Is Torture Ever Right ?

[dimreepr]

[beecee]

2 hours ago, MSC said:

I dunno, I find that most dialogues tend to end up as either an exercise in colliding philosophies or actual colliding people following different philosophies, whether the people in them would call themselves philosophers or not. I call it the war of the words sometimes. Simply out of a lack of anything better to call it really. For those of us here, self-interested philosophy permitting indulgence in our worst selves is the true enemy. 

You make the choice, colliding philsophies, or colliding "pretend" philsophers, noting that I don't really see myself as a philsopher. My only concern rests with the innocent potential victims.

2 hours ago, MSC said:

There is one last argument I would like to make in regards to why I think torture is wrong in any situation. As a torturer or someone with the power to command others to torture, you have absolute power over someone.Today we justify the torture of a terrorist in an extreme situation, tomorrow we justify torture for another terrorist who isn't an active threat. Where could it end? Torturing a starving man for stealing bread? Absolute power corrupts absolutely.

Are you sure? Are you sure he will confess? It appears the he has the power of life and death with regards to a whole heap of innocent potential victims. And say you do finally make him speak and reveal the whereabouts of the child and/or the thousands of potential bomb victims. Isn't that scenario of saving lives vastly philosophically and morally ethically superior to some imagined power feeling? In the current  scenarios  under discussion, with thousands of lives at stake, is it even reasonable to suggest that any egotistical feelings of power would ever eventuate? No single figure of authority would be making that decision anyway I suggest. 

3 hours ago, MSC said:

Today we justify the torture of a terrorist in an extreme situation, tomorrow we justify torture for another terrorist who isn't an active threat. Where could it end? Torturing a starving man for stealing bread? Absolute power corrupts absolutely.

Absolute power is not in the question. We are talking about rare circumstances where consideration should be given of extreme means to gain information to save innocent lives, after all else has been tried and failed. We are speaking of westernised democratic societies where absolute power does not exist, and the banning of torture is part of the laws of that country....under normal everyday conditions. And of course when people start waxxing lyrical about various other scenarios,and what if's and perhap's  and exaggerated rhetoric about torturing someone for stealing a loaf of bread, is when I start to see the critical side of philsophy when taken too far.

3 hours ago, MSC said:

The whole colliding philosophies thing is aggravating for sure. This is why I am a pragmatic contextualist. I try to find the value of every philosophical view, whether it is from right reasons or right emotional sentiment. Within strict pragmatic definitions of knowledge. It's not perfect, no philosophy ever will be, but I do find that so far, contextualism is the most scientifically minded philosophy, in that it seeks to account for and explain why philosophical differences and debates occur in the first place and finding out where they fit in the grand scheme of things. The goal is to have some kind of framework that does for philosophy what the standard model of physics, does for physics. Probably not completely correct in the long run, but helps us reach feasible explanations we can use to our benefit now. By observing just what the fuck is actually out there. 

On the highlighted part by me, sadly I don't think that can ever eventuate...the soft sciences will always find it difficult to establish proper measurable quantities and interpret human behaviour on the basis of scientific investigations. We are emotional creatures and while those emotions can be put aside for the hard stuff like physics, chemistry, cosmology, the soft sciences are controlled by those emotions to a great extent.

 

[Intoscience]

3 hours ago, MSC said:

I dunno, I find that most dialogues tend to end up as either an exercise in colliding philosophies or actual colliding people following different philosophies, whether the people in them would call themselves philosophers or not. I call it the war of the words sometimes. Simply out of a lack of anything better to call it really. For those of us here, self-interested philosophy permitting indulgence in our worst selves is the true enemy. 

The thing that unites us all, is that the prospect of having to authorize or carry out torture would give each of us extreme pause. Which I feel is good. Far better than the sinister types who use words as a weapon to do whatever they please, at the expense of others. The types of people who would jump at the chance for the very idea of legally being allowed to torture someone or to have them tortured. 

There is one last argument I would like to make in regards to why I think torture is wrong in any situation. As a torturer or someone with the power to command others to torture, you have absolute power over someone. Power is always intoxicating. Whether it comes from money, influence or control. Today we justify the torture of a terrorist in an extreme situation, tomorrow we justify torture for another terrorist who isn't an active threat. Where could it end? Torturing a starving man for stealing bread? Absolute power corrupts absolutely. The thing that frightens me, as a human, is that I don't know the answer to these following questions; if I engaged in torturing someone, if all 7billion+ people on this planet begged me to do it and I did... would there be some part of me, small or large, that enjoys it? Would it change me? Would it make it easier for me to do things that the me of today would abhore? 

The whole colliding philosophies thing is aggravating for sure. This is why I am a pragmatic contextualist. I try to find the value of every philosophical view, whether it is from right reasons or right emotional sentiment. Within strict pragmatic definitions of knowledge. It's not perfect, no philosophy ever will be, but I do find that so far, contextualism is the most scientifically minded philosophy, in that it seeks to account for and explain why philosophical differences and debates occur in the first place and finding out where they fit in the grand scheme of things. The goal is to have some kind of framework that does for philosophy what the standard model of physics, does for physics. Probably not completely correct in the long run, but helps us reach feasible explanations we can use to our benefit now. By observing just what the fuck is actually out there. 

 

Nice post, 

"would there be some part of me, small or large, that enjoys it? Would it change me? Would it make it easier for me to do things that the me of today would abhore? "

These are good questions, and some of us being totally honest, may not like the answer to some.

It would definitely change you, no doubt any sort of trauma would do so to any sane person. The act of torturing someone would be a very traumatic experience for most people. This is one of many considerations that should be taken into account. 

I'm trying not to focus too much on all the possible collateral damages in consideration for the use of torture it can and does (in my opinion) over complicates the question. In answering the OP I just focus on a thought experiment where the circumstances could be possible regardless how unlikely. If there is just one scenario where using torture can be justified, regardless how wrong this act may be, then the answer to the OP is (in my opinion) yes. 

Much earlier in this thread I offered other examples of justifying doing a morally wrong act. But these where shot down as not comparable. - 

Is it ever right to kill someone? For me this presents the same moral issues. 

[MSC]

1 hour ago, beecee said:

We are emotional creatures and while those emotions can be put aside for the hard stuff like physics, chemistry, cosmology, the soft sciences are controlled by those emotions to a great extent

What exactly do you think the soft sciences are in your own words? Because I'm reading a lot of bias and misunderstandings in your answers.

[dimreepr]

4 hours ago, Intoscience said:

I'm trying not to focus too much on all the possible collateral damages in consideration for the use of torture it can and does (in my opinion) over complicates the question. In answering the OP I just focus on a thought experiment where the circumstances could be possible regardless how unlikely. If there is just one scenario where using torture can be justified, regardless how wrong this act may be, then the answer to the OP is (in my opinion) yes. 

The problem is, how can we know "when all else has failed"?

It's not, the probability of a set of circumstances that resulted in success; it's not, that the OP's thought experiment, will never happen... It's how can we know when it will happen?

If you can answer that question, then torture can be the morally justified answer...

[Intoscience]

14 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

The problem is, how can we know "when all else has failed"?

It's not, the probability of a set of circumstances that resulted in success; it's not, that the OP's thought experiment, will never happen... It's how can we know when it will happen?

If you can answer that question, then torture can be the morally justified answer...

I think the question is a little open ended, you know for certain all has failed when the victims lose their lives. 

So in answer I will engage with you as follows:

When all else that is knowingly at your disposal within the time frame remaining. 

The bomb is ticking and time is nearly up, you have the choice to cut a wire or not. Don't cut the wire and you are guaranteed death, choose and cut a wire and you have a chance of either living or dying. Given that at this stage you have no idea which wire will be the correct one you have the option to try, or accept the inevitable. 

I choose to cut a wire.   

[Peterkin]

22 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

The problem is, how can we know "when all else has failed"?

In each case, well before the window of opportunity is expected to close. In the two given scenarios presented here, that would be a few hours. The child will be murdered; the bomb will go off in a few hours. Given that it may, and probably will, take a couple of hours to extract the information under torture - in this instance, inexpert torture (because the alternative is too abhorrent to contemplate in an ethics thought-experiment), you have 1-4 hours to exhaust all other sources of information and avenues of investigation. Al else, in these situations, fails very quickly.   

[dimreepr]

33 minutes ago, Intoscience said:

I choose to cut a wire. 

Close your eye's first...

[Peterkin]

8 hours ago, beecee said:

No  more scripted then your own scenarios,

I didn't present scenarios. I explained about actual police and forensic procedure, about which I used to  know something. My practical experience is out of date now, but the jury-trial system hasn't changed and the statistics I cited are recent, both from the US and Australia. 

 

9 hours ago, beecee said:

Who would have thunk 9/11 was possible for example? 

Everybody who reads the news. Lots of people predicted something like it. When you set up a world order guaranteed to breed hate and political strife, and especially one where a small, powerless faction has no other recourse against a powerful state machinery, you can expect many examples of terrorist activity. What makes it effective is that  revolutionary cells are notoriously difficult to spy on, so the authorities can't prepare for all the forms in which terrorist activity will manifest. There are too many accessible targets. The White House and Pentagon were obvious targets, and there had been a previous attempt on the World Trade Center. The use of domestic flights and residences made it harder to forecast. The rise of Islamic militancy was not exactly news. 

9 hours ago, beecee said:

I was commenting on your apparent side step, or otherwise fecetious post as follows, again. 

That's not a game, that's a sigh of resignation. I am well cognizant of my place in the minority.

5 hours ago, Intoscience said:

If there is just one scenario where using torture can be justified, regardless how wrong this act may be, then the answer to the OP is (in my opinion) yes. 

Provided the agent on the scene correctly identifies his situation as that situation.... Which, of course, he always assumes is the case, if he has carte blanche.

 

5 hours ago, Intoscience said:

Is it ever right to kill someone? For me this presents the same moral issues. 

I don't think it's the same at all. I can think of no examples of mercy-torture, or torture in self-defence. This defence-of-others (howbeit the others in danger are not present) scenario is the only one the analagy covers. 

[MSC]

3 hours ago, Peterkin said:

That's not a game, that's a sigh of resignation. I am well cognizant of my place in the minority.

I still am failing to be convinced by Beecee that you are in the minority.

I also it ironic that while bashing philosophy in general, Beecee is behaving exactly like the most stubborn kind of philosopher. The kind that for all intents and purposes, agrees with you, but makes a mountain of a molehill in one or two nuanced differences. 

Ultimately, I think the unspoken but most influential difference in the views expressed here, is the crime prevention vs due process debate within criminal justice theory. A debate I personally find tedious because I really really don't like forced binary choices between two similarly important factors. 

Yes we want to prevent crime, but without due process, we cannot prevent crimes that can only be perpetrated by members of law enforcement. 

The whole torture idea being acceptable before a trial really is putting the cart before the horse, as you said earlier. Confession under duress is a great way to get a case thrown out completely. It's throwing away the chance for justice to be served and for evidence to be polluted by its proximity to a crime of moral turpitude. 

We all need to keep in mind; that if a person is found not guilty, they cannot be retried for the same crime unless new evidence comes to light. If you've already submitted the best evidence in the trial that was corrupted by law enforcement, then legally bringing the same charge to the person is going to be a massive hurdle to overcome. The consequences of this; a costlier and more time consuming process and the erosion of public trust in law enforcement or judicial institutions. 

When we say innocent until proven guilty, we really mean that guilt needs to be proved to a court. Not yourself, not law enforcement, a court. It doesn't matter if you alone personally witnessed irrefutable proof, like a crime in process. To a court, that is still just one person vs the word of another. A court doesn't know you, a court doesn't know if you are or are not trustworthy. 

I mean, if you ever find yourself in this improbably rare circumstance, and you think torture would be permissible and is the right thing to do, then do it. Just don't expect to get away with it. You'll still have your own court case after that and you can still go to prison for it, even if what you did could be argued as the right thing to do. Plenty of people have went to jail for doing what some would say was the right thing. If you are prepared to accept those consequences, then you must do what you think is right, just dont expect it all to go according to plan and don't expect people to look beyond your acts to a bigger picture, when you have in fact broken the law to do what you feel is right. 

Let's face it though, in most real situations, time is a massive factor to consider. A terrorists bomb can go off, long before you've exhausted all the less morally contentious means of interrogation. If there is genuinely enough time to try everything else first, then chances are the situation is nowhere near as urgent as it would need to be to justify torture. 

[beecee]

3 hours ago, Peterkin said:

I didn't present scenarios. I explained about actual police and forensic procedure, about which I used to  know something. My practical experience is out of date now, but the jury-trial system hasn't changed and the statistics I cited are recent, both from the US and Australia. 

Sure you did. We have 25 pages with probable examples and your police/forensic examples were non applicable. 

3 hours ago, Peterkin said:

Everybody who reads the news.

Then it shouldn't be too hard for you to give an example from a reputable source of course.  The first world tower attempt of course was nothing like the "who would have thunk it" methodology of 19 terrorists entering the USA, undertaking flying lessons, hijacking four planes, smashing into the Pentagon, and each of the towers. Luckily the fourth plane had some home made heros on board, who took things into their own hands, and averted more death and destruction. 

3 hours ago, Peterkin said:

The use of domestic flights and residences made it harder to forecast.

😊 You have an interesting round about way admitting someone was correct. 

3 hours ago, Peterkin said:

That's not a game, that's a sigh of resignation. I am well cognizant of my place in the minority.

Oh! OK. Interesting analogy if I may...at this time in Australia we have a very conservative Liberal government in power, who are operating on a "fuck you Jack, I'm alright" scenario. At least until the next election, I am in the minority as I voted for the Labor party. And if Labor fail to oust them at the next elections in a couple of months, I will still be in the minority, but certainly I will keep on working for the imo good cause, never resigned to anything less. 

4 hours ago, Peterkin said:

Provided the agent on the scene correctly identifies his situation as that situation.... Which, of course, he always assumes is the case, if he has carte blanche.

In Australia, we call that  "beating around the bush" or in Northern American english, avoiding the actual point...bringing up many myriads of examples and remote possibilities so that you can avoid talking about the important issue at hand or the actual subject matter. Plus of course getting back into the nitty gritty and actual circumstances, as I have mentioned many times, you have actually agreed with what me and Intoscience are putting to you. You agree you would do this lesser wrong. Although in my opinion, the lesser wrong actually becomes a "right" and is morally the correct decision to undertake.

4 hours ago, Peterkin said:

I don't think it's the same at all. I can think of no examples of mercy-torture, or torture in self-defence. This defence-of-others (howbeit the others in danger are not present) scenario is the only one the analagy covers. 

I agree with the sensible notion intoscience put....Is it right to kill someone? (answer no) 

Is torture OK? (answer no)

But circumstances can exist where either torture and/or killing, is the only option open. That's the question...that is the circumstances/ethics being discussed. That's an example of answering the question honestly, without beating around the bush.

5 minutes ago, MSC said:

I still am failing to be convinced by Beecee that you are in the minority.

My lifestyle and interactions and experiences over 77 years, tells me he is certainly in the minority.

6 minutes ago, MSC said:

I also it ironic that while bashing philosophy in general, Beecee is behaving exactly like the most stubborn kind of philosopher. The kind that for all intents and purposes, agrees with you, but makes a mountain of a molehill in one or two nuanced differences. 

Actually and evidently it is the opposite taking place. Peterkin agrees with me and has admitted to considering torture in rare one off scenarios, but is now only left with maintaining a purely philsophical argument against that. Bashing philsophy? ☺️

There are different philsophies being put with the scenarios in question. You are appearing to demand that yours is correct and mine is wrong? Which I interpret as a pretentious methodology of maintaining ethical and moral standings for a criminal/terrorist, and putting at risk the lives of thousands of innocent people?

I am certainly maintaining that irrespective of whatever means undertaken, those innocent lives deserve every chance possible.

[MSC]

6 minutes ago, beecee said:

In Australia, we call that  "beating around the bush" or in Northern American english, avoiding the actual point...bringing up many myriads of examples and remote possibilities so that you can avoid talking about the important issue at hand or the actual subject matter. Plus of course getting back into the nitty gritty and actual circumstances, as I have mentioned many times, you have actually agreed with what me and Intoscience are putting to you. You agree you would do this lesser wrong. Although in my opinion, the lesser wrong actually becomes a "right" and is morally the correct decision to undertake.

The first part of this kind of sounds like projection. Peterkin is arguing in good faith and is doing his best to keep you on track. At this point however, you've summoned an army of strawman and we all have chafe stuck in our teeth now. 

I also don't think you've understood what Intoscience is saying. To be clear, he's not agreeing with you, just observing that this topic isn't straightforward, rounding up the discussion and making a point to say good arguments and points have been raised by all sides of the debate. 

I also feel that it means little to point out that most of us have agreed we may engage in torture in very personal but rare circumstances, that is more of an admission of our human falibility. It's not an admission that it is the right thing to do, just that as humans, our self-control to do the right thing has its limits due to our emotional nature and our implicit and explicit biases. 

[beecee]

13 minutes ago, MSC said:

The first part of this kind of sounds like projection. Peterkin is arguing in good faith and is doing his best to keep you on track. At this point however, you've summoned an army of strawman and we all have chafe stuck in our teeth now.

You can misconstrue whatever you like. It's truly amazing how offended philsophers can be, when shown how airy fairy their actual discipline is...I have also shown an example or two of less then "good faith " arguments.....

Philosophy, n. A route of many roads leading from nowhere to nothing.Ambrose Bierce (1842-1914?) American writer. (The Devil's Dictionary, 1911)

Metaphysics is a dark ocean without shores or lighthouse, strewn with many a philosophic wreck. Immanuel Kant (1724-1804) German Philosopher

Philosophy of science is about as useful to scientists as ornithology is to birds. Attributed to Richard Feynman (1918-88) U.S. Physicist. Nobel Prize 1965.

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

Sorry MSC that you have chosen to take the road you have. You previously were making some sense and avoiding insults and condascending.

13 minutes ago, MSC said:

I also don't think you've understood what Intoscience is saying. To be clear, he's not agreeing with you, just observing that this topic isn't straightforward, rounding up the discussion and making a point to say good arguments and points have been raised by all sides of the debate. 

No, we emphatically do agree. We agree with the UN sanctions and laws against torture...we agree that irrespective of those sanctions and laws, that on rare occasions, situations can develop when torture is the only option left to avoid the demise of many innocent people. Of course those rare occasions are not straight foward. 

Edited March 22, 2022 by beecee

[MSC]

23 minutes ago, beecee said:

Actually and evidently it is the opposite taking place. Peterkin agrees with me and has admitted to considering torture in rare one off scenarios, but is now only left with maintaining a purely philsophical argument against that. Bashing philsophy? ☺️

There are different philsophies being put with the scenarios in question. You are appearing to demand that yours is correct and mine is wrong? Which I interpret as a pretentious methodology of maintaining ethical and moral standings for a criminal/terrorist, and putting at risk the lives of thousands of innocent people?

I am certainly maintaining that irrespective of whatever means undertaken, those innocent lives deserve every chance possible.

Nope, I'm not demanding anything. I am requesting that you address points raised by myself and others equitably. Ignoring the majority of them does nothing to convince others reading this that you are correct. I'd rather not assume that innocents would condone torture to save their lives. I'd also rather not torture a terrorist when I don't know if doing so will result in another retributive attack just for doing so. Resulting in more deaths. In a way, torturing them just makes it easier for others to view them as martyrs and gives weight, due or undue, to their claims that they are fighting against tyrants. 

The war on terror is just that, a war. You can't win every battle and some defeats are strategic. 

This bit is unrelated; but a new rule I've set for myself is to leave it at agreeing to disagree, before things get heated. Which is what I'm going to do now. I've said everything I need to say, if you can convince me that my points are moot, I'll respond again. Until then however take care and remember that this is just a place of open discussion, not a battleground and I bet nearly all of us here have no influence to action any of our suggestions or view points.

3 minutes ago, beecee said:

Metaphysics is a dark ocean without shores or lighthouse, strewn with many a philosophic wreck. Immanuel Kant

Just to be clear; Kant is a deontological ethicist. He personally believed in absolute rules. He once argued that it is always wrong to tell a lie. Even if someone gets hurt because of it. He would probably argue against torture too. Now, I actually agree with him and Wittgenstein on these critiques of metaphysics. Which are not critiques of philosophy. We also aren't discussing metaphysics here either. We are discussing ethics. Something which Kant very much believed in the importance of. 

8 minutes ago, beecee said:

Philosophy of science is about as useful to scientists as ornithology is to birds. Attributed to Richard Feynman (1918-88) U.S. Physicist. Nobel Prize 1965.

Scientists aren't birds and have the capacity to learn philosophy of science... 

9 minutes ago, beecee said:

It's truly amazing how offended philsophers can be, when shown how airy fairy their actual discipline is...I have also shown an example or two of less then "good faith " arguments.....

It's truly amazing how convinced some people can be, that they've actually shown that there is anything so wrong with philosophy, that the field can only be subject to ridicule. Talk about throwing out babies with the bathwater 😆 

Here is an idea for an experiment: Go to the physics section and start trying to do the same with physics. My prediction is that they will be just as defensive of their field as I am of mine. Especially when historically speaking, philosophers and scientists are targeted with these same criticisms and far worse by dictators and other tyrannical regimes, when we are so devoted to the truth we continue speak out against them even when it becomes dangerous to do so, sometimes at the cost of our lives and livelihoods. 

Final point; this whole hard science vs soft science debate is a myth, perpetuated by science-fiction writers and people who end up more celebrity than scientist. Good scientists and good philosophers listen to each other and work together. Always have. Always will. We don't always agree but we don't stoop to trying to publicly make light of the others field. If a few individuals do, it means little to me. I'm very confident that the relationship between science and philosophy is symbiotic. 

50 minutes ago, beecee said:

My lifestyle and interactions and experiences over 77 years, tells me he is certainly in the minority.

Appealing to age means little when a man like Donald Trump is only a year or two older than you. 

[beecee]

30 minutes ago, MSC said:

Nope, I'm not demanding anything. I am requesting that you address points raised by myself and others equitably. Ignoring the majority of them does nothing to convince others reading this that you are correct.

I respectfully suggest you read the OP with regards to relevant points.

30 minutes ago, MSC said:

This bit is unrelated; but a new rule I've set for myself is to leave it at agreeing to disagree, before things get heated. Which is what I'm going to do now. I've said everything I need to say, if you can convince me that my points are moot, I'll respond again. Until then however take care and remember that this is just a place of open discussion, not a battleground and I bet nearly all of us here have no influence to action any of our suggestions or view points.

We are having open discussion. But it appears to me we have a couple of participants that are embracing a "holier then thou" persona, simply because they have done presumably some course in philosophy. Then that old familiar quote becomes evident, ( about philsophers arguing that all others are jackasses)particularly when a non philsopher argues against that philosophy.

In actual fact, in the first instance, I am arguing from a ethically morally correct position, in that innocent lives far, far outweight any consideration for the perpetrators of evil. In the second instance, I am arguing that while I support laws and edicts against torture, just as I do against killing another human, that on very rare occasions, we may need to disregard those laws and edicts. In the third instance, I am arguing that such rare occurences when we may need to use such means, makes them morally correct, whether or not we are successful in saving the innocent lives at peril. In the forth instance, I am also saying that guilt can be 100% certain, or at least beyond any reasonable doubt. In the fifth instance I am arguing that is the rare circumstances when situations arise as being discussed, and as per the previous points, then the normal judicial system maybe put aside, and certainly would be in those circumstances. In the sixth instance, I am pretty sure that in a normal westernised democratic society, where some low life puts at risk the lives of thousands of innocents, then that society would support the decisions made, whether successful or not. 

 

Edited March 22, 2022 by beecee

[MSC]

5 minutes ago, beecee said:

In actual fact, in the first instance, I am arguing from a ethically morally correct position, in that innocent lives far, far outweight any consideration for the perpetrators of evil. In the second instance, I am arguing that while I support laws and edicts against torture, just as I do against killing another human, that on very rare occasions, we may need to disregard those laws and edicts. In the third instance, I am arguing that such rare occurences when we may need to use such means, makes them morally correct, whether or not we are successful in saving the innocent lives at peril. In the forth instance, I am also saying that guilt can be 100% certain, or at least beyond any reasonable doubt. In the fifth instance I am arguing that is the rare circumstances when situations arise as being discussed, and as per the previous points, then the normal judicial system maybe put aside, and certainly would be in those circumstances. In the sixth instance, I am pretty sure that in a normal westernised democratic society, where some low life puts at risk the lives of thousands of innocents, then that society would support the decisions made, whether successful or not. 

And I disagree. Simple as that. I don't think yours is the morally correct position and you've not convinced me otherwise. Sorry. You aren't stating facts. You are stating your opinion and mislabeling them as facts. 

[beecee]

11 minutes ago, MSC said:

And I disagree. Simple as that. I don't think yours is the morally correct position and you've not convinced me otherwise. Sorry. You aren't stating facts. You are stating your opinion and mislabeling them as facts. 

Great! we disagree. But my facts and common sense decency, and concern for innocent lives, (as opposed to some airy fairy philsophical stance) still stand, despite your unsupported rhetoric to the contrary, and always will. 

Might actually start a thread on why philsophers are so offended by any critique of their postion! 😆

Edited March 22, 2022 by beecee

[Peterkin]

1 hour ago, beecee said:

You agree you would do this lesser wrong.

No. I said that, in a desperate situation, I ould consider all options, including those I consider wrong. I also stated on several occasions that I don't know whether I would, or could go through with it. 

Quote

Although in my opinion, the lesser wrong actually becomes a "right" and is morally the correct decision to undertake.

And this is the crux of the matter. This is the point of divergence I've been trying to explain.

If an act is categorically wrong, it is always wrong. It is not necessarily the biggest wrong this species is capable of (that would be global destruction, and we're beavering at that, too) but on the scale of wrongs up there in the top 20% IMO. 

It's wrong if you do it; wrong if a prison guard does it, wrong if a madman does it, wrong if an enemy spymaster does it, wrong if a grand inquisitor does it, wrong if some snot-nosed private in a POW camp does it, wrong if a CIA agent does it and wrong if a police officer does it. It would still be wrong if i did it. It would still be wrong if a district court judge in his padded leather chair wrote me a permission slip and put a big red seal on. 

So, the next question is : What should happen to me if I went ahead and did it anyway, knowing that it's wrong, because I believed that an even bigger wrong would be prevented thereby?

I'm not asking what would happen, but what should happen. That may be the distinction between what you represent as the majority view and what I suspect is the minority view (Noted: neither number is in evidence)

I believe what should happen is my arrest, arraignment an trial, and my plea would be 'guilty with extenuating circumstances'. If that means I couldn't get a jury trial, the verdict is a coin-toss: which side the judge is on, so that's no good. I'd prefer a trial by 12 peers. (And I can't afford Alan Shore, so no guarantee.)

What I think would happen at that trial, assuming it's a fair one, depends entirely - entirely  - on whether I had succeeded in saving the victims. If I won my bet, I would almost certainly be acquitted. If I lost - didn't get the correct information in the allotted time - I would almost certainly be convicted. That's how I think most people in modern westernized industrial societies think: winners win; losers lose. 

Either way, I would have quit active duty by then, even if my chief didn't have the moral fibre to sack me, and be in some in some bacground kind of work, where i never had to encounter another suspect or make another arrest.   

Edited March 22, 2022 by Peterkin

[beecee]

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

Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy

In this case study there is also a substantial moral justification for torture, albeit one that many moral absolutists do not find compelling. Consider the following points: (1) The police reasonably believe that torturing the terrorist will probably save thousands of innocent lives; (2) the police know that there is no other way to save those lives; (3) the threat to life is more or less imminent; (4) the thousands about to be murdered are innocent – the terrorist has no good, let alone decisive, justificatory moral reason for murdering them; (5) the terrorist is known to be (jointly with the other terrorists) morally responsible for planning, transporting, and arming the nuclear device and, if it explodes, he will be (jointly with the other terrorists) morally responsible for the murder of thousands.

In addition to the above set of moral considerations, consider the following points. The terrorist is culpable on two counts. Firstly, the terrorist is forcing the police to choose between two evils, namely, torturing the terrorist or allowing thousands of lives to be lost. Were the terrorist to do what he ought to do, namely, disclose the location of the ticking bomb, the police could refrain from torturing him. This would be true of the terrorist, even if he were not actively participating in the bombing project. Secondly, the terrorist is in the process of completing his (jointly undertaken) action of murdering thousands of innocent people. He has already undertaken his individual actions of, say, transporting and arming the nuclear device; he has performed these individual actions (in the context of other individual actions performed by the other members of the terrorist cell) in order to realise the end (shared by the other members of the cell) of murdering thousands of Londoners. In refusing to disclose the location of the device the terrorist is preventing the police from preventing him from completing his (joint) action of murdering thousands of innocent people.[14] To this extent the terrorist is in a different situation from a bystander who happens to know where the bomb is planted but will not reveal its whereabouts, and in a different situation from someone who might have inadvertently put life at risk (Miller (2005); Hill (2007)).

In conclusion, the view that it is, all things considered, morally wrong to torture the terrorist in the scenario outlined faces very serious objections; and it is difficult to see how these objections can be met. It is plausible, therefore, that there are some imaginable circumstances in which it is morally permissible to torture someone.

[Peterkin]

No medals are likely. I'm not aware of any having been awarded to police officers, anywhere in the world, for having solved or prevented a crime through illegal methods.  They do very often get away with zero adverse consequences to themselves. I think they shouldn't and neither should I.

[MSC]

3 minutes ago, beecee said:

In conclusion, the view that it is, all things considered, morally wrong to torture the terrorist in the scenario outlined faces very serious objections; and it is difficult to see how these objections can be met. It is plausible, therefore, that there are some imaginable circumstances in which it is morally permissible to torture someone.

Imaginable situations; does not mean realistic ones. I'm not a total moral absolutest either. I'm a context relativist. I could imagine a world where everyone feels that pain is pleasurable and that everyone wants to be tortured. There is a morally permissible context in that imaginary scenario. It's not real life though. It's just a what-if fantasy around the idea of it being okay to torture because someone likes torturing. This is the very thing you took issue with from philosophy in the first place. Fanciful thought experiments and scripted scenarios. Well the world isn't a movie or a game. It's reality. If the context is never going to call for torture being permissible in this world, then why argue for it until one of these imaginary scenarios actually calls for it? 

[beecee]

31 minutes ago, Peterkin said:

And this is the crux of the matter. This is the point of divergence I've been trying to explain.

No, it is certainly not the crux of the matter. It is a point of divergence.

31 minutes ago, Peterkin said:

It's wrong if you do it; wrong if a prison guard does it, wrong if a madman does it, wrong if an enemy spymaster does it, wrong if a grand inquisitor does it, wrong if some snot-nosed private in a POW camp does it, wrong if a CIA agent does it and wrong if a police officer does it. It would still be wrong if i did it. It would still be wrong if a district court judge in his padded leather chair wrote me a permission slip and put a big red seal on.    

Only if you are of the wrong philsophical opinion that wrong is absolute. The only absolute I see are criminals, wrong-doers and terrorists on one hand, and potential innocent victims on the other. The latter trumps the former.

31 minutes ago, Peterkin said:

So, the next question is : What should happen to me if I went ahead and did it anyway, knowing that it's wrong, because I believed that an even bigger wrong would be prevented thereby?

I'm not asking what would happen, but what should happen. That may be the distinction between what you represent as the majority view and what I suspect is the minority view (Noted: neither number is in evidence)  

My what should and what would happen are similar. You maybe arrested as justice must not only be done, but be seen to be done. Your extenuating circumstances would almost certainly see you acquitted, whether your actions were successful or otherwise. Of course if they weren't successful, you may well be dead, anyway, along with thousands of others.

31 minutes ago, Peterkin said:

What I think would happen at that trial, assuming it's a fair one,

You are truly incapable of leaving your philsophical, political bias out of this aren't you?

18 minutes ago, MSC said:

Imaginable situations; does not mean realistic ones. 

🤭🤣 Imaginable situations if possible can certainly be realistic ones.

18 minutes ago, MSC said:

This is the very thing you took issue with from philosophy in the first place. Fanciful thought experiments and scripted scenarios.

Wrong again. I didn't take any issue despite your dramatisation of it. I simply showed that philosophy in essence is a "soft science" where opinions are paramount, and where inevitably one philsopher is always arguing that all others are jackasses.

18 minutes ago, MSC said:

Well the world isn't a movie or a game. It's reality. If the context is never going to call for torture being permissible in this world, then why argue for it until one of these imaginary scenarios actually calls for it? 

Because that's philosophy.

 

18 minutes ago, MSC said:

If the context is never going to call for torture being permissible in this world, then why argue for it until one of these imaginary scenarios actually calls for it? 

You are appearing rather desperate. If what you suggest was the norm, then we may have planes falling out of the sky, trains coming off tracks, tall buildings toppling over etc etc. We allow and prepare for all contingencies, and possible safety concerns. Really, your suggestion is bordering on silly. But that;s just a non philosophers opinion over a philsophers opnion. 

Edited March 22, 2022 by beecee

[Peterkin]

13 minutes ago, beecee said:

You are truly incapable of leaving your philsophical, political bias out of this aren't you?

Of course. Who is capable of leaving their biases out of their opinions?

[beecee]

Just now, Peterkin said:

Of course. Who is capable of leaving their biases out of their opinions?

Perhaps answer the questions without your long drawn out political opinions and tiresome criticisms of society in general. 

31 minutes ago, MSC said:

 I'm not a total moral absolutest either. I'm a context relativist. 

That's nice. I tend to avoid labels, and simply try and live according to what I see as morally correct and sensible, while holding science and the scientific methodology as the desired goal. 

[Peterkin]

20 minutes ago, beecee said:

Perhaps answer the questions without your long drawn out political opinions and tiresome criticisms of society in general. 

OK. The answer, then, is NO