Is Torture Ever Right ?

[Peterkin]

17 minutes ago, beecee said:

Yes to all three of course. Prevent further crime, gain necessary info, and extracting a confession that may save innocent lives. Do you have any problem with that?

No, because that's what I said it was used for.

Then you said,

1 hour ago, beecee said:

No wrong again, certainly not exclusively.

So I asked: what else?

What was I wrong about? And how did that quote apply to what I was wrong about?

[beecee]

55 minutes ago, Peterkin said:

No, because that's what I said it was used for.

Yes, the morally correct solution for using torture.

55 minutes ago, Peterkin said:

Then you said,

Yep I certainly did, but in answer to the following.....

55 minutes ago, Peterkin said:

"Except in a carefully scripted thought-experiment, guilt is not established at the outset. The people who torture know this; they're looking for a shortcut to the desired result, whether that's preventing a further crime, gaining information about the prisoner's accomplices or extracting a confession".

Nothing carefully scripted about it at all and a disitnct possibility. 

The following again from the encyclopedia of philosophy Stanford.

4 The Moral Justification for Legalised and Institutionalised Torture

"We have seen that there are likely to exist, in the real world, one-off emergency situations in which arguably torture is, all things considered, the morally best action to perform. It may seem to follow that institutional arrangements should be in place to facilitate torture in such situations. However, it is perfectly consistent to concede that torture might be morally justifiable in certain one-off emergency situations and yet oppose any legalization or institutionalization of torture".

56 minutes ago, Peterkin said:

What was I wrong about? And how did that quote apply to what I was wrong about?

(1) Nothing carefully scripted about it at all, as your cynical reply infers. (2) The guilt is established sometimes 100%, other times beyond all reasonable doubt. (3) No silly inferred shortcut at all, simply the only alternative left, as dictated by the criminal/terrorist himself in refusing to divulge the info under normal enducements, like a cuppa tea and a biscuit. (4) the "looking for the desired result" is the morally correct way to go. Why do you appear to be questioning that, when you yourself have admitted it deserves consideration? You appear to be arguing simply for arguments sake? 

[Peterkin]

27 minutes ago, beecee said:

(1) Nothing carefully scripted about it at all, as your cynical reply infers. (2) The guilt is established sometimes 100%, other times beyond all reasonable doubt. (3) No silly inferred shortcut at all, simply the only alternative left, as dictated by the criminal/terrorist himself in refusing to divulge the info under normal enducements, like a cuppa tea and a biscuit. (4) the "looking for the desired result" is the morally correct way to go.

I see. Nothing more than the reasons I enumerated. And no guarantee of getting the desired results. Not a shortcut, just a lot faster than gathering admissible evidence.

Unfortunately, if it's not scripted, you cannot be certain of the prisoner's guilt, nor that he has the information you seek. So "beyond reasonable doubt" is in the estimation of the torturer. And the torturer can be any police officer or intelligence agent - not just the smart, tolerant, ethical ones.

The odds of getting the desired result diminish in direct proportion to your departure from the script.

Quote

Why do you appear to be questioning that, when you yourself have admitted it deserves consideration?

This is consideration. Because real life is just too unscripted for instant, absolute answers. (Plus, I'm obtuse.) 

[beecee]

1 hour ago, Peterkin said:

I see. Nothing more than the reasons I enumerated. And no guarantee of getting the desired results. Not a shortcut, just a lot faster than gathering admissible evidence.

Your speaking in circles. The fact is getting the desired results or not, does not invalidate the morally correct decision in trying all avenues open including torture that you have agreed to.

1 hour ago, Peterkin said:

Unfortunately, if it's not scripted, you cannot be certain of the prisoner's guilt, nor that he has the information you seek. So "beyond reasonable doubt" is in the estimation of the torturer. And the torturer can be any police officer or intelligence agent - not just the smart, tolerant, ethical ones.

Of course you can be certain. Check out the justice/punishment thread and the low life that was caught raping the little girl and stabbed one of her rescuers...and of course in either of the terrorist or the kidnapper, circumstances can certainly point to 100% guilty. eg: openly and defiantly admitting to the crimes, trying to goad the authorities to solve. I won't raise the Stanford Philosophy encyclopedia reference again.

1 hour ago, Peterkin said:

The odds of getting the desired result diminish in direct proportion to your departure from the script.

So? You yourself have already agreed you would still consider it. Certainty of guilt, beyond reasonable doubt are good enough for me, considering what is at stake.

1 hour ago, Peterkin said:

This is consideration. Because real life is just too unscripted for instant, absolute answers. (Plus, I'm obtuse.) 

A shame it, (real ife) isn't as scripted as you and dimmy appear to be. 🙄 Understandable in many respects why respectable scientists have been so cynical of philosophy of late.

[beecee]

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

 Richard Posner, a judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, wrote:

"If torture is the only means of obtaining the information necessary to prevent the detonation of a nuclear bomb in Times Square, torture should be used – and will be used – to obtain the information. ... no one who doubts that this is the case should be in a position of responsibility".

LLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL

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

 

Richard Allen Posner (/ˈpoʊznər/; born January 11, 1939) is an American jurist and law and economics scholar who served as a federal appellate judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit from 1981 to 2017.[1] A senior lecturer at the University of Chicago Law School, Posner is a leading figure in the field of law and economics, and was identified by The Journal of Legal Studies as the most cited legal scholar of the 20th century.[2] He is widely considered to be one of the most influential legal scholars in the United States.[3][4][5][6][7]

Posner is known for his scholarly range and for writing on topics outside of his primary field, law. In his various writings and books, he has addressed animal rights, feminism, drug prohibition, same-sex marriage, Keynesian economics, and academic moral philosophy, among other subjects.

Posner is the author of nearly 40 books on jurisprudence, economics, and several other topics, including Economic Analysis of Law, The Economics of Justice, The Problems of Jurisprudence, Sex and Reason, Law, Pragmatism and Democracy, and The Crisis of Capitalist Democracy. Posner has generally been identified as being politically conservative; however, in recent years he has distanced himself from the positions of the Republican party,[8] authoring more liberal rulings involving same-sex marriage and abortion.[9][10] In A Failure of Capitalism, he has written that the 2008 financial crisis has caused him to question the rational-choice, laissez-faire economic model that lies at the heart of his law and economics theory.

https://ala-choice.libguides.com/c.php?g=771995&p=5537297

One of the most well-known proponents of this position is lawyer Alan Dershowitz. In Why Terrorism Works: Understanding the Threat, Responding to the Challenge, he argues that because terrorism is a particular kind of threat, it requires a particular kind of response. He believes that torture can be effective, and that there are circumstances, like the TTB, when it should be utilized. So that torture does not become a widespread, unregulated practice, Dershowitz proposes the use of torture warrants, by which interrogators would first have to demonstrate its necessity to a judge. Mirko Bagaric and Julie Clarke make a similar argument in Torture: When the Unthinkable Is Morally Permissible, claiming that an absolute ban on torture is unrealistic because there can be no absolutes. Instead, a utilitarian perspective must be employed to deliberate the use of torture that considers the number of lives at risk, how soon the harm to those lives will take place, and if other avenues for acquiring information are realistic.

LLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL

 

 

[beecee]

https://repository.usfca.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1124&context=usflawreview

Not Enough Official Torture in the World? The Circumstances in Which Torture Is Morally Justifiable:

RECENT EVENTS stemming from the "war on terrorism" have highlighted the prevalence of torture, both as an interrogation technique and as a punitive measure. 1 Torture is almost universally deplored. It is prohibited by international law and is not officially sanctioned by the domestic laws of any state. 2 The formal prohibition against torture is absolute-there are no exceptions to it. This is not only pragmatically unrealistic, but unsound at a normative level. Despite the absolute ban on torture, it is widely used. Contrary to common belief, torture is not the preserve of despot military regimes in third world nations. For example, there are serious concerns regarding the treatment by the United States of senior Al Qaeda leader Khalid Shaikh Mohammad. 3 There is also irrefutable evidence that the United States tortured large numbers of Iraqi prisoners, as well as strong evidence that it tortured prisoners at Guantanamo Bay prison in Cuba, where suspected Al Qaeda terrorists are held.4 More generally Professor Alan Dershowitz has noted, "[C] ountries all over the world violate the Geneva Accords [prohibiting torture]. They do it secretly and hypothetically, the way the French did it in Algeria. 5

extract: 

"The Circumstances in Which Torture Is Acceptable The only situation where torture is justifiable is where it is used as an information gathering technique to avert a grave risk. In such circumstances, there are five variables relevant in determining whether torture is permissible and the degree of torture that is appropriate. The variables are (1) the number of lives at risk; (2) the immediacy of the harm; (3) the availability of other means to acquire the information; (4) the level of wrongdoing of the agent; and (5) the likelihood that the agent actually does possess the relevant information. Where (1), (2), (4) and (5) rate highly and (3) is low, all forms of harm may be inflicted on the agent-even if this results in death".

Conclusion:

The absolute prohibition against torture is morally unsound and pragmatically unworkable. There is a need for measured discussion regarding the merits of torture as an information gathering device. This would result in the legal use of torture in circumstances where there are a large number of lives at risk in the immediate future and there is no other means of alleviating the threat. While none of the recent high profile cases of torture appear to satisfy these criteria, it is likely that circumstances will arise in the future where torture is legitimate and desirable. A legal framework should be established to properly accommodate these situations.

[joigus]

21 hours ago, beecee said:

"If torture is the only means of obtaining the information necessary to prevent the detonation of a nuclear bomb in Times Square, torture should be used – and will be used – to obtain the information. ... no one who doubts that this is the case should be in a position of responsibility".

 

I'm going to build an argument that's completely isomorphic to this --no matter how scholarly-- silly idea:

If sacrificing a virgin is the only means of avoiding a natural catastrophe that would wipe out thousands of lives, sacrificing a virgin should be used --and will be used-- to obtain the desired results... No one who doubts that this is the case should be in a position of responsibility.

Another isomorphism:

A chain is as strong as its weakest link.

An argument is as weak as the validity of the "if" it rests on.

[TheVat]

I suspect that the empirical evidence for efficacy of torture is roughly on a par with the evidence for the efficacy of virgin sacrifice.

 

[zapatos]

19 minutes ago, TheVat said:

I suspect that the empirical evidence for efficacy of torture is roughly on a par with the evidence for the efficacy of virgin sacrifice.

 

I imagine that the efficacy of torture is closely tied to how much pain a person is willing to accept for the piece of information that the torturer is hoping to extract. (Among other factors of course.)

If you strongly believe in your cause, and giving up the the information would be a huge blow to that cause, then more pain will be accepted. The less you believe in your cause, and conversely if the relative value of the information to be divulged is small, then less pain will be accepted.

 

[Peterkin]

4 hours ago, zapatos said:

I imagine that the efficacy of torture is closely tied to how much pain a person is willing to accept for the piece of information that the torturer is hoping to extract.

Willingness isn't the key ingredient. Nobody except some fabled yogis, who would never be suspected, let alone detained, can control his or her own pain-threshold. And torture isn't necessarily about pain; it can be about fear: people can't control their phobias.

A much biggest problem is not knowing what the torturer wants to hear.  

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kzw1_2b-I7A

My problem is lack of faith.

I don't believe in the infallibility of law-enforcement agents, in the accuracy of information extracted through coercion, in the suspect's absolute 100% guilt - I simply don't have faith in the script. 

I trust - guardedly - forensic science and painstaking detection technique. I trust - with reservations - due legal process and laws crafted by jurists in good standing. 

Anything beyond the evidence I can prove scientifically is theory, guesswork, hunch, gut feeling, speculation, gamble, faith, voodoo.   

Edited March 5, 2022 by Peterkin

[beecee]

5 hours ago, Peterkin said:

A much biggest problem is not knowing what the torturer wants to hear.  

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kzw1_2b-I7A

My problem is lack of faith.

I don't believe in the infallibility of law-enforcement agents, in the accuracy of information extracted through coercion, in the suspect's absolute 100% guilt - I simply don't have faith in the script. 

I trust - guardedly - forensic science and painstaking detection technique. I trust - with reservations - due legal process and laws crafted by jurists in good standing. 

Anything beyond the evidence I can prove scientifically is theory, guesswork, hunch, gut feeling, speculation, gamble, faith, voodoo.   

Your problem is "fence sitting" and trying to be pretentiously philsophical, with argument for argument sake, considering you have said you would consider it yourself.

I also have far more belief in the law and authority, in getting what is required, then simply creating what if and what about scenarios. The criminal, the kidnapper, the terrorist, has set his own bacement moral levels. 

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

 Richard Posner, a judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, wrote:

"If torture is the only means of obtaining the information necessary to prevent the detonation of a nuclear bomb in Times Square, torture should be used – and will be used – to obtain the information. ... no one who doubts that this is the case should be in a position of responsibility".

[zapatos]

8 hours ago, Peterkin said:

Nobody except some fabled yogis, who would never be suspected, let alone detained, can control his or her own pain-threshold.

And yet torture is ineffective. Go figure.

[Peterkin]

4 hours ago, beecee said:

Your problem is "fence sitting" and trying to be pretentiously philsophical, with argument for argument sake, considering you have said you would consider it yourself.

No problem. I'm fine with that.

[dimreepr]

On 3/3/2022 at 7:55 PM, beecee said:

Not at all, particularly if he choses to play the arrogant evil low life. And in the circumstances, my sympathies lie with the possible rescue of the child, not with some kidnapper and possible rapist/pedaphile, who has set his or her morality bar at trash can level.

I don't know how else to explain it to you!!!

You can't know for certain, the guilt of anyone, even if you witnessed it yourself; we all know how dodgy witness testimonials can be.

So let me be clear, even if I witnessed the crime and I'm a natural torturerer and a psychologist, I can't be sure of his guilt.

So no, it's never OK to torture; it could be me, you know a human being...

On 3/5/2022 at 2:18 PM, zapatos said:

And yet torture is ineffective. Go figure.

The fundamental question isn't that torture is ineffective, it's when can we know?

On 3/2/2022 at 7:56 PM, beecee said:

 No, I don't need to crunch the numbers, that's simply your  ploy to somehow paint me into a corner,

It's not a ploy, it's you doing the painting... 😉

[beecee]

5 hours ago, dimreepr said:

I don't know how else to explain it to you!!!

You can't know for certain, the guilt of anyone, even if you witnessed it yourself; we all know how dodgy witness testimonials can be.

So let me be clear, even if I witnessed the crime and I'm a natural torturerer and a psychologist, I can't be sure of his guilt.That's because you havn't a case

That's because you basically havn't a case to put.

We certainly can know for certain a person's guilt, as I have explained and detailed. And even if we couldn't know for 100% certain, (which we can) beyond any reasonable doubt suffices, your rather "soft" philosophical objections not withstanding. 

The following again from the encyclopedia of philosophy Stanford.

4 The Moral Justification for Legalised and Institutionalised Torture

"We have seen that there are likely to exist, in the real world, one-off emergency situations in which arguably torture is, all things considered, the morally best action to perform. It may seem to follow that institutional arrangements should be in place to facilitate torture in such situations. However, it is perfectly consistent to concede that torture might be morally justifiable in certain one-off emergency situations and yet oppose any legalization or institutionalization of torture".

5 hours ago, dimreepr said:

It's not a ploy, it's you doing the painting... 😉

More to the point, it's you attempting to push again, your essentially unworkable and mythical passive nonsense. I was going to ask you your thoughts on Putin, but I already know the answer to that one, after you volunteered your thoughts on Hitler in that other thread.. 

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

 Richard Posner, a judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, wrote:

"If torture is the only means of obtaining the information necessary to prevent the detonation of a nuclear bomb in Times Square, torture should be used – and will be used – to obtain the information. ... no one who doubts that this is the case should be in a position of responsibility".

Edited March 7, 2022 by beecee

[dimreepr]

16 hours ago, beecee said:

That's because you basically havn't a case to put.

We certainly can know for certain a person's guilt, as I have explained and detailed. And even if we couldn't know for 100% certain, (which we can) beyond any reasonable doubt suffices, your rather "soft" philosophical objections not withstanding. 

Even if you witness the crime, you can't be sure of what you've seen.

 

[dimreepr]

17 hours ago, beecee said:

More to the point, it's you attempting to push again, your essentially unworkable and mythical passive nonsense.

You should know how it work's here by now; it's not enough to just claim your intuition is better than science, you have to provide some evidence.

By which I mean data, not anecdotal media coverage, but a ted talk would be a start...

18 hours ago, beecee said:

I was going to ask you your thoughts on Putin, but I already know the answer to that one, after you volunteered your thoughts on Hitler in that other thread.. 

My thought's on Putin is, he reminded me of you:

100% certain he is right, dispite the evidence.

Convinced that force will work, dispite history.

Is that the answer you expected?

Because the answer you're refrencing is "Hilter didn't kill anyone, he persuaded others to kill for him."... 😉

[beecee]

7 hours ago, dimreepr said:

Even if you witness the crime, you can't be sure of what you've seen.

Even if you have been stabbed in the process of rescuing a little girl being raped. 🤮

"There is no statement so absurd that no philosopher will make it."

Cicero, Marcus Tullius (106-43 BCE) Roman statesman. De Divinatione (or even a pretend philosopher 😅)

6 hours ago, dimreepr said:

You should know how it work's here by now; it's not enough to just claim your intuition is better than science, you have to provide some evidence.

By which I mean data, not anecdotal media coverage, but a ted talk would be a start...

I know how it works, and I know how you work with your pretentious "feel good" unworkable philosophy. Media coverage???...remember telling lies makes little baby Jesus cry. 😉

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

 Richard Posner, a judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, wrote:

"If torture is the only means of obtaining the information necessary to prevent the detonation of a nuclear bomb in Times Square, torture should be used – and will be used – to obtain the information. ... no one who doubts that this is the case should be in a position of respons.

 

encyclopedia of philosophy Stanford.

4 The Moral Justification for Legalised and Institutionalised Torture

"We have seen that there are likely to exist, in the real world, one-off emergency situations in which arguably torture is, all things considered, the morally best action to perform. It may seem to follow that institutional arrangements should be in place to facilitate torture in such situations. However, it is perfectly consistent to concede that torture might be morally justifiable in certain one-off emergency situations and yet oppose any legalization or institutionalization of torture".

::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

6 hours ago, dimreepr said:

My thought's on Putin is, he reminded me of you:

100% certain he is right, dispite the evidence.

My knowledge of you and your silly unworkable philosophy is that you would probably sympathise with Putin and make some excuse re hard times etc, just as you did for Hitler.

When you show me evidence that you have anything at all going for your unworkable position, then I will look at it.Evidence? 😄 All I'm hearing is what if's, but maybe, and of course your never ending sympathies towards the criminals, terrorists, kidnappers, rather then the victims. I truly doubt any reasonable society would support your nonsense, and obviously that's why we still have jails, and always will.

6 hours ago, dimreepr said:

Convinced that force will work, dispite history.

Is that the answer you expected?

 

Of course its not the answer I expected. You prefer to hide your opinion/feelings behind your usual philsophical jargon, because it would probably create a furore. Your true feelings are highlighted above. My feelings on Putin are of course more aligned with reality, and as I have at least expressed in an appropriate thread.

6 hours ago, dimreepr said:

Because the answer you're refrencing is "Hilter didn't kill anyone, he persuaded others to kill for him."... 😉

Hitler didn't kill anyone??? I'm certainly not going where you dragged that doozy from! Irrespective, Hitler of course was amongst the world's most revilled dictators, in the same ilk as Idi Amin, and Ghadaffi, and was the instigator of WW2 and the holocaust. It is down in print what I think of Hitler and Putin. I havn't seen too much from you, other then excuses, excuses, and more excuses. 

Edited March 8, 2022 by beecee

[dimreepr]

17 hours ago, beecee said:

I know how it works, and I know how you work with your pretentious "feel good" unworkable philosophy. Media coverage???...remember telling lies makes little baby Jesus cry. 😉

 

17 hours ago, beecee said:

"There is no statement so absurd that no philosopher will make it."

Cicero, Marcus Tullius (106-43 BCE) Roman statesman. De Divinatione (or even a pretend philosopher 😅)

17 hours ago, beecee said:

encyclopedia of philosophy Stanford.

4 The Moral Justification for Legalised and Institutionalised Torture

"We have seen that there are likely to exist, in the real world, one-off emergency situations in which arguably torture is, all things considered, the morally best action to perform. It may seem to follow that institutional arrangements should be in place to facilitate torture in such situations. However, it is perfectly consistent to concede that torture might be morally justifiable in certain one-off emergency situations and yet oppose any legalization or institutionalization of torture".

I'll leave you to work out why I'm sending you a bill for a new irony meter.

17 hours ago, beecee said:

My knowledge of you and your silly unworkable philosophy is that you would probably sympathise with Putin and make some excuse re hard times etc, just as you did for Hitler.

Way to miss the point, yet again, I'm not making excuses for anyone, I sympathise with the suffering that drove them, not the men they became. Putin reminded me of you, because people like you won't listen to reason (because you've been convinced by circumstance that you can't be wrong) and because your both people (innocent babies once upon a time...)

17 hours ago, beecee said:

Hitler didn't kill anyone??? I'm certainly not going where you dragged that doozy from! Irrespective, Hitler of course was amongst the world's most revilled dictators,

Now who's being obtuse?

Hitler never physically (hand's on) killed anyone, he never pulled the trigger and he probably never actually witnessed a person die.

He persuaded ordinary people, like you and me, to do the dirty work, torture, genocide, murder etc. etc.

Edited March 9, 2022 by dimreepr

[beecee]

8 hours ago, dimreepr said:

I'll leave you to work out why I'm sending you a bill for a new irony meter.

Actually the irony is on you, as others have noted.

8 hours ago, dimreepr said:

way to miss the point, yet again, I'm not making excuses for anyone, I sympathise with the suffering that drove them, not the men they became. Putin reminded me of you, because people like you won't listen to reason (because you've been convinced by circumstance that you can't be wrong) and because your both people (innocent babies once upon a time...)

☺️ Of course you are, as you have just admitted. We were all innocent babies at one time, and near all of us have had our ups and downs, and most of us are man enough, and strong enough to not take the easy way out as you have.

On me being wrong...of course I am wrong on many things, many times, as I openly admitted on this forum, instead of remaining silent as you have, or go all cryptic as you often do and as others have noted. But yes, I am certainly not wrong on the aspect of morality of saving a child or thousands of other innocents, that you would sacrifice for the sake of this weird unworkable philsophy you are obsessed with. Which raises a interesting thought...if we could time travel to the past, would it be morally acceptable to kill Hitler as a baby? 

8 hours ago, dimreepr said:

Now who's being obtuse?

Have you a mirror at home?

8 hours ago, dimreepr said:

Hitler never physically (hand's on) killed anyone, he never pulled the trigger and he probably never actually witnessed a person die.

Do you have any valid evidence to support that "drag it out of your arse, absolute statement"? Have you forgotten, Hitler was in WW1. How do you know he didn't kill anyone? C'mon dimmy, you make plenty of absolute claims, and cryptic nonsense, along with your rather funny cartoons, but never any real life, reputable link to support your claims.

8 hours ago, dimreepr said:

He persuaded ordinary people, like you and me, to do the dirty work, torture, genocide, murder etc. etc.

Yes, other ordinary people like you, who when the war ended, were captured, (if they had not taken the coward's way out and commited suicide) and most executed and/or jailed for a very long time...jails, you know, those things you want abolished...😏 Most of course were powerless and during those hard times between world wars, were not too concerned with his underlying philsophy...not that that can be seen as an excuse.

Irrespective though, and back on track, 

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

 Richard Posner, a judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, wrote:

"If torture is the only means of obtaining the information necessary to prevent the detonation of a nuclear bomb in Times Square, torture should be used – and will be used –  to obtain the information. ... no one who doubts that this is the case should be in a position of responsibility.

or...................

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/15027570.2019.1627033?journalCode=smil20

ABSTRACT:

Torture requires careful definition, because of the degree to which its definition often entails its moral condemnation. Torture involves the deliberate infliction of (intense) pain for coercive or punishment reasons. While emphasizing that the act of torture is indeed naturally seen as repulsive and ideally should not take place, I offer a non-utilitarian argument to ethically justify torture in specific kinds of interrogative cases. This argument closely examines the moral isomorphism between cases of immediate and delayed self-defense, showing that in both cases lethal force is justified. I further show that, once one’s life is forfeit, one’s other rights pertaining to the defense of one’s intended victims are likewise forfeit. As such, any form of interrogative torture necessary to procuring relevant information from persons involved in a lethal attack upon innocent persons is ethically justified. However, that an action is strictly ethically justified does not entail that it ought to be generally adopted. Several potent constitutional and sociological concerns are raised and considered.

:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

Not sure why you (dimreeper) is trying to force your unworkable and generally debunked philsophy down my throat, but it isn't and won't work. I maintain as per the last abstract above as a valid and morally acceptable. 

Now dimpreeper would you like to tell me why maintaining your considerations for kidnappers, pedaphiles, terrorists, and criminals in general, should over-ride all avenues of saving innocent lives that could mount into the thousands. These same kidnappers, pedaphiles, terrorists, and criminals, have rejected all morally decent aspects of the society they belong to, and are threatening thousands of innocent lives. Will you answer that for me? Or will you as usual, ignore it and give us more irrelevant cartoons, and unworkable philsophical dogma, just so you can avoid admitting you are wrong.  

Edited March 9, 2022 by beecee

[beecee]

Thought this may be appropriate for this (and probably others) thread......

 

 

[iNow]

If torture’s not right, then this thread should’ve been closed or left to die long ago!

 

/rimshot

[dimreepr]

[dimreepr]

18 hours ago, beecee said:

Now dimpreeper would you like to tell me why maintaining your considerations for kidnappers, pedaphiles, terrorists, and criminals in general, should over-ride all avenues of saving innocent lives that could mount into the thousands. These same kidnappers, pedaphiles, terrorists, and criminals, have rejected all morally decent aspects of the society they belong to, and are threatening thousands of innocent lives. Will you answer that for me? Or will you as usual, ignore it and give us more irrelevant cartoons, and unworkable philsophical dogma, just so you can avoid admitting you are wrong. 

 

[beecee]

12 hours ago, dimreepr said:

And you do an admirable job of that.

15 hours ago, iNow said:

If torture’s not right, then this thread should’ve been closed or left to die long ago!

Agreed......

5 hours ago, dimreepr said:

Hitler never physically (hand's on) killed anyone, he never pulled the trigger and he probably never actually witnessed a person die.

Do you have any valid evidence to support that "drag it out of your arse, absolute statement"? Have you forgotten, Hitler was in WW1. How do you know he didn't kill anyone? C'mon dimmy, you make plenty of absolute claims, and cryptic nonsense, along with your rather funny cartoons, but never any real life, reputable link to support your claims.