to science, it does not necessarily apply to emotional circumstances under discussion, sir.

1 hour ago, Peterkin said:

And even more, if I did do it and failed. So?

Don't be so obtuse. Everyone has recognised the possibility of failure, the morals still remain though  as always, .... there is morally every reason to employ every method possible if there is any chance of success. If you didn't and a child did die, or thousands were evaporated, you would have some serious questions to answer and consequences to deal with.

1 hour ago, Peterkin said:

So?

I find a child's life and thousands of innocents, far more concerning than to answer with a simple  So? reply, sir. 

Oh, and you failed to answer or acknowledge this......

3 hours ago, beecee said:

Numbers don't concern me. What concerns me is innocent people being used as pawns by kidnappers, terrorists and criminals. War is evil but we are not debating the evils of war,  all of us accept that fact. 9/11  was the start of that war. Intrusions into muslim countries I'm not that well up on, as you seem to be, but havn't muslims also intruded/invaded other lands of the years?

The average muslim is as peace loving as I am. We have quite a few muslim places of worship in Sydney, and some are even in council, state and federal governments. Sadly though, extremism exists with a few, just as it does with some European Aussies. Thankfully our intelligence has uncovered the identity of these potential terrorists, and they are under a permanent watch program in case of any plans for any terrorist act. 

 

[Peterkin]

2 hours ago, beecee said:

I didn't call you a terrorist/patriot,

Not me! The boy you're about to torture because he won't tell you where the bomb is.

 

2 hours ago, beecee said:

Don't be so obtuse.

You keep telling me that. Might as well say "Don't be so short." or "Don't be so pedantic." Old leopards may have faded spots, but they don't turn to stripes.

2 hours ago, beecee said:

Everyone has recognised the possibility of failure,

  Hah! They'll turn on you in heartbeat. "You tortured a prisoner?!!! Broke the law! How could you!!?"  If you had saved the child, they'd pretend they didn't notice the little matter of torture, because it would look bad on them prosecute the hero of the moment. If you fail, you're road-kill. 

2 hours ago, beecee said:

I find a child's life and thousands of innocents, far more concerning than to answer with a simple  So? reply, sir. 

I know that; you've only said like 35 times. What's it got to do with me or my decisions?

So? was not about your concern, it was a reply to this:

Quote

you would have some serious questions to answer and consequences to deal with.

 

[beecee]

32 minutes ago, Peterkin said:

Not me! The boy you're about to torture because he won't tell you where the bomb is.

The same boy you would consider torturing to save many lives. The needs of the many outweight the needs of the few...or the one: Spock.

35 minutes ago, Peterkin said:

You keep telling me that. Might as well say "Don't be so short." or "Don't be so pedantic." Old leopards may have faded spots, but they don't turn to stripes.

You should take heed of it then...Again... Everyone has recognised the possibility of failure, the morals still remain though  as always, .... there is morally every reason to employ every method possible if there is any chance of success. If you didn't and a child did die, or thousands were evaporated, you would have some serious questions to answer and consequences to deal with.

But hey again, you need to help me some....Is it your position that you would do it to save those lives, but then forever beat yourself around the brow for considering to harm such despots that I have mentioned many times...35 at least. 

37 minutes ago, Peterkin said:

  Hah! They'll turn on you in heartbeat. "You tortured a prisoner?!!! Broke the law! How could you!!?"  If you had saved the child, they'd pretend they didn't notice the little matter of torture, because it would look bad on them prosecute the hero of the moment. If you fail, you're road-kill. 

Actually the opposite. The child, the thousands about to be blown up, the authorities, and society in general, would expect you to do what is morally right. *clue* Check out what Mr Spoack said again. In fact as I already told you, (or was it dimmy) you would probably get a medal. If I failed, then that's bad, and that consequence and responsibility rests with those kidnappers, terrorits and criminals.  Jail time would be too good for them. 

43 minutes ago, Peterkin said:

I know that; you've only said like 35 times. What's it got to do with me or my decisions?

 Your decisions are your own, and they appear to be having a 20cents each way bet. One minute you would do it, the you merclessly beat yourself for doing it. But I did try and comfort you on that score previously. You should not take a morally correct and supported decision so hard, simply because it some how violates your life philosophy. You could take up residence with dimmy and comfort each other.

47 minutes ago, Peterkin said:

So? was not about your concern, it was a reply to this:

If I failed I would be mortified for the innocent victims, and would hope that those that caused it...you know those I have mentioned 35 times, the kidnappers, the terroists, the criminals, would suffer long and hard for their morally and totally corrupt decision in letting them die.

Oh, and you again failed to answer the following...remember it was you who decided to shore up your questionable philosophy, by comparing war to peace time  incidents, and to then tried to paint muslims as sole victims,.......

58 minutes ago, Peterkin said:

Tell that to the victims of US airstrikes, CIA training camps for terrorists, arms exports to warring factions, and various intrusions in to Muslim countries since 1947.

If you're so keen on the value of numbers, compare those. 

I replied................

"Numbers don't concern me. What concerns me is innocent people being used as pawns by kidnappers, terrorists and criminals. War is evil but we are not debating the evils of war,  all of us accept that fact. 9/11  was the start of that war. Intrusions into muslim countries I'm not that well up on, as you seem to be, but havn't muslims also intruded/invaded other lands of the years?

The average muslim is as peace loving as I am. We have quite a few muslim places of worship in Sydney, and some are even in council, state and federal governments. Sadly though, extremism exists with a few, just as it does with some European Aussies. Thankfully our intelligence has uncovered the identity of these potential terrorists, and they are under a permanent watch program in case of any plans for any terrorist act".

 

 

[Peterkin]

1 hour ago, beecee said:

The same boy you would consider torturing to save many lives. The needs of the many outweight the needs of the few...or the one: Spock.

Consider. You say numbers are not important bu the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, but numbers don't count. I know he thinks the same: that he would be willing to kill some of my people to save his people - however many of each. He was prepared to risk getting caught, tortured and killed, for what he considered the greater or greatest good.... He thinks like you. If i were on the other side of this never-ending war, it could be you I'd have to consider torturing for information.

At least I wouldn't forget our common humanity, or feel virtuous.

1 hour ago, beecee said:

But hey again, you need to help me some....Is it your position that you would do it to save those lives, but then forever beat yourself around the brow for considering to harm such despots that I have mentioned many times...35 at least. 

I told you my position. It has nothing to do with despots or any of the other imaginary characters you set up as villains. Most of the many thousand people who are, and have ever been, tortured in the relatively short history of civilization were not and are not cartoon villains. 

1 hour ago, beecee said:

all of us accept that fact. 9/11  was the start of that war.

We most emphatically do not accept any such nonsensical lie!

Edited February 25, 2022 by Peterkin

[Peterkin]

4 hours ago, beecee said:

Actually the opposite. The child, the thousands about to be blown up, the authorities, and society in general, would expect you to do what is morally right. *clue* Check out what Mr Spoack said again.

Mr. Spock does not live in a modern westernized society. He would be utterly bewildered by the layers of hypocrisy, hyperbole, obfuscation and double-think that runs through our political and legal systems.   

Edited February 25, 2022 by Peterkin

[Intoscience]

18 hours ago, dimreepr said:

Only you catching them in the act can determine 100% guilt without trial, and given the time limit set by the OP, it has to be you that administers the torture (you're not trained and if you get someone else to do it, how do they know your not lying?), and given the OP, torture would be unnecessary since you'd have also secured the child/bomb.

Point's 2 and 3 are therefore irrelevant. 

Why does it have to be only me catching them in the act, or accusing them of guilt? In fact I would be mortified to find that such a decision was made without jury. Since time is of the essence in the circumstance we are considering, this doesn't mean a trial by jury in a court of law. But a decision agreed on by a professional investigating team.

Why do you assume that the child/bomb is secure whilst the perp is in custody? there could be a timer on the bomb, an accomplice on stand by... any number of possible scenarios. The child could be locked away hidden, starving, cold on the brink of death... again any number of possible scenarios. 

While there is any one possibility that becomes a desperate situation, where all other methods/attempts to succeed have failed, then unless you can be sure torture would be a 100% failure, then you are morally obliged to consider it as an option. The moral obligation is determined by the factors I stated in the 3 points, so are very relevant. 

It's not whether me or anyone else is desperate, its whether or not the situation is desperate. The decision to torture should not be determined by the former, which could be influenced by irrational emotion. The decision should be considered by the latter, which should be influenced by logic and morality.   

[John Cuthber]

On 2/22/2022 at 8:21 PM, beecee said:

On 2/22/2022 at 11:02 AM, John Cuthber said:

He knew that at the outset.

He chose to carry on.

It's a pretty robust reason really, and it's not an "excuse".

It's a chance and we are morally obliged to try it.  

Is the source of your moral stance there the "greatest common good"?

[dimreepr]

16 hours ago, beecee said:

Not my problem that you can't see the differences between war and what we are discussing.

Not my problem that you can't see the parallels... 😉

5 hours ago, John Cuthber said:

Is the source of your moral stance there the "greatest common good"?

It is for him...

[dimreepr]

6 hours ago, Intoscience said:

Why does it have to be only me catching them in the act, or accusing them of guilt?

Because the ONLY way you can be 100% certain of guilt is, if you witnessed the crime; otherwise it's a trial of uncertainty...

And some people tell lies... 

Edited February 25, 2022 by dimreepr

[Peterkin]

7 hours ago, Intoscience said:

But a decision agreed on by a professional investigating team.

There is no such thing. Police are ranked hierarchies: somebody gives the order.

 

7 hours ago, Intoscience said:

It's not whether me or anyone else is desperate, its whether or not the situation is desperate.

It's you, or whoever is in charge, who determines the status of "the situation". In the kind of situation where someone who is morally opposed to torture, resorts to torture, his personal perspective is very much in play, whether he's aware of it, whether he admits it or not. This is why I said "your children are in danger" and "a thousand strangers are in danger" are two very different questions. 

 

7 hours ago, Intoscience said:

While there is any one possibility that becomes a desperate situation, where all other methods/attempts to succeed have failed, then unless you can be sure torture would be a 100% failure, then you are morally obliged to consider it as an option. The moral obligation is determined by the factors I stated in the 3 points, so are very relevant. 

In your code of ethics, not a universal one. There is no universal code of ethics, just a variety of philosophies, religious tenets, constitutions, legal codes, cultural norms and internal guidance systems.

We can each talk about our own perspective; I doubt we're in such a position, or relationship, as to influence one another's. Leaders, reformers, prophets and calamities do that for nations; teachers and role-models do it for individuals. 

[Area54]

14 hours ago, beecee said:

 Tell me, what should have been the reaction after the 9/11 attack? The war on terrorism that followed was a direct result of that.

That is a superficially neat way of avoding my observation that your attitude contributes to the expansion of terrorism. The consequences of the war on terror demonstrates those consequences. I shall be happy to answer your question once you have addressed my assertion.

In the meantime, declaring a war on terror was a short term, rhetorical victory, and a long term, ignorant disaster.

15 hours ago, beecee said:

Intrusions into muslim countries I'm not that well up on, as you seem to be, but havn't muslims also intruded/invaded other lands of the years?

That is a remarkable admission. You feel qualified to pontificate on terrorism without having the background knowledge to understand the source and maintenance of the most prominent form of terrorism, at least in regard to its impact on the West.

The emotive tone of several of your posts gives the impression that you have been moved by the horror of terrorism and have latched on to a simplistic solution to one aspect of it. The desire to combat it is understandable, but disregarding its inherent immorality, its demonstrated ineffectiveness, and its long term effect of expanding terrorism, makes it a very poor choice. One that exacerbates the problem you wish to eliminate.

[beecee]

14 hours ago, Peterkin said:

I told you my position. It has nothing to do with despots or any of the other imaginary characters you set up as villains. Most of the many thousand people who are, and have ever been, tortured in the relatively short history of civilization were not and are not cartoon villains. 

Your position is vague to say the least...a 20 cent each way proposition based on some passive philosophy, and rather weird since you have admiited you would condone it yourself. My position is based on the morally correct edict that while torture per se is wrong and repugnant, in some situations, the need to obtain info to save the lives of a child and thousands of innocents, is paramount by any means possible. 

14 hours ago, Peterkin said:

We most emphatically do not accept any such nonsensical lie!

A lie? 🤭 Your emotions astound me! If I am wrong, then please give us your emotionless, non political  version of what you believe to be the case. While you are at it, have muslims ever done any invading of laands?

14 hours ago, Peterkin said:

Consider. You say numbers are not important bu the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, but numbers don't count. 

Perhaps I should have said the innocents outweigh the needs or consideration of the damn criminal, terrorist and kidnapper. At least I am answering your queries rather then ignoring them as you and another are so apt at doing. Your philosophy needs re-philosophising. 

12 hours ago, Peterkin said:

Mr. Spock does not live in a modern westernized society. He would be utterly bewildered by the layers of hypocrisy, hyperbole, obfuscation and double-think that runs through our political and legal systems.   

😄 Perhaps, but I'm still rather sure he would abide by that edict. Not sure how he would logically view your own situation re admitting you would consider it, and then continuing to rail against the victims and feeling sympathy for the criminals. Mr Spock by the way, lives in a far advanced society, where (you guessed it) evil still exists.

11 hours ago, Intoscience said:

Why does it have to be only me catching them in the act, or accusing them of guilt?

Why do you assume that the child/bomb is secure whilst the perp is in custody?   

So as to add some validity to his unworkable, passive life philosophy, which in reality has zilch.

6 hours ago, dimreepr said:

Not my problem that you can't see the parallels... 😉

One is a conflict between nations, that may involve the world, the other a peace time criminality occurence, and the reason we have jails...you know those things you also dismiss.

11 hours ago, John Cuthber said:

Is the source of your moral stance there the "greatest common good"?

The greater common good is for the victims of crime and terrorism, not the perpetrators.

4 hours ago, Peterkin said:

There is no such thing. Police are ranked hierarchies: somebody gives the order.

It's you, or whoever is in charge, who determines the status of "the situation".

So? As long as everything possible is done to save the victims and every the morally correct decision is made to that end.

4 hours ago, Peterkin said:

 In your code of ethics, not a universal one. There is no universal code of ethics, just a variety of philosophies, religious tenets, constitutions, legal codes, cultural norms and internal guidance systems.

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

The Moral Justification for One-off Acts of Torture in Emergencies:

4 hours ago, Peterkin said:

We can each talk about our own perspective; I doubt we're in such a position, or relationship, as to influence one another's. Leaders, reformers, prophets and calamities do that for nations; teachers and role-models do it for individuals. 

Yet you try and deny me the right to express what I see as morally correct, by accusing me of trying to change your mind. Isn't that what you are essentially doing?

 

Edited February 25, 2022 by beecee

[Buai]

Noppe 

[koti]

Wow I am impressed. There is so much invaluable input from @Peterkin on torture in this thread that we should make her the torture expert on the forums.

[Peterkin]

31 minutes ago, beecee said:

Yet you try and deny me the right to express what I see as morally correct, by accusing me of trying to change your mind. Isn't that what you are essentially doing?

I detect a certain semantic dissonance in that paragraph.

1. Never have I denied you the right or opportunity to express your views - nor, for that matter been in any position to put any obstacle to your expressions of anything you like. I did not delete, censor, edit, obscure or complain to a higher authority about any of your five and half thousand posts. That, to me suggests that you have been expressing quite freely.  

2. Explaining why you have failed to change my mind, explaining as many ways as I could think of, as many times as you asked the same questions, over and over, is not an accusation.

3. In any case, nobody can accuse you of doing in a debate exactly what a debate is designed to do:  state your position in such a way as to convince your interlocutor and audience. That we have both failed is a result of different world-views, not of anybody being denied self-expression. 

Edited February 25, 2022 by Peterkin

[beecee]

3 hours ago, Area54 said:

That is a superficially neat way of avoding my observation that your attitude contributes to the expansion of terrorism. The consequences of the war on terror demonstrates those consequences. I shall be happy to answer your question once you have addressed my assertion.

I'm avoiding nothing, nor am I curtailed by any political, philosophical ideolgy. My feelings, sympathies and duty of care is towards the victims of crime, nothing more, nothing less.

I said......

11 minutes ago, beecee said:

tell that to the 3000 vicitms of 9/11.

you answered.....

3 hours ago, Area54 said:

It is this attitude that has contributed to the continuation and expansion of terrorist organisations.  @Peterkin has addressed this concisely.

Perhaps it is you that needs to do some explaining. In the meantime the answer to my question is yes, of course they have.

3 hours ago, Area54 said:

In the meantime, declaring a war on terror was a short term, rhetorical victory, and a long term, ignorant disaster.

Perhaps, so? what do you suggest? 

4 hours ago, Area54 said:

That is a remarkable admission. You feel qualified to pontificate on terrorism without having the background knowledge to understand the source and maintenance of the most prominent form of terrorism, at least in regard to its impact on the West.

I'm pontificating on the morally correct circumstances in which torture could be used, be that on a pedaphile, terrorist, or any other sort of criminal. I see 9/11 as an unspeakable evil act,as do any self respecting citizen of any modern westernised society. Perhaps what you need to do if I am essentially wrong, is become PM or President, and instill into the world your version of "political philosophy".

4 hours ago, Area54 said:

The emotive tone of several of your posts gives the impression that you have been moved by the horror of terrorism and have latched on to a simplistic solution to one aspect of it. The desire to combat it is understandable, but disregarding its inherent immorality, its demonstrated ineffectiveness, and its long term effect of expanding terrorism, makes it a very poor choice. One that exacerbates the problem you wish to eliminate.

We all are emotional beings. And we all would like to see a perfect society/world, perhaps without International boundaries and political persausions. But hey! instead of preaching to me and my ignorance, tell me the cure. How do we eliminate terrorism? (Noting this thread is not specifically about terrorism)

On 2/19/2022 at 2:32 AM, Peterkin said:

I don't know. If I did a bad thing to prevent a worse thing, and it turned out as I hoped, I could probably forgive myself.

The lives of the many, ( the innocents) or the child, outweigh, any so called moral consideration for pedaphiles, terrorists, criminals etc. That's what a normal westernised society would support, and more importantly, that's what a normal westernised society would expect. 

[beecee]

https://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2015/01/26/can-torture-ever-be-moral/

Can Torture Ever Be Moral?

BY GARY GUTTING AND JEFF MCMAHAN:

The recent Senate report on the Central Intelligence Agency’s use of torture has been the focus of a national debate about whether torture is ever permissible. This interview, the second in a series on political topics, discusses philosophical ideas that underlie this debate.  My interviewee is Jeff McMahan, White’s Professor of Moral Philosophy at the University of Oxford. He is the author of “The Ethics of Killing.” — Gary Gutting

Gary Gutting: What’s your overall view on the morality of torture?

Jeff McMahan: I think that torture is almost always morally wrong and that, for moral reasons, it ought to be prohibited absolutely in law...more

G.G.: But you do agree that torture can, in extreme cases, be moral. Why do you reject the absolute view that any instance of torture is immoral?

J.M.: Torture can be morally justifiable, and even obligatory, when it is wholly defensive – more.....

G.G.: Do you worry that even saying that torture can be moral will provide an excuse for immoral torture?

J.M.: Yes, very much. The philosopher Henry Shue has a story of being thanked for his influential 1978 article [“Torture,” Philosophy and Public Affairs 7, no. 2 (1978): 124-43] by a pair of American agents who had tortured people. The article had argued vigorously against torture but conceded at the end that the moral prohibition of torture is not absolute. more.....

G.G.: Should we treat cases of justified torture the way some say we should treat cases of justified civil disobedience: more....

J.M.: I think so. To effectively deter wrongful torture, the law should make anyone contemplating torture feel that if he does so he will be sacrificing himself for the sake of morality. more.....

G.G.: We’ve been using the term “torture” without defining it. Is it enough to work with clear cases of what is and of what is not torture (locking a prisoner in a cell versus beating him) or do moralists have to get into fine points about exactly what constitutes torture?

J.M.: Both moralists and legal theorists must go into the fine details. There are many reasons why paradigm instances of torture are objectionable: more................extract:It has to concede that the infliction of that degree of harm can be permissible, even to prevent harms far less bad than the murder of a billion people. The idea that there is such a threshold is wholly implausible. more.....

 

G.G.: Absolutists might object that you’re just assuming that actions should be judged by their consequences, whereas they think at least some actions are immoral in themselves, apart from their consequences. Is this just a case of conflicting basic moral intuitions, with no way of resolving the issue?

J.M.: I don’t think so. extract: I have said that it might be permissible to torture a terrorist to force him to reveal the location of a bomb or a hostage, but that would be quite different from torturing the terrorist’s child as a means of extracting the same information. more...............

extract: Absolutists about torture, who say that it can never be justified, make the same mistake. As I indicated earlier, because most of them believe that it can be permissible to kill a person to prevent him from committing murder and also that it can be less bad for a person to be tortured than to be killed, they should concede that it can be permissible to torture a person to prevent him from committing murder. Apart from the fact that killing is usually worse, the only significant difference between killing in defense of the innocent and torturing in defense of the innocent is that torture can only very, very rarely be used defensively.

more........ but you get the gist..........................

Edited February 26, 2022 by beecee

[Peterkin]

4 hours ago, beecee said:

If I am wrong, then please give us your emotionless, non political  version of what you believe to be the case.

I can't. I don't have an emotionless, non-political version of events. "The truth is out there." It's as accessible to you as to me. I would never set myself up as your teacher of history or world power dynamics. Here is a handy starting point   https://teachmideast.org/articles/timeline-of-the-middle-east-in-the-20th-century/

[beecee]

27 minutes ago, Peterkin said:

I can't. I don't have an emotionless, non-political version of events. "The truth is out there." It's as accessible to you as to me. I would never set myself up as your teacher of history or world power dynamics. Here is a handy starting point   https://teachmideast.org/articles/timeline-of-the-middle-east-in-the-20th-century/

That's nice.....Here's a more comprehensive version...No I have not read it all.....

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

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

[Peterkin]

Happy reading!

[beecee]

4 hours ago, Peterkin said:

Happy reading!

Meh! My attentions and hope at this time is for those victims under duress, like the poor Ukranians. The same kind of duress the poor child and the thousands about to be blown up, are under in the examples, from similar like minded bullies, criminals, terrorists  and low life. That is far better then clinging to the high ground with regards to torture where appropriate, and morally indefensible in not doing all that is available including that torture on those rare occasions that demand it.

[dimreepr]

16 hours ago, beecee said:

Perhaps I should have said the innocents outweigh the needs or consideration of the damn criminal, terrorist and kidnapper. At least I am answering your queries rather then ignoring them as you and another are so apt at doing. Your philosophy needs re-philosophising.

How do you know who the innocents are?

How can you be 100% certain of guilt, without a trial (which has been wrong) if you don't directly witness the crime? The answer to which can't be "I've already told you or isn't it obvious?".

If you can't be sure of the criminal, then the world isn't so black and white, and Hollywood isn't a philosophy... 😉 

15 hours ago, beecee said:

Perhaps, so? what do you suggest?

Give them a sandwhich and a cup of tea, rather than electrodes and waterboarding.

It may seem counterintuitive to you, but then so much of science and reality is...

4 hours ago, beecee said:

Meh! My attentions and hope at this time is for those victims under duress, like the poor Ukranians.

Now do you understand the parrelels?

Edited February 26, 2022 by dimreepr