Is Torture Ever Right ?

[Peterkin]

7 hours ago, beecee said:

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.

And you know who the villains and innocents are and how justice ought to e meted out. 

Certitude and rectitude of Elijaic proportions.

 

 

 

 

 

[John Cuthber]

On 2/25/2022 at 1:32 PM, dimreepr said:

It is for him...

That's not what I asked.

[beecee]

7 hours ago, dimreepr said:

How do you know who the innocents are?

It's simple really...no complicated, fabricated, passive philoosphies  are needed. Generally speaking, we have on one side, the terrorists, the kidnappers, and the hardened criminals. They are called the perpetrators. Then we have those that are kidnapped, the raped child, the person in hospital close to death after being shot or stabbed, those that have been violated in other ways, robbed etc. They are the victims.   

7 hours ago, dimreepr said:

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?".

Already comprehensively addressed, despite your pretentious objections.

7 hours ago, dimreepr said:

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

Of course we can be sure. I suggest you go back to the justice/punsihment thread, plus some reasons here. While Hollywood certainly is not a philosophy, your life philosophy, should be in Hollywood! 🥱But I suggest in reality, you already know that.

7 hours ago, dimreepr said:

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.

As we all have agreed, despite your inferred nonsense, if the sandwich and cup of tea will do it, then go ahead. You try everything possible, understand? And that includes possible torture, if all else has failed. Then of course, whether successful or otherwise, the kidnapper, terrorist, criminal, will still face punishment. Of course taking into account, if his confession leads to the rescue of the child or defusing of the bomb, then leniency to the appropriate extent may be applied. eg: This works in reverse also. The victim's impact statements that are read out and considered in Australian courts, before appropriate sentencing is given may increase that senetnce and/or repatriation.😉

7 hours ago, dimreepr said:

Now do you understand the parrelels?

Do you? One concerns the evils of wars and the many injustices involved in those conflicts. The other is concerned with peace time scenarios where evil is committed by some, and punished as per the severity. 

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

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

 

3 hours ago, Peterkin said:

And you know who the villains and innocents are and how justice ought to e meted out. 

Yes.  Generally speaking, we have on one side, the terrorists, the kidnappers, and the hardened criminals. They are called the perpetrators or villains. Then we have those that are kidnapped, the raped child, the person in hospital close to death after being shot or stabbed, those that have been violated in other ways, robbed etc. They are the victims or innocents.   

How justice is metered out, is another aspect that was discussed in the justice/punishment thread.  

3 hours ago, Peterkin said:

Certitude and rectitude of Elijaic proportions.

 Yes. eg: Read the example in the justice/punishment thread as a starter, plus more examples given here.

Plus My moral compass tells me that every possible means must be exploited to free the kidnapped child, or save thousands of other innocent victims. Any considerations of morality towards the perpetrators of such crimes, is secondary and depends on the perpetrators themselves. 

On 2/25/2022 at 7:37 PM, John Cuthber said:

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

Sorry, I missed this. The greater common good imo, is that which is determined by a significant majority of a society, to benefit that society. WIKI says this......."certain general conditions that are... equally to everyone's advantage". And this..."policies, decisions, and actions that are beneficial for most or all members of a given community or society". 

Those definitions imo, support my  moral stance in considering primarliy the victims of crimes and injustices, rather then the perpetrators of crimes and injustices, who literally have set their own bar of morality, at floor level.

Edited February 26, 2022 by beecee

[dimreepr]

12 hours ago, beecee said:

19 hours ago, dimreepr said:

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?".

Already comprehensively addressed, despite your pretentious objections.

No, it hasn't!!! Time to put up or shut up, if it's already been comprehensively addressed, it shouldn't be difficult to actually answer the question.

If the court's operated under the edict 'beyond all doubt' instead of 'beyond reasonable doubt', they wouldn't be able to convict anyone.

Time to stop pretending you know better than the judiciary/everyone.

 

[John Cuthber]

14 hours ago, beecee said:

The greater common good imo, is that which is determined by a significant majority of a society, to benefit that society.

OK, so if the greater common good requires us to torture people, who gets to decide which ones?
Should we be waterboarding you to get you to admit to your plans to take over the world?

I realise it's unlikely but.. as you said.

"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."

Edited February 27, 2022 by John Cuthber

[dimreepr]

On 2/25/2022 at 8:11 PM, beecee said:

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

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

Quote

The most obvious version of the argument in favour of one-off acts of torture in extreme emergencies is consequentialist in form. For example, Bagaric and Clarke (2007: 29) offer a version of the ticking bomb scenario in the context of their hedonistic act utilitarian theoretical perspective. A standard objection to this kind of appeal to consequentialism is that it licenses far too much: torture of a few innocent victims may well be justified, on this account, if it provides intense pleasure for a much larger number of sadists. As it happens, Bagaric and Clarke insist that they want to restrict the practice of torture; only the guilty are to be subjected to torture and only for the purpose of extracting information. However it is far from clear how this desired restriction can be reconciled with consequentialism in any of its various permutations, let alone the relatively permissive version favoured by Bagaric and Clarke. Why, for example, should torture be restricted to the guilty, if torturing a small number of innocent persons would enable the lives of many other innocents to be saved (as presumably it might). Again, why should under-resourced Indian police not torture – as they often do in reality – a repeat offender responsible for a very large number of property crimes, if this proves to be the only available efficient and effective form of retrieving the stolen property in question and, thereby, securing the conviction of this offender, reducing property crime and making a large number of property owners happy? The essential problem confronted by consequentialists participating in the torture debate is that their theoretically admissible moral barriers to torture are relatively flimsy; too flimsy, it seems, to accommodate the strong moral intuitions in play.

This from your link, I get the feeling you've only read the title.

Edited February 27, 2022 by dimreepr

[Area54]

On 2/25/2022 at 8:40 PM, beecee said:

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.

Two disparate points to be made here:

• You mention "political, philosophical ideolgy (sic)" and later talk about my version of "political philosophy", with the implication that I have been promoting such and you have a low opinion of them. If that was your aim I am perplexed, as I have neither promoted, nor even mentioned such a philosphy/ideology.
• My point has been that you take too narrow a view of victims, focusing only on the immediate situation and disregarding the consequences of actions taken to deal with it. Your supposedly pragmatic approach can and does lead to more victims in future.

On 2/25/2022 at 8:40 PM, beecee said:

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

I have explained a couple of times, but not - it seems - with sufficient clarity. I'll try again:

If, in attempting to combat the acts of criminals and terrorists we employ methods that we would condemn when perpetrated by them, then we:

• Lose the  moral high ground
• Give tacit acceptance to their use of those methods
• and in the case of terrorism, act as recruiting agents for the terrorists

You argue that torturing a suspect, even though it stands little chance of success, is worth doing since it might just prevent the act of terrorism. I argue that torturing a supsect will recruit new terrorists, thereby exposing even more people to risk. Your argument is well intentioned, but limited in scope and therey by flawed. Your approach may, with a large element of luck, produce the greatest good for a small group today, but increases the harm to a much larger number in the future. This is not what you want, but it is what your approach ensures.

[beecee]

12 hours ago, dimreepr said:

No, it hasn't!!! Time to put up or shut up, if it's already been comprehensively addressed, it shouldn't be difficult to actually answer the question.

Yes it has. I don't have any difficulty answering the question, and perhaps you need to cast your own mind back to when I was asking you questions, and you likewise replied that they have been answered. In my case it is valid. In essence stop being so hypocrticial. 

12 hours ago, dimreepr said:

If the court's operated under the edict 'beyond all doubt' instead of 'beyond reasonable doubt', they wouldn't be able to convict anyone.

Time to stop pretending you know better than the judiciary/everyone.

Nonsense to the first statement, as I have shown and explained to you already.

The second statement is another grand dimmy strawman. We are not talking about any judicial system. We are speaking about a kidnapper who we know with absolute certainty, and beyond all reasonable doubt was  compliant in kidnapping a child, and/or the capture of a terrorist that has hidden an explosive device somewhere. 

10 hours ago, John Cuthber said:

OK, so if the greater common good requires us to torture people, who gets to decide which ones?
Should we be waterboarding you to get you to admit to your plans to take over the world?

I realise it's unlikely but.. as you said.

"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."

I don;t really know. Depending on time, those immediately responsible must act, and I suggest that action successful or otherwise would have the support of society in general. 

4 hours ago, Area54 said:

Two disparate points to be made here:

• You mention "political, philosophical ideolgy (sic)" and later talk about my version of "political philosophy", with the implication that I have been promoting such and you have a low opinion of them. If that was your aim I am perplexed, as I have neither promoted, nor even mentioned such a philosphy/ideology.
• My point has been that you take too narrow a view of victims, focusing only on the immediate situation and disregarding the consequences of actions taken to deal with it. Your supposedly pragmatic approach can and does lead to more victims in future.

On your first point, I was not specifically pointing at you. I believe it is pretty obvious what philosophical ideology I have a low opinion of. That was illustrated in the justice/punishment thread.

Your second point, what can I say? I disagree. I don't see how you can say with certainty, is does lead to more victims in the future.

4 hours ago, Area54 said:

I have explained a couple of times, but not - it seems - with sufficient clarity. I'll try again:

If, in attempting to combat the acts of criminals and terrorists we employ methods that we would condemn when perpetrated by them, then we:

• Lose the  moral high ground
• Give tacit acceptance to their use of those methods
• and in the case of terrorism, act as recruiting agents for the terrorists

Why do we lose the moral high ground? I suggest if it did get the desired result, (saving the lives of innocents) then it would have the backing of your society. Perhaps I'm not expressing myself fully, I'm trying to see things from a practical point of view, rather the philosophical point of view. Am I emotional? Sure I am, who isn't. It's an emotional type of situation.

The second point, No. I support fully the UN edict regarding banning of torture along with my own country's laws against such actions. That doesn't mean (imo anyway) that in rare circumstances, as detailed, that it must not be considered. If a relevant police authority authorised it and was successful in obtaining the desired result, he would likley still be charged...that charge would take into account the extenuating circumstances, and more then likley it will be dismissed. We had a case a few years ago of an old bloke living alone who heard an intruder in the dead of night. He got up, encountered the intruder and after a struggle, stabbed him to death. He was charged, and rightly and morally had those charges finally dismissed. I don't see it as tacit support.

Your third point, why would it? And even if it did, does that mean we treat terrorists with a slap on the wrist? Most muslims are decent people, who like you and me, also reject the fanaticism of terrorism. We have some equally fanatical ratbags in Australian society. We also have a new law, where extreme crimes by new Australians, whether naturalised or not, will have them immediatley deported to their original birth place. That law was established by our current conservative government who I normally condemn and would never vote for under their present political ideologies. On this though, (as long as it is only for extreme crimes and terorist activities) I support them.https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10556601/Australian-ISIS-terrorist-jail-immigration-detention-no-country-wants-him.html

He was stripped of his Australian citizenship and had his passport cancelled on December 21, 2018.

 

 Prakash was known to inspire and encourage terrorist plots in Australia.

He also appeared in IS propaganda videos promoting attacks in Australia and has also been linked by the FBI to a failed plot to attack the Statue of Liberty in New York.

Again, even if what you say was valid, what do you suggest we do with them? 

I'm not a philosophical animal, (whatever that means) I try and see things as practically as I can and if having considerations for the victims "in the first instant"  is  taking too narrow of a view, then I really am at a loss to understand. 

Also I have no doubt that even those disgreeing with my point of view, would act just as emotionally with regards to employing all means at their disposal to try and save the lives of those victims. 

Edited February 27, 2022 by beecee

[John Cuthber]

11 minutes ago, beecee said:

I don;t really know. Depending on time, those immediately responsible must act, and I suggest that action successful or otherwise would have the support of society in general. 

So, we must act, right here right now and torture you into giving us your plan for world domination.

[Area54]

11 minutes ago, beecee said:

Yes it has. I don't have any difficulty answering the question, and perhaps you need to cast your own mind back to when I was asking you questions, and you likewise replied that they have been answered. In my case it is valid. In essence stop being so hypocrticial. 

Nonsense to the first statement, as I have shown and explained to you already.

The second statement is another grand dimmy strawman. We are not talking about any judicial system. We are speaking about a kidnapper who we know with absolute certainty, and beyond all reasonable doubt was  compliant in kidnapping a child, and/or the capture of a terrorist that has hidden an explosive device somewhere. 

I don;t really know. Depending on time, those immediately responsible must act, and I suggest that action successful or otherwise would have the support of society in general. 

On your first point, I was not specifically pointing at you. I believe it is pretty obvious what philosophical ideology I have a low opinion of. That was illustrated in the justice/punishment thread.

Your second point, what can I say? I disagree. I don't see how you can say with certainty, is does lead to more victims in the future.

Why do we lose the moral high ground? I suggest if it did get the desired result, (saving the lives of innocents) then it would have the backing of your society. Perhaps I'm not expressing myself fully, I'm trying to see things from a practical point of view, rather the philosophical point of view. Am I emotional? Sure I am, who isn't. It's an emotional type of situation.

The second point, No. I support fully the UN edict regarding banning of torture along with my own country's laws against such actions. That doesn't mean (imo anyway) that in rare circumstances, as detailed, that it must not be considered. If a relevant police authority authorised it and was successful in obtaining the desired result, he would likley still be charged...that charge would take into account the extenuating circumstances, and more then likley it will be dismissed. We had a case a few years ago of an old bloke living alone who heard an intruder in the dead of night. He got up, encountered the intruder and after a struggle, stabbed him to death. He was charged, and rightly and morally had those charges finally dismissed. I don't see it as tacit support.

Your third point, why would it? And even if it did, does that mean we treat terrorists with a slap on the wrist? Most muslims are decent people, who like you and me, also reject the fanaticism of terrorism. We have some equally fanatical ratbags in Australian society. We also have a new law, where extreme crimes by new Australians, whether naturalised or not, will have them immediatley deported to their original birth place. That law was established by our current conservative government who I normally condemn and would never vote for under their present political ideologies. On this though, (as long as it is only for extreme crimes and terorist activities) I support them.https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10556601/Australian-ISIS-terrorist-jail-immigration-detention-no-country-wants-him.html

He was stripped of his Australian citizenship and had his passport cancelled on December 21, 2018.

 

 Prakash was known to inspire and encourage terrorist plots in Australia.

He also appeared in IS propaganda videos promoting attacks in Australia and has also been linked by the FBI to a failed plot to attack the Statue of Liberty in New York.

Again, even if what you say was valid, what do you suggest we do with them? 

I'm not a philosophical animal, (whatever that means) I try and see things as practically as I can and if having considerations for the victims "in the first instant"  is  taking too narrow of a view, then I really am at a loss to understand. 

Also I have no doubt that even those disgreeing with my point of view, would act just as emotionally with regards to employing all means at their disposal to try and save the lives of those victims. 

Your opinions are duly noted.

Your disregard for the last half century or so of history, in regard to what makes terrorists is duly noted.

Your attachment to and defense of emotional acts is duly noted.

Your inability to focus on anything other than immediate threat is reminiscent of the young child who opts for the choclate bar now, rather than two chocolate bars in five minutes time, is duly noted and despaired of.

In light of the foregoing I shall try to restrict my view of your posts to the technical ones, which are often quite good.

[beecee]

8 minutes ago, Area54 said:

Your opinions are duly noted.

Your disregard for the last half century or so of history, in regard to what makes terrorists is duly noted.

Your attachment to and defense of emotional acts is duly noted.

Your inability to focus on anything other than immediate threat is reminiscent of the young child who opts for the choclate bar now, rather than two chocolate bars in five minutes time, is duly noted and despaired of.

In light of the foregoing I shall try to restrict my view of your posts to the technical ones, which are often quite good.

As are your opinions. Just quickly though, on the highlighted section, "A Bird in the hand, is worth two in the bush"

Just now, beecee said:

As are your opinions. Just quickly though, on the highlighted section, "A Bird in the hand, is worth two in the bush"

 

11 minutes ago, Area54 said:

Your disregard for the last half century or so of history, in regard to what makes terrorists is duly noted.

Peterkin in an earlier post reminded my of the injustices by western societies on lands in the middle east. I asked him have muslims ever invaded other lands. I have yet to get an answer.

Was Japan justified in bombing Pearl Harbor?  I have heard arguments claiming they were. 

It's funny, ( funny peculiar, not funny haha) how that whatever argument any person has put up, there appears always an alternative argument/view. eg: Trump, you know, that bloke that Americans voted in as President.

 

[Peterkin]

17 minutes ago, beecee said:

Peterkin in an earlier post reminded my of the injustices by western societies on lands in the middle east. I asked him have muslims ever invaded other lands. I have yet to get an answer.

That would be very long and widely off-topic. If you were to compare size of empires and number of nations invaded, the Christians would win by a comfortable margin. Of course, it also depends on how far back in history you wanted to go  and whether you were comparing military aggression by religion only, or other factors. I'm sure Wikipedia can supply whatever answer you want. 

[beecee]

1 minute ago, Peterkin said:

That would be very long and widely off-topic. If you were to compare size of empires and number of nations invaded, the Christians would win by a comfortable margin. Of course, it also depends on how far back in history you wanted to go  and whether you were comparing military aggression by religion only, or other factors. I'm sure Wikipedia can supply whatever answer you want. 

I didn't want a long drawn out account, simple yes or no would have sufficed. And not really interested in who won or who didn't win, just trying to balance your preoccupation.

[Peterkin]

6 minutes ago, beecee said:

simple yes or no would have sufficed

For you. Not for me. And therein lies the unbridgeable rift.

[Area54]

22 minutes ago, Peterkin said:

For you. Not for me. And therein lies the unbridgeable rift.

I fear you are correct. I am reminded of George Santayana's aphorism: "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it." Being unaware of the past has pretty much the same effect.

[beecee]

On 2/24/2022 at 10:55 AM, Peterkin said:

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

 

3 hours ago, Peterkin said:

For you. Not for me. And therein lies the unbridgeable rift.

I asked if muslims had ever invaded other countries. You answered as above. Now you want to admonish me for suggesting you answer with a yes or no, when all you have done is just that essentially as above. You know like this....Tell that to the victims of Muslim invasions and of fanatical Islam and down trodden woman who are forbidden an education. You know, stop showing a bias. And yes it is off topic, but I certainly hope that unbridgeable rift, the real one, that exists between you, me and dimmy, stays as unbridgeable as possible. The real rift being I will never shift from the moral stance that all needs to be done to save innocents in the examples in question  after all else has been tried. And *giggle*  funnily enough you openly admit you would consider it. (Really sorry I need to keep reminding that at heart you are probably a reasonable human being and would do the right/wrong thing 😉)

3 hours ago, Area54 said:

I fear you are correct. I am reminded of George Santayana's aphorism: "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it." Being unaware of the past has pretty much the same effect.

 I remember a bloke in the late thirties waving a bit of paper in the air, proclaiming, "Peace in our time!!!", after some so called productive talks with a bloke called Hitler. I have a reasonable memory of the past my friend, and what was wrong, right and indifferent about it, and when serious enough, am goaded into action at times.eg: Taking active parts in two Sydney based anti Vietnam war moratorium marches. Thankfully while being an old bastard, I have never been unfortunate enough to be a part of a war.  

 

Edited February 28, 2022 by beecee

[Peterkin]

3 minutes ago, beecee said:

I asked if muslims had ever invaded other countries.

"Ever" goes back to the 7th century CE. That's a lot of history, all of it inappropriate to the present venue. 

6 minutes ago, beecee said:

Now you want to admonish me

No, I don't.

7 minutes ago, beecee said:

I certainly hope that unbridgeable rift, the real one, that exists between you, me and dimmy, stays as unbridgeable as possible.

As you wish.

[beecee]

Just now, Peterkin said:

"Ever" goes back to the 7th century CE. That's a lot of history, all of it inappropriate to the present venue. 

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

I havn't researched too much more. Wonder what I will find?

3 minutes ago, Peterkin said:

 No, I don't.

Oh, OK, just correct me with some waffling and a bias?

6 minutes ago, Peterkin said:

As you wish.

As I wish, as the innocent victims would wish, as the authorities in any western democracy would wish, and as society in general would wish. The lives of innocents in any criminal/terrorist act, is the number one priority without question, and all avenues need to be exhausted to bring about, or attempt to bring about a just conclusion.

6 minutes ago, beecee said:

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

I havn't researched too much more. Wonder what I will find?

Oh, OK, just correct me with some waffling and a bias?

As I wish, as the innocent victims would wish, as the authorities in any western democracy would wish, and as society in general would wish. The lives of innocents in any criminal/terrorist act, is the number one priority without question, and all avenues need to be exhausted to bring about, or attempt to bring about a just conclusion.

One closer to home, the 1975 Indonesian invasion of East Timor.

[Peterkin]

3 hours ago, beecee said:

Oh, OK, just correct me with some waffling and a bias?

Neither. Stating a fact.

All of history leads to the present. There is no moment, no single event, at which a chain of causation begins or ends. No new happening has one single cause; every new action causes more events. 

There are very few Y/N B/W answers in human affairs.

[Intoscience]

On 2/25/2022 at 4:08 PM, 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". 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. 

 

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. 

The ranking officer makes the ultimate decision, yes of course. But to get to that decision I would hope that an investigating team has worked hard to determine the facts to their best of knowledge and explored all avenues prior to.

Yes, this is all open to interpretation, cultural influences and corruption. We can spend time discussing all the different scenarios, implications...etc. but there is still a possibility that in one extreme case torture is an option that could be considered and possibly effective. 

Reading through all the recent posts and there have been some excellent points raised, my answer to the OP still remains yes.

5 hours ago, beecee said:

The lives of innocents in any criminal/terrorist act, is the number one priority without question, and all avenues need to be exhausted to bring about, or attempt to bring about a just conclusion.

+1

[beecee]

2 hours ago, Peterkin said:

Neither. Stating a fact.

All of history leads to the present. There is no moment, no single event, at which a chain of causation begins or ends. No new happening has one single cause; every new action causes more events. 

So you excuse 9/11 because of past events? How far back in history did you have in mind? As far as it takes to suit your agenda?

Do you also excuse muslim Indonesia for invading East Timor?

2 hours ago, Peterkin said:

There are very few Y/N B/W answers in human affairs.

And those elaborating on them when it suits your agenda/philosophical ideology and bias adds what? bias? I often wonder why you are so obviously shy from answering some questions, as compared to others. Same reason?

 

[Intoscience]

6 hours ago, beecee said:

The lives of innocents in any criminal/terrorist act, is the number one priority without question, and all avenues need to be exhausted to bring about, or attempt to bring about a just conclusion.

My focus as always been on this ^^^^ 

There seems to be a focus on deliberation of all the possible consequences and aftermath of a particular action that we all agree is morally un just in any normal, or rather more regular scenarios and may also lead to further complications or undesired future situations.

I can't argue against this, for a couple of reasons;

1. Any actions imposed in many situations in life may create future complications or undesirable outcomes. From experience we try to avoid this, so it it should be prudent that this be a consideration when imposing an action.
2. No one can predict the future, there can only ever be estimated possibilities based on experience/history, again this should be a consideration and play heavily in the decision to take a certain action. 

Basically, we don't know the future, but we can make judgement on whether a particular action is justifiably based on the likelihood of a particular outcome and the merits of this as apposed to not acting. 

There is a possibility that not acting is most likely to produce a less desirable outcome than acting, we all know this as damage limitation. There is also always a chance that the outcome ends up the least desirable situation, granted, hindsight is a wonderful thing. But if we went through life with this attitude would we ever make progress? Maybe? Chance has produced some amazing breakthroughs and I think should not be ignored. 

I believe that if there is a chance to save someone, even if its ever so slim, that this chance should be taken. This is my moral stance and though could be short sighted (depending on the long term outcome), I believe is the right thing to do.    

 

[beecee]

39 minutes ago, Intoscience said:

I believe that if there is a chance to save someone, even if its ever so slim, that this chance should be taken. This is my moral stance and though could be short sighted (depending on the long term outcome), I believe is the right thing to do.    

It is the moral stance the vast majority would take or would want to be taken,  in any western democracy. 

[Intoscience]

5 minutes ago, beecee said:

It is the moral stance the vast majority would take or would want to be taken,  in any western democracy. 

Yes, and its the refusal to acknowledge this fact that I find rather strange. The focus seems to be around all the situations where torture would be un just (of which there are many) and the many possible undesirable outcomes to support this refusal. 

The question was is it "ever" right, well if there is just one possible example where it is the right thing to do then the answer has to be yes.

That example is; when all else has failed, all considerations have been made, the situation is now desperate and there is a chance that it may be successful.  

[Prometheus]

On 2/23/2022 at 10:35 AM, Intoscience said:

So to re-iterate, when all other options have been exhausted and you are left with only 2 options - torture or not. Is it ever possible that torture is the right thing to do?

I understand your position: if various conditions are met (guarantees that no innocents will be tortured, that torture will work, that all other options have been exhausted and that even one-off torture won't give morally dubious individuals and regimes justification for torture) you would act in such and such a way.

My position is that for any practical consideration you will never know any of these things. Further, I believe it impossible to consider any ethical problem outside these practical considerations. This discussion of an idealised scenario tells us nothing about how we would act in the real world, so any answer i give is irrelevant. 

My participation in this thread has just been to highlight some of those practicalities, as only one was stated in the OP (guaranteed guilt of the tortured). I understand many people disagree with my position, and that seems to stem from a concept that ethics is something absolute that we discover rather than create, but do you at least understand my position?

Edited February 28, 2022 by Prometheus