Is Torture Ever Right ?

[dimreepr]

15 hours 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. 

On 2/27/2022 at 8:16 AM, 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.

As much as your logical contortions amuse me, you really need to answer the question (honestly), it's fundamental to your position/argument.

Again, from your link...

Quote

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.

 

15 hours ago, beecee said:

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

 

[Intoscience]

2 hours ago, Prometheus said:

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?

I do, and I appreciated your response with a sensible attitude towards it. In fact I don't disagree with you, that in "real world" situations we might find that torture is mostly not only morally but logically pointless, a route to take that has a high failure rate and also likely to lead to further injustice. But this doesn't "ever" not make it the right action to take and that under certain extreme circumstance it might just be the only option left. 

I think if you can discount it, with absolutely no doubt, as ever being an option then you can easily answer the OP's question with a no. There are people who do so, and that's fine that's their opinion and they are entitled to that. I'm just not sure everyone is being honest in their conviction. 

Edited February 28, 2022 by Intoscience
spelling

[Goude]

Torture does not produce the results wanted. It get misinformation and death. Seldom does it produce results. During WWII the allies used friendly Germans to get info from enemy Germans. It was very successful.

But most of all torture is immoral, inhumane, stupid, and unnecessary.

Edited February 28, 2022 by Goude

[Peterkin]

5 hours ago, beecee said:

So you excuse 9/11 because of past events?

It's not my place to excuse or condemn. All I pointed out was that it, as well as every other event, was a consequence of past events, just as it, as well as every other action and decision, has consequences in the future. 

5 hours ago, beecee said:

to suit your agenda?

I wish you would either tell me what that "agenda" is supposed to be, or else stop referring to it. I don't expect either of those things to happen.

5 hours ago, beecee said:

I often wonder why you are so obviously shy from answering some questions, as compared to others.

I answer all the questions that seem relevant to the thread subject, as well as some marginal ones - at tedious length and tiresome number of reiterations. I do not answer, except with reference material you may consult at your leisure, any questions that would require several volumes to explain adequately. That seems to me both a derailment and a great waste of time.

6 hours ago, Intoscience said:

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.

Sharing the responsibility lightens the burden. That's why a firing squad, instead of a single executioner: none of them knows which killed the hapless guy in front of  the wall. For ethical purposes, however, it is the commander who must answer for the consequences. 

Besides, answering a question about ethics is not a committee assignment: it's specific and personal. 

Edited February 28, 2022 by Peterkin

[dimreepr]

49 minutes ago, Intoscience said:

I do, and I appreciated your response with a sensible attitude towards it. In fact I don't disagree with you, that in "real world" situations we might find that torture is mostly not only morally but logically pointless, a route to take that has a high failure rate and also likely to lead to further injustice. But this doesn't "ever" not make it the right action to take and that under certain extreme circumstance it might just be the only option left. 

I think if you can discount it, with absolutely no doubt, as ever being an option then you can easily answer the OP's question with a no. There are people who do so, and that's fine that's their opinion and they are entitled to that. I'm just not sure everyone is being honest in their conviction. 

How can we be honest in a conviction we've never experienced? 

[Intoscience]

54 minutes ago, Peterkin said:

Sharing the responsibility lightens the burden. That's why a firing squad, instead of a single executioner: none of them knows which killed the hapless guy in front of  the wall. For ethical purposes, however, it is the commander who must answer for the consequences. 

Besides, answering a question about ethics is not a committee assignment: it's specific and personal. 

Absolutely, though the burden of moral ethics is not necessarily the burden of just one person. Yes it maybe that one person ultimately makes the call but many can agree on whether the call was the right or wrong one to make. Each society has morals that people share, their views may differ on some, but there are a general standard by which the majority can agree on. The ten commandment's are an example of this where God makes the call but the majority agreed at the time that it was the right way to live. 

I would hope, though it may not always be the case that (aside from Hollywood movies) in modern democratic society, the general consensus is accepted and then the call is made by the authority. 

During scenarios presented in this thread, there would be a team of investigators and professional's highly trained to deal with these situations who would be following a strict protocol, this I'm sure about. What I don't know is whether there is a protocol that under extreme/desperate circumstance allows for the use of torture when all other measures have failed. If there is then its therefore deemed by the professional community in general, that torture would be acceptable in these circumstances. So the answer to the op is yes.       

15 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

How can we be honest in a conviction we've never experienced? 

Well, ask those that claim its never right, including yourself, the same question.

I can honestly with full conviction state that if I was put in the situation I'd have no idea how I'd react or what action I'd take. I would hope that I would do what I believe, hopefully with full support, is the right thing to do. My belief is that in a certain situation the right thing to do would be to attempt to save lives with whatever means was necessary. The right thing being the lesser of the 2 evils, greater good or what ever you want to call it.

So, I'm in no position to condemn someone for making that call provided they acted in what appears to be the best interests at that time.  

Edited February 28, 2022 by Intoscience
spelling

[dimreepr]

8 minutes ago, Intoscience said:

So, I'm in no position to condemn someone for making that call provided they acted in what appears to be the best interests at that time.  

Provided they acted the way you want???

[Peterkin]

58 minutes ago, Intoscience said:

Absolutely, though the burden of moral ethics is not necessarily the burden of just one person.

Legally, that may or may not be true; the lower ranks don't get always get away with the "just following orders" defence - though, of course, they may well have faced a firing squad themselves for refusing an order.

Ultimately, it is every person's own responsibility. You're alone inside your own mind.

58 minutes ago, Intoscience said:

Each society has morals that people share, their views may differ on some, but there are a general standard by which the majority can agree on.

The majority makes the laws, supports the official policy, condones black ops, espionage and torture by its own organs while condemning the same methods employed by other nations. The majority imposes its world-view on the minority.

But it cannot suffuse every individual conscience. History is littered with conscientious objectors, deserters, heretics, activists, reformers, resisters, protesters, rebels and martyrs.

58 minutes ago, Intoscience said:

The ten commandment's are an example of this where God makes the call but the majority agreed at the time that it was the right way to live. 

It was an outline. Then Moses and Aaron had to labour at Leviticus, to elaborate the law. And the Israelites obviously didn't consistently obey those laws, or their prophets wouldn't have had to berate them so often over their sinful ways. Those same commandments have been elaborated by all Christian nations into quite different legal codes. It's a simple enough outline, that nevertheless has failed to gain consensus.  

58 minutes ago, Intoscience said:

During scenarios presented in this thread, there would be a team of investigators and professional's highly trained to deal with these situations who would be following a strict protocol, this I'm sure about.

I don't know what makes you so sure. None of us, AFAIK, is currently on such a team. I worked, a long time ago, in a forensic lab and met some of their members. They were not much like the television version. Ordinary men - all of them: not a female in sight, but that was 1980, practically the stone age  -  none exceptionally clever, certainly not disciplined in their habits of speech nor reverent toward the law and the citizenry. The protocol is nowhere near as strict (if the news is anything to go by, this is true of most jurisdictions) as we like to think. The tone is always established by the top ranks of each division: they hire and train according the policing style of the leadership. Dissent is not permitted.

Some divisions work better than others; some teams are better than others; most work fairly well. Toronto homicide section clears 70+% of its cases. (Of course, they also have some wrongful convictions on their record.) Some kinds of crime are not handled by local police but specialized federal, state or provincial ones, who may be better trained, organized, equipped and disciplined, but most importantly, have a wider jurisdiction and discretionary powers ... which doesn't always prevent mistakes.    

58 minutes ago, Intoscience said:

What I don't know is whether there is a protocol that under extreme/desperate circumstance that allows for the use of torture when all other measures have failed.

You're not supposed to know that. It can't be official, as long as there is a law on the books forbidding it. How much leeway each precinct commander gives his troops becomes evident only after the fact, when an abuse of power comes to public notice. Most instances are not revealed.

1 hour ago, Intoscience said:

I can honestly with full conviction state that if I was put in the situation I'd have no idea how I'd react or what action I'd take.

That's exactly what I have maintained. I don't rule out the possibility that I would resort to a wrong action if I were convinced that I could prevent a greater wrong. If I did that, it would still be just as wrong as if someone else did it. I trust neither you nor myself to determine with any certainty whether it is justified in the circumstances. In a crunch, I believe we do whatever we feel (not necessarily think) we have to do. That doesn't make it right or moral, in my book; it just pushes one guilt down a rung below some other anticipated guilt.

Edited February 28, 2022 by Peterkin
mistakes, of course

[beecee]

6 hours ago, dimreepr said:

As much as your logical contortions amuse me, you really need to answer the question (honestly), it's fundamental to your position/argument.

I've answered already the only way I know how, honestly, and its rather obvious that your hypocrisy knows no bounds. I suggest you answer the questions I have asked you in the past, and stop claiming you have already answered them, then I may repeat myself and bow to your  demands.

We can know with (1) certainty, and (2) beyond reasonable doubt, the guilt of a person. Both would suffice to undertake all that is necessary to save innocent human lives. There are two real fundamental issue that supports my stance, and they are (1)that it is morally correct, and (2) it would be certainly supported by the vast majority of society. Not withstanding your as usual, unworkable philosophical blatherings and objections.

5 hours ago, Peterkin said:

It's not my place to excuse or condemn.

Typical copout.

5 hours ago, Peterkin said:

I wish you would either tell me what that "agenda" is supposed to be, or else stop referring to it. I don't expect either of those things to happen.

Your philosophy of life and supporting it at any cost, (even innocent lives is your agenda....the same agenda that dimmy likes to wear as a badge of honour. 🤮

5 hours ago, Peterkin said:

I answer all the questions that seem relevant to the thread subject, as well as some marginal ones - at tedious length and tiresome number of reiterations. I do not answer, except with reference material you may consult at your leisure, any questions that would require several volumes to explain adequately. That seems to me both a derailment and a great waste of time.

I interprete that as, I'll answer when I see fit, and when it suits my agenda. There have been many questions answered by both of us that are off topic. 

5 hours ago, Peterkin said:

Sharing the responsibility lightens the burden. That's why a firing squad, instead of a single executioner: none of them knows which killed the hapless guy in front of  the wall. For ethical purposes, however, it is the commander who must answer for the consequences. 

Hapless?? Why is the guy hapless? He could be a mass murderer or a child kidnapper and rapist? Could this simple uneccessary word point again to your agenda? 

5 hours ago, Peterkin said:

Besides, answering a question about ethics is not a committee assignment: it's specific and personal. 

Yep, and my ethics holds that I should do everything humanly possible to help save the lives of the innocents in the examples being discussed. And those same ethics would more than likley be held by the same committee, and society in general.

 

4 hours ago, Peterkin said:

That's exactly what I have maintained. I don't rule out the possibility that I would resort to a wrong action if I were convinced that I could prevent a greater wrong. If I did that, it would still be just as wrong as if someone else did it. I trust neither you nor myself to determine with any certainty whether it is justified in the circumstances. In a crunch, I believe we do whatever we feel (not necessarily think) we have to do. That doesn't make it right or moral, in my book; it just pushes one guilt down a rung below some other anticipated guilt.

Sometimes you reveal some humanity in your posts. Of course you would do it! The only part I disagree with you on is that doing what is morally correct, (or a lesser of two wrongs) makes that wrong right, and more importantly a right that would be supported by the majority of society. That is an important aspect.

[Peterkin]

1 hour ago, beecee said:

Your philosophy of life and supporting it at any cost, (even innocent lives is your agenda

You have worked up some interpretation of "my" philosophy of life, but i don't know what-all you've included in that hypothetical philosophy. If supporting what one believes in is an "agenda", then I suppose everyone has their own agenda - even you. I can't see that as dishonest. Nor do I see how my advocating what I believe to be right costs anybody else anything, let alone innocent lives - not even imaginary ones.

 

1 hour ago, beecee said:

I interprete that as, I'll answer when I see fit

Is this not the right of every poster?

 

1 hour ago, beecee said:

There have been many questions answered by both of us that are off topic. 

An exhaustive history of the Middle East, South Asia and Europe, c. 661-2000 CE is more than a bit off topic. And available to you elsewhere. Plus, you told me you lost interest when Putin invaded Ukraine.

 

1 hour ago, beecee said:

Why is the guy hapless?

'Cos he's standing against a wall, wearing a blindfold, with 19 loaded and one blank rifle pointed at his chest. Most people wouldn't call that being fortunate.

1 hour ago, beecee said:

He could be a mass murderer or a child kidnapper and rapist?

Not very likely. Firing squad is a more common form of execution for army deserters, insurgents in an occupied territory and suspected enemy collaborators. Sometimes, just any random citizen(s), rounded up to be made an example, if the locals are suspected of harbouring insurgents.

 

1 hour ago, beecee said:

The only part I disagree with you on is that doing what is morally correct, (or a lesser of two wrongs) makes that wrong right,

Yes. We disagree on that.

Also on torture by proxy: designating some other person, whether a fellow officer or a civilian, to carry out the decision made by the officer in charge.  

 

1 hour ago, beecee said:

and more importantly a right that would be supported by the majority of society.

When it's successful. Condemned and prosecuted when it fails. Ignored or denied most of the time, because the public isn't told any details.

1 hour ago, beecee said:

That is an important aspect.

There, too, we disagree. If 99% of the population is all gung-ho about burning heretics, or considers it necessary to break little girls' toes to make their feet dainty, or thinks albinos have no right to live,  then 99% of the population is wrong. It wouldn't be a unique situation.

Edited February 28, 2022 by Peterkin

[beecee]

1 hour ago, Peterkin said:

You have worked up some interpretation of "my" philosophy of life, but i don't know what-all you've included in that hypothetical philosophy. If supporting what one believes in is an "agenda", then I suppose everyone has their own agenda - even you. I can't see that as dishonest. Nor do I see how my advocating what I believe to be right costs anybody else anything, let alone innocent lives - not even imaginary ones.

Your philosophy obviously is far from hypothetical, but you are correct, we all probably have an agenda. Mine I hope is science and the science methodology, at least that's what I aim for. And yes, I was wrong in claiming part of your agenda was at the cost of innocent lives...afterall you have already said you would consider doing it in the right circumstances. 

1 hour ago, Peterkin said:

Is this not the right of every poster?

Of course but I do chose to answer all questions, double barreled or not. Even those dimmy claims I havn't answered. (I hope he wakes up in time as to why I am not repeating those answers)ps: You need not commnet on that.

1 hour ago, Peterkin said:

An exhaustive history of the Middle East, South Asia and Europe, c. 661-2000 CE is more than a bit off topic. And available to you elsewhere. Plus, you told me you lost interest when Putin invaded Ukraine.

Yes, it is/was off topic, but still you chose to enlighten us on how the west has trampled muslim countries in the past, without any reference to how muslim countries have forced themselves on their neighbours. I saw that as a bias.

1 hour ago, Peterkin said:

'Cos he's standing against a wall, wearing a blindfold, with 19 loaded and one blank rifle pointed at his chest. Most people wouldn't call that being fortunate.

Perhaps being deserved of such?

1 hour ago, Peterkin said:

Not very likely. Firing squad is a more common form of execution for army deserters, insurgents in an occupied territory and suspected enemy collaborators. Sometimes, just any random citizen(s), rounded up to be made an example, if the locals are suspected of harbouring insurgents.

I'm not real sure how common it is, but I won't dwell on that point, it doesn't really matter. What matters of course would be the rounding up of random citizens/innocents just to make an example of. While that has happened, mostly though it happens in the course of war.

1 hour ago, Peterkin said:

Yes. We disagree on that.

Great!

1 hour ago, Peterkin said:

Also on torture by proxy: designating some other person, whether a fellow officer or a civilian, to carry out the decision made by the officer in charge.  

I really don't care, nor am I too interested in the details of who designates what and how. All I am concerned with is that all possible venues for extracting that information required to possibly save innocent lives, is implemented.

1 hour ago, Peterkin said:

 When it's successful. Condemned and prosecuted when it fails. Ignored or denied most of the time, because the public isn't told any details.

Not at all, and as I have gone into in detail, and linked to. (1) In any democratic western society, torture is banned and is a criminal offence. (2) Still there can be circumstances as being discussed, where we must do what is morally right to save innocent lives and step outside that UN charter. (3) Two things may result...(a) the person/s authorising the torture, whether a successful outcome or not, is seen as a hero and congratulated for ignoring an absolute and following a morally correct solution, or (b) the person/s responsible is charged, but the extenuating circumstances are taken into consideration and he is pardoned/let off/lightly reprimanded. I see that as happening irrespective of a successful outcome or otherwise of the torture. And of course in the course of time, the public will know the circumstances and will likely support it by a vast majority. 

1 hour ago, Peterkin said:

There, too, we disagree. If 99% of the population is all gung-ho about burning heretics, or considers it necessary to break little girls' toes to make their feet dainty, or thinks albinos have no right to live,  then 99% of the population is wrong. It wouldn't be a unique situation.

I have throughout this debate, always stipulated a democratic westernised society. You didn't understand that this is what I am referring to? And really, your attempted ploy of sensationalism is poor at best. But yes, just to reaffirm, the vast majority of a democratic westernised society in the circumstances being discussed, would I believe, support its use...both left or right of the political spectrum.

Edited February 28, 2022 by beecee

[Peterkin]

2 hours ago, beecee said:

Of course but I do chose to answer all questions, double barreled or not.

So do I. Repeatedly. If you don't like the answer, that's not my problem.

 

2 hours ago, beecee said:

Yes, it is/was off topic, but still you chose to enlighten us on how the west has trampled muslim countries in the past, without any reference to how muslim countries have forced themselves on their neighbours. I saw that as a bias.

Neither. I countered your non sequitur "Tell that to the victims of 9/11" with a reference to the hundreds times as many victims of American bombings and incursions in the Middle East over the preceding decades. Then I disagreed with your assertion that the US' melodramatically-named "War on Terror" started in 2001 with a guerilla  attack on the symbols of American economic, military and political control of the world. (I didn't mention that it was exactly as effective as The War on Drugs and The War on Poverty.) Nothing started on September 11th - something very complicated that had been going on for a long time continued on that day. The victims on one side are no more guilty or innocent than the victims on the other side. (BTW There is no longer any such thing as "peacetime". There hasn't been since at least 1939.... probably closer to 6000 BCE)

 

2 hours ago, beecee said:

Perhaps being deserved of such?

Perhaps.... Hapless, either way, whichever side he was on yesterday. (You seem a whole lot quicker to presume guilt than innocence in any case of which you know none of the facts. The legal system of these much-vaunted modern westernized democracies predicate their laws on the presumption of innocence until proven guilty, not supposed or maybe guilty. )

2 hours ago, beecee said:

I see that as happening irrespective of a successful outcome or otherwise of the torture.

If the prisoner was black and the cop was white, in a city where the majority wears red collars, probably.

2 hours ago, beecee said:

I always stipulated a democratic westernised society. You didn't understand that this is what I am referring to?

Yes, I did. It means you believe that such countries have no bad laws and no bad cops and no bad ideologies, no corruption or injustice. 

Again, we disagree.

2 hours ago, beecee said:

the vast majority of a democratic westernised society in the circumstances being discussed, would I believe, support its use...both left or right of the political spectrum.

Though I have to wonder why that "left of the political spectrum" imagines itself different from the right wing, it's possible. In which case, the 25-50% of people who vote for the winning candidates in those countries can still be just as wrong as their ancestors were.  

Edited March 1, 2022 by Peterkin

[beecee]

29 minutes ago, Peterkin said:

So do I. Repeatedly. If you don't like the answer, that's not my problem.

No problem at all, because I tell you when and why I don't accept your answers. I don't accept that you answer everything anyway, as you have already admitted....

4 hours ago, Peterkin said:

Is this not the right of every poster?

  

 

29 minutes ago, Peterkin said:

Neither. I countered your non sequitur "Tell that to the victims of 9/11" with a reference to the hundreds times as many victims of American bombings and incursions in the Middle East over the preceding decades. Then I disagreed with your assertion that the US' melodramatically-named "War on Terror" started in 2001 with a guerilla  attack on the symbols of American economic, military and political control of the world. (I didn't mention that it was exactly as effective as The War on Drugs and The War on Poverty.) Nothing started on September 11th - something very complicated that had been going on for a long time continued on that day. The victims on one side are no more guilty or innocent than the victims on the other side. (BTW There is no longer any such thing as "peacetime". There hasn't been since at least 1939.... probably closer to 6000 BCE)

And yet you still refuse to acknowledge the other party other then this doozy, "The victims on one side are no more guilty or innocent than the victims on the other side". I still disagree and see 9/11 as the start of the war on terror, despite your rhetoric to the contrary, as melodramatic which is laughable considering...

4 hours ago, Peterkin said:

There, too, we disagree. If 99% of the population is all gung-ho about burning heretics, or considers it necessary to break little girls' toes to make their feet dainty, or thinks albinos have no right to live,  then 99% of the population is wrong. It wouldn't be a unique situation.

 

30 minutes ago, Peterkin said:

Perhaps.... Hapless, either way, whichever side he was on yesterday. (You seem a whole lot quicker to presume guilt than innocence in any case of which you know none of the facts. The legal system of these much-vaunted modern westernized democracies predicate their laws on the presumption of innocence until proven guilty, not supposed or maybe guilty. ).  

No not at all. I have only ever assigned guilt when there is no reasonable doubt. All you are doing is practising your philosophical semantics. There are times when any reasonable person, without some unworkable philosophical agenda, can automatically be 100% certain of guilt.

34 minutes ago, Peterkin said:

If the prisoner was black and the cop was white, in a city where the majority wears red collars, probably.

This isn't an American style black and white problem. We are talking about certainty of guilt, be that black or white or brindle. 

36 minutes ago, Peterkin said:

Yes, I did. It means you believe that such countries have no bad laws and no bad cops and no bad ideologies, no corruption or injustice. 

Did you? That makes your assumptions doubly wrong than. We won't say anything about another Peterkin strawman though.

38 minutes ago, Peterkin said:

Though I have to wonder why that "left of the political spectrum" imagines itself different from the right wing, it's possible. In which case, the 25-50% of people who vote for the winning candidates in those countries can still be just as wrong as their ancestors were.  

I won't even try to analyse that political philosophical jargon, except to say again, the vast majority of a democratic westernised society in the circumstances being discussed, would I believe, support its use...both left or right of the political spectrum.

This appears to be no more then a cock waving contest. Have fun!

[Peterkin]

 

16 minutes ago, beecee said:

I still disagree and see 9/11 as the start of the war on terror,

That is your prerogative.

17 minutes ago, beecee said:

I have only ever assigned guilt when there is no reasonable doubt.

To my hypothetical hapless guy facing a firing squad? You don't even know his time period, nationality or what he was accused of.

23 minutes ago, beecee said:

We are talking about certainty of guilt,

Indeed! Thusly:

3 hours ago, beecee said:

In any democratic western society, torture is banned and is a criminal offence. (2) Still there can be circumstances as being discussed, where we must do what is morally right to save innocent lives and step outside that UN charter. (3) Two things may result...(a) the person/s authorising the torture, whether a successful outcome or not, is seen as a hero and congratulated for ignoring an absolute and following a morally correct solution, or (b) the person/s responsible is charged, but the extenuating circumstances are taken into consideration and he is pardoned/let off/lightly reprimanded.

 You were talking about letting a guilty person off, even if he got the child and 5000 other people killed with all of his failed methods of detection.

 

31 minutes ago, beecee said:

the vast majority of a democratic westernised society in the circumstances being discussed, would I believe, support its use...both left or right of the political spectrum.

It may have come to that. I'm sorry! 

 

[beecee]

13 minutes ago, Peterkin said:

That is your prerogative.

As most reasonable thinking beings would agree.

14 minutes ago, Peterkin said:

To my hypothetical hapless guy facing a firing squad? You don't even know his time period, nationality or what he was accused of.

That was your failed example. All I said was more then likley he is guilty and deserved of such punsihment, although I don't agree with the death penalty.

16 minutes ago, Peterkin said:

 You were talking about letting a guilty person off, even if he got the child and 5000 other people killed with all of his failed methods of detection.

Ummm no not at all. You have the bull by the wrong end...Try again. 

17 minutes ago, Peterkin said:

It may have come to that. I'm sorry! 

That's because its the most moral outcome.

[Peterkin]

2 hours ago, beecee said:

All I said was more then likley he is guilty and deserved of such punsihment, although I don't agree with the death penalty.

Yes. Presumed guilty, on zero evidence.

[beecee]

1 hour ago, Peterkin said:

Yes. Presumed guilty, on zero evidence.

Who is? Why? 

deleted much of this post, as  all it will do is promote more off topic, irrelevant nonsense, simply to shore up flagging philosophies and equally flagging egos, as per the following example/s......

Admirable examples of modern westernized democracies!

Some people, in various times and places, have sometimes been convicted of crimes (in we don't know what kinds of legal proceedings); therefore, a nameless, nationaless, unaccused casual example of death by firing squad must be guilty by association. Due process be shot full of holes! 

 

 

Edited March 1, 2022 by beecee

[Peterkin]

Admirable examples of modern westernized democracies!

Some people, in various times and places, have sometimes been convicted of crimes (in we don't know what kinds of legal proceedings); therefore, a nameless, nationaless, unaccused casual example of death by firing squad must be guilty by association. Due process be shot full of holes! 

[beecee]

42 minutes ago, Peterkin said:

 

 

Edited March 1, 2022 by beecee

[beecee]

3 hours ago, Peterkin said:

 

 Morality is decided by the consquences of one's action/s. The lesser evil of saving thousands of innocent lives, outweighs by many degrees, the so called wrong of torturing the criminal/terrorist.

In addition to the above set of moral considerations, the following points also need be considered...The terrorist is culpable  and responsible on two aspects...Firstly, the terrorist is instigating two immoral problems, (1)forcing the police to choose between undertaking torture to get a result, and (2) threatening thousands of lives. 

In other words he alone is the architect of his own demise, when he refuses to spill the beans, and after all means have been tried, the powers that be, only have torture left.

The philoosphical utterers amongst us are reluctant to concede that the worthwhile moral scenario, in the situations being discussed, is that we need to save the lives of the innocents, and that is where the morals of this now debacle of a debate lie. The philosophicaly dishonest, sometimes confusing, and even trolling behaviour, is preferred by a couple rather then admit that this is the situation that the democratic western societies most of us live under, would chose and demand. 

In fact if the situations under discussions were to eventuate, and our philosphical gurus chose to let those thousands of innocents die, then they themselves are by choice utterly immoral human beings, at least in my opinion, in chosing their unworkable philosophy, over moral correctness..

Edited March 1, 2022 by beecee

[dimreepr]

4 hours ago, beecee said:

 Morality is decided by the consquences of one's action/s. The lesser evil of saving thousands of innocent lives, outweighs by many degrees, the so called wrong of torturing the criminal/terrorist.

In addition to the above set of moral considerations, the following points also need be considered...The terrorist is culpable  and responsible on two aspects...Firstly, the terrorist is instigating two immoral problems, (1)forcing the police to choose between undertaking torture to get a result, and (2) threatening thousands of lives. 

In other words he alone is the architect of his own demise, when he refuses to spill the beans, and after all means have been tried, the powers that be, only have torture left.

The philoosphical utterers amongst us are reluctant to concede that the worthwhile moral scenario, in the situations being discussed, is that we need to save the lives of the innocents, and that is where the morals of this now debacle of a debate lie. The philosophicaly dishonest, sometimes confusing, and even trolling behaviour, is preferred by a couple rather then admit that this is the situation that the democratic western societies most of us live under, would chose and demand. 

In fact if the situations under discussions were to eventuate, and our philosphical gurus chose to let those thousands of innocents die, then they themselves are by choice utterly immoral human beings, at least in my opinion, in chosing their unworkable philosophy, over moral correctness..

It must be very comforting too be absolutely certain, of what you believe... 😇🙏

18 hours ago, beecee said:

I've answered already the only way I know how, honestly, and its rather obvious that your hypocrisy knows no bounds. I suggest you answer the questions I have asked you in the past, and stop claiming you have already answered them, then I may repeat myself and bow to your  demands.

This isn't a playground "I know you are, but what am I"; I'm not demanding anything, I'm asking a question that's fundamental to the topic.

If you don't want to answer that's fine, discussion over, but this is a discussion on a science site, IOW you present your evidence and we question it; if you fail to present your evidence or a logically sound argument that's not fine, because we then get 20 + page's of dodgem's and gainsay.

And with that and your inevitable failure to answer the question, yet again, I'm done... Feel free to have the last word (shame it won't be an answer).

 

[Peterkin]

7 hours ago, beecee said:

Morality is decided by the consquences of one's action/s.

Right. If you get the desired results (assuming your society still desires those same results by the time you do get them) you did the right thing. If you fail to get the desired results, you did the wrong thing. You can, therefore, never choose a course of action according to your own moral compass, but rather according to a statistical calculation of the odds for and against the desired outcome. As long as all the variables in a situation are given in a thought-experiment format, you should do just fine.  

[beecee]

4 hours ago, dimreepr said:

It must be very comforting too be absolutely certain, of what you believe... 😇

It's not certainty in what I believe old friend, its certainty in certain events.

5 hours ago, dimreepr said:

This isn't a playground "I know you are, but what am I"; I'm not demanding anything, I'm asking a question that's fundamental to the topic.

 Your question has been answered, and really your rhetoric to avoid appearing hypocritical, is not really working.

5 hours ago, dimreepr said:

If you don't want to answer that's fine, discussion over, but this is a discussion on a science site, IOW you present your evidence and we question it; if you fail to present your evidence or a logically sound argument that's not fine, because we then get 20 + page's of dodgem's and gainsay.

And with that and your inevitable failure to answer the question, yet again, I'm done... Feel free to have the last word (shame it won't be an answer).

Again your question has been answered, and there's no way I will be forced at your coercion to answer it again. The shoe's on the other foot now dimmy.

2 hours ago, Peterkin said:

Right. If you get the desired results (assuming your society still desires those same results by the time you do get them) you did the right thing. If you fail to get the desired results, you did the wrong thing. 

 Wrong old mate, again. Either way, success or failure, there is only morally one course of action, as I have explained and linked to various summaries many times. That is when all avenues to extract information that will potentially save thousands of human lives, then it is morally acceptable to use torture in such extraordinary events.

[Peterkin]

10 hours ago, beecee said:

Morality is decided by the consquences of one's action/s.

So, which is it? Consequences or hoped-for outcome?

43 minutes ago, beecee said:

Either way, success or failure, there is only morally one course of action

Those are two different sets of consequences.

[beecee]

5 minutes ago, Peterkin said:

So, which is it? Consequences or hoped-for outcome?

What do you think?

6 minutes ago, Peterkin said:

Those are two different sets of consequences.

Obviously so? What does your old book on philosophy tell you to say about that? I'll wait while you check.

Again despite the obvious pretentious ignorance, Either way, success or failure, there is only morally one course of action.  That is when all avenues to extract information that will potentially save thousands of human lives, then it is morally acceptable to use torture in such extraordinary events. You know, that which you admit doing yourself.