[Closed] Torture - is it ever justified?

Every so often on STW, we get a "What battery drill" thread. Tbh, they get a bit boring. Tonight though, it's received an interesting twist.

What battery drill for torturing the guy you've hypothetically caught that's hypothetically captured your wife and kids and hypothetically knows their whereabouts but laughs hypothetically hysterically at you. I'm thinking lithium ion isn't going to be that important for this job.

As contrived and hypothetical as it gets, unless you can answer that you would not use torture under any circumstances then you are "not against torture" as such.
We can argue about how effective it is in practice but by definition I suspect we will not get accurate statistics!
The question Harris asks is "is there ever any circumstances in which you would agree to its use" Unless you can say no to every possible situation then you are "for" torture.

The Link to Sam Harris's article above outlines this.

Nobody likes the thought of using it but its easy to take the high moral ground when decisions to protect security are taken by someone else. we can then live our lives in "relative" security while condemning the distasteful and difficult decisions taken by others to keep us that way.

Every so often on STW, we get a "What battery drill" thread. Tbh, they get a bit boring. Tonight though, it's received an interesting twist.

What battery drill for torturing the guy you've hypothetically caught that's hypothetically captured your wife and kids and hypothetically knows their whereabouts but laughs hypothetically hysterically at you. I'm thinking lithium ion isn't going to be that important for this job.

As contrived and hypothetical as it gets, unless you can answer that you would not use torture under any circumstances then you are "not against torture" as such.
We can argue about how effective it is in practice but by definition I suspect we will not get accurate statistics!
The question Harris asks is "is there ever any circumstances in which you would agree to its use" Unless you can say no to every possible situation then you are "for" torture.

The Link to Sam Harris's article above outlines this.

Nobody likes the thought of using it but its easy to take the high moral ground when decisions to protect security are taken by someone else. we can then live our lives in "relative" security while condemning the distasteful and difficult decisions taken by others to keep us that way.

Torture- Is it ever justified?

Yes it is........ i work in a pupil referral unit.

I have noticed that no one has really answered my hypothetical question 🙂

I know I would do whatever it took to keep my family safe and everything from there on in is a shade of grey.

Nobody likes the thought of using it but its easy to take the high moral ground when decisions to protect security are taken by someone else. we can then live our lives in "relative" security while condemning the distasteful and difficult decisions taken by others to keep us that way.

+1

Torture- is it ever justified?

yes by the people carrying out the act so that they can do barabric things and pass the moral blame on to someone else.

Is it an act that should ever be carried out?

No, no way, not ever.
If you are going to torture someone just to inflict maximum pain as a punishment then at least you're an honest evil b**tard.
If you try to protect the liberty and freedom of a democracy by torture then you've already lost as liberty and freedom can't exist with state sponsored torture

@Tazzymtb

So given the contrived theoretical positions I refer to (call it the Sam Harris position) that you would never inflict torture on somebody? even if you were "sure" that they could provide information that could lead to the release of innocent victims?

bike thiefs would be right at the top of my torture list..... 8)
followed by soft lefty ****s, taxi drivers, vegans, hoodies and richard maddeley

To answer the question.

I would find it as distasteful and barbaric as anybody else on this thread but when I try to answer the theoretical question above I personally would inflict pain on someone if I was convinced there was a high likliehood that innocent people could be saved by my actions.

Never. At all. There's then no line between justifying it on the basis that that person "might have some knowledge that will prevent whatever" and inflicting it on people whose ideas and beliefs you might not agree with.

surfer - its a stupid position. It follows no logic. How can you be sure they have information but you don't know what the information is?

Its never justified. Its illegal in international law, its morally wrong and it doesn't proved useful information anyway

I ask you again. How many innocents are you prepared to torture to get one bit of information?

I would say that if those sanctioning torture are so convinced by its ability to save lives, they should be willing to do time for their actions.
At the moment their is no personal cost to the decision makers who declare war and authorise torture, maybe 10 years for authorising torture and life for sending troops to war would concentrate their minds on alternative solutions.

I don't think torture is generally justifiable, however I could see circumstances in the field where the temptation to get needed information for immediate use (and which could be immediately verified) might be difficult to resist.

For example if a member of my family were being held by kidnappers and I had caught one of them I'd be willing to use any means to get them to tell me the location.

God tells me that it is not acceptable

Is that the same God that probably told Bush is was perfectly acceptable? 😉

Surfer = answer the question. How many innocents is it justifiable to torture to get the piece of information you want. How many women? How many children?

surfer - its a stupid position. It follows no logic. How can you be sure they have information but you don't know what the information is?

Your wrong TJ. To refine the question:
If you had "reliable" information to indicate that a captive had information which could save a 000 lives, if he himself told you he had the information and you know he set the device to explode. Would you sanction the use of torture in this instance?

Its no use saying that the scenario is far fetched because the bottom line is that ther is a principle at stake. If you were as sure as is humanely possible that torture would provide results would you sanction it? If the answer is no then thats fine. For me the answer is yes and I suspect it is for most other people.

The fact is we live in a democracy which allows us to whine at people who have to make horrible decisions whiles enjoying the benefits.

Surfer = answer the question. How many innocents is it justifiable to torture to get the piece of information you want. How many women? How many children?

I will answer your question TJ but first answer mine.

Would you torture 1 person to save a 000?

No and I have said so. Its never justifiable.

Not that the situation you describe could ever occur anyway. Its just complete nonsense with no logic behind it

Not that the situation you describe could ever occur anyway.

It doesnt matter though does it.

Its illegal in international law,

I go back to my point on the previous page TJ - what's illegal? where [u]exactly[/u] do you draw the line between perfectly legal and acceptable interrogation techniques and "torture"?

Surfer = answer the question. How many innocents is it justifiable to torture to get the piece of information you want. How many women? How many children?

This situation could never occur anyway

i bet them nipple clamp things would be better than a bit of dripping water........... 🙂

@surfer - your argument is specious. In the real world, we are never in this situation. It only ever happens in fiction (e.g. "24").

In the real world, if you start down the slippery road of torturing people "only when you're sure it's OK", you pretty quickly get into a rotten state.

What do you think the reaction of the friends and family of the people you torture will be? Won't they want to seek revenge?

What effect will it have on the torturers themselves? Will they end up becoming increasingly confused about where the line lies and whether they've crossed it?

What do you think other people in other parts of the world will make of it? Won't they follow our example, but with fewer constraints. They'll just get on and torture whoever they fancy. And we won't be able to condemn them.

In reality, you won't ever save any lives in these situations, but you *will* start down a road to a place that is very hard to get back from.

Surfer.
You don't know which person amongst a group of people have the info you want - so you have to torture them until you get to the person with the info.

By the very nature of the fact you are trying to find info you don't know wh has it and who does not.

Zulu - thats why we have international law. Its clear and obvious.

No and I have said so. Its never justifiable.

If thats your position then fine however I would find it inconceivable in the unrealistic situation I point to that most people would not use some technique (for this I mean an act that could be considered "torture) to gain information to save lives.
Do you have a scale of torture that you would consider? Would you balk at waterboarding but accept a small amount of sleep deprivation?

i bet them nipple clamp things would be better than a bit of dripping water...........

Hey, let's look up waterboarding on Wikipedia shall we?

Waterboarding is a form of torture that consists of immobilizing the subject on his/her back with the head inclined downwards. Water is then poured over the face into breathing passages, thus triggering the mammalian diving reflex causing the captive to experience the sensations of drowning.[1][2] In contrast to submerging the head face-forward in water, waterboarding precipitates an almost immediate gag reflex.[3] It can cause extreme pain, dry drowning, damage to lungs, brain damage from oxygen deprivation, other physical injuries including broken bones due to struggling against restraints, lasting psychological damage and, if uninterrupted, death

Are you sure this is ok?

@surfer - your argument is specious. In the real world, we are never in this situation. It only ever happens in fiction (e.g. "24").

In the real world, if you start down the slippery road of torturing people "only when you're sure it's OK", you pretty quickly get into a rotten state.

What do you think the reaction of the friends and family of the people you torture will be? Won't they want to seek revenge?

What effect will it have on the torturers themselves? Will they end up becoming increasingly confused about where the line lies and whether they've crossed it?

What do you think other people in other parts of the world will make of it? Won't they follow our example, but with fewer constraints. They'll just get on and torture whoever they fancy. And we won't be able to condemn them.

In reality, you won't ever save any lives in these situations, but you *will* start down a road to a place that is very hard to get back from.

You may well undertake a full anlysis however the "ticking bomb" scenario doesnt allow that luxury. As I have said this is clearly an unlikely scenario however the point is you have to make a decision. My position on this is clear however and given only a few minutes to consider my action future foreign policy, how relased captives may view my actions or how this would impact future prisoner relations would not be high on my agenda.

Do you have a scale of torture that you would consider? Would you balk at waterboarding but accept a small amount of sleep deprivation?

The road to Hell is paved with good intentions.

Are you sure this is ok?

I dont think anyone is saying its "ok" if you think that is my position then you have misunderstood.

The road to Hell is paved with good intentions.

But thats not an answer is it.

Sometimes torture is alright... every time someone starts a helmet thread to suck TJ in for example.

In all seriousness... i couldn't torture another human or animal... and i wouldn't want somebody doing it on my behalf!

Until any of us are put in an ACTUAL situation where its suggested as a solution to uncover info that could save others lives or the lives of people we love i dont think any of us can accurately predict what we'd do.

i hope that none of us are ever put in that situation.

anyone seen the film "rendition"?

also, i find sitting on someones chest so they are immobilised and tickling their face with a piece of grass works a treat........ 👿

Surfer no - its an absolute. Torture is never justifiable in any circumstance

So now you answer the question. You know one person in a village has the information you want. How many innocent villagers is it OK to torture to make sure you get the info?

[i]You may well undertake a full anlysis however the "ticking bomb" scenario doesnt allow that luxury. As I have said this is clearly an unlikely scenario however the point is you have to make a decision.[/i]

There was an interesting interview with an ex head of MI5/6 on R4 earlier this year covering this point. I think he described the 'ticking bomb' as a fictional scenario rather than an unlikely one, and in all his years of service had never come across and such scenario existing. He then went on to explain that if such a situation existed the person just needs to keep handing out plausibly incorrect information till the bomb has exploded.

Zulu - thats why we have international law. Its clear and obvious.

TJ - No its not, International law prohibits "[i]Any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted...[/i]

What [u]exactly[/u] constitutes [b]severe[/b] pain or suffering?

as an example does, in your opinion, sleep deprivation, fulfil the [u]legal[/u] definition of torture?

Its only not obvious if you are hard of thinking.

MSP:

I would say that if those sanctioning torture are so convinced by its ability to save lives, they should be willing to do time for their actions.
At the moment their is no personal cost to the decision makers who declare war and authorise torture...

how about the torturer personally gets to experience the same torture they enact? It could be done with machines so no further blame. If Bush believes waterboarding is fine,let him experience it. If corporal P. tortures an Iraqi suspect, he/she can try the fun too.

Surfer no - its an absolute. Torture is never justifiable in any circumstance

So now you answer the question. You know one person in a village has the information you want. How many innocent villagers is it OK to torture to make sure you get the info?

Thats not the same question you asked earlier though is it.

There was an interesting interview with an ex head of MI5/6 on R4 earlier this year covering this point. I think he described the 'ticking bomb' as a fictional scenario rather than an unlikely one, and in all his years of service had never come across and such scenario existing. He then went on to explain that if such a situation existed the person just needs to keep handing out plausibly incorrect information till the bomb has exploded

Of course it is ficticious 🙄 The principle remains the same and is not changed by the fact the captive gives false information. To try to qualify that misses the point.
The question is would you "try" to gain the information to save a 000 innocent peopl by using torture?

There is a fine line between interrogation and torture. As per the point above, if you have ever been sleep deprived for long periods of time, you will know how horrific it can be. There are some who believe that so called truth drugs are the way to go, however these are unreliable as the person often loses the line between fact and fiction in the drugged up state.

The issue remains that without some form of interrogation beyond questioning then you have nothing, and by that very point, interrogation would cease to exist as anyone can just sit there in silence. What is the solution? Financial incentives? Political incentives? I don't know. For most they are not interested in financial or political gains.

Water-boarding is one of the most horrific things you can put a person through and it quite rightly should be illegal. There is no magical solution to the legal and non-threatening extraction of data.

Until any of us are put in an ACTUAL situation where its suggested as a solution to uncover info that could save others lives or the lives of people we love i dont think any of us can accurately predict what we'd do.

i hope that none of us are ever put in that situation.

Thats pretty much my position its irritating when people can be so dogmatic from their place of comfort while at the same time other people are making the decisions.

Its the same question surfer and you won't answer.

[i]Of course it is ficticious The principle remains the same and is not changed by the fact the captive gives false information. To try to qualify that misses the point.[/i]

Ah, well I think using fictional scenarios to then extrapolate to real world usage misses the point 🙂

Surfer - its the same question an you won't answer it.

that is a scenario where you would have to torture innocents to get the info you want.

So - you say its justifiable to torture one person to save thousands. Is it justifiable to torture thousands to save one knowing some of those thousands are innocent?

@TJ

You have asked several questions, all based around the same theme but different.

How many innocent villagers is it OK to torture to make sure you get the info?

How many innocent people is it justifiable to torture to save one life?

How many innocents is it justifiable to torture to get the piece of information you want. How many women? How many children

Prioritise them by all means or just higlight one.

Just answer it surfer.

ts only not obvious if you are hard of thinking.

Come on TJ - you're avoiding the question!

What exactly constitutes torture? you're repeatedly stated that international law prohibits torture, but fail to admit that the legal definition is very grey and imprecise.

What [u]exactly[/u] constitutes [b]severe[/b] pain and suffering?

I'll offer you a couple of easy examples:

Sleep Deprivation
Tasering

None of these are life threatening, none is likely to result in permanent lasting physical harm or fear of death in the subject - which of them [u]legally[/u] amounts to Torture?

Surfer - its the same question an you won't answer it.

that is a scenario where you would have to torture innocents to get the info you want.

So - you say its justifiable to torture one person to save thousands. Is it justifiable to torture thousands to save one knowing some of those thousands are innocent?

Its not so I await your reply.

I think its conceivable that many people would disagree with you and would agree (no matter how distasteful) that it is acceptable to inflict torture on an individual if they felt their was a high degree of possibilty that they had information that could save their lives or lead to their release.
I can forsee a scenario that allows for the torture of lots to save one.

If Ton sits on your chest and tickles you with grass, is that torture?

Just answer it surfer.

Pick one.

The miracle of copy and paste even saves you typing.

Zulu - if you don't understand I cannot explain it to you. Your moral compass is clearly sadly lacking.

None of these are life threatening, none is likely to result in permanent lasting physical harm or fear of death in the subject - which of them legally amounts to Torture?

In the secure world of TJ is pushing an arm up somebodies back torture?

Zulu - if you don't understand I cannot explain it to you. Your moral compass is clearly sadly lacking.

Biggest Cop out ever. Answer the question!

Surfer - answer the question.

"is it justifiable to torture thousands of innocents to save one life?"

"is it justifiable to torture thousands of innocents to save one life?"

But they aren't talking about saving just 1 life tho...

Zulu - you are being ridiculous even by your standards. Tehre is a legal definition. its clear and obvious.

And I actually agree, that yes, torture can be justified..

Teetoosugars - its about defining the boundaries of what is aceptable. i say torture is never acceptable - surfer says it is. I would like him to define the boundaries.
edit - in that case you answer the question.

Zulu - you are being ridiculous even by your standards. Tehre is a legal definition. its clear and obvious.

Go on then... edumacate us!

its about defining the boundaries of what is aceptable... .I would like him to define the boundaries.

Touche! 😉

Unfortunately , contradictory as it sounds, you may need to do terrible things to protect civil liberties and freedom like say torture, murder or carpet bomb dresden.
Sometimes the enemy does some really nasty things and you need to do nasty things to them to stop/prevent them.
I dont think anyone can be really pro torture any more than you can be pro war but we would , probably, all agree to it under extreme circumstances

No it is not accpeptable to torture thousands of innocent people to save one life- nor even hundreds
It probably is accepatable to torture 1 person to save thousands or hundreds though.

"is it justifiable to torture thousands of innocents to save one life?"

That's a f*cking stupid question old chap, of course it is not, it is loaded to the point of falling over.

Listen to surfer and what he is trying to say, the main point being that it is very easy for you to draw moral absolutes from a point of zero experience or context. Obviously torture is wrong. It could also be argued that torture is actually quite a vague thing, for Winston Smith, it was the threat of rats. For others that would present no problem at all.

Unless you have had to go through the actual internal torture of deciding whether to exert physical pain on a person to further your own aims however morally high or low they are, you are merely pontificating from a point of ignorance.

Junkyard - Member

No it is not accpeptable to torture thousands of innocent people to save one life- nor even hundreds
It probably is accepatable to torture 1 person to save thousands or hundreds though.

Nail. On. Head.

and my alltime fave is 'wedgies' or 'pooh tash'........ 8)

Zulu - if you don't understand I cannot explain it to you. Your moral compass is clearly sadly lacking.

Answer the question.

Unfortunately , contradictory as it sounds, you may need to do terrible things to protect civil liberties and freedom like say torture, murder or carpet bomb dresden.
Sometimes the enemy does some really nasty things and you need to do nasty things to them to stop/prevent them.

This was my first reaction too.

But TJ's stance has made me think a bit more about the longer term implications of these actions. Sure Dresden getting levelled may have stopped the same happening to Birmingham, but in the longer term I can't see that humanity have really gained anything by it. I'm not talking about our grandparents, parents, childrens and grandchildrens lives. I'm talking about us as a species, the more we perpetuate the idea that violence can be stopped by violence the more the cycle continues.

Bit heavy, but got me thinking a bit.

"is it justifiable to torture thousands of innocents to save one life?"

No its not.

So its not acceptable to torture thousands to save one , but it is acceptable to torture one to save thousands? is that your stance?

so how about torture one to save one? is that justifiable? How many people need to be at risk for the torture to be acceptable?

I am sorry - to me morals are absolute. if its wrong in one circumstance it is wrong in all circumstances.

Torture is never ever justifiable by a government or government agency. It brings shame on GB that our government was complicit in it.

Torture to prevent terrorism? One is as bad as the other and FFS sake what type of reliable info would you get when torturing someone?

TJ, once again:

International law prohibits "Any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted...

What exactly constitutes severe pain or suffering?

as an example does, in your opinion, sleep deprivation, fulfil the legal definition of torture?

[b]Answer the question![/b]

Sadly TJ, we live in the real world, where this does go on..

And If you think that the UK Government don't agree with it, then your sadly wrong..

So if you think it is acceptable to torture one person to save thousands. but not to torture thousands of people to save one here are some more awkward questions.

1) can you define a moral difference between the two situations?
2) is torturing one person to save one acceptable?

3) is torturing thousands to save thousands acceptable?

4) How many people need to be at risk to justify the torture?

I am sorry - to me morals are absolute.

So if our country was the one being invaded, if we were on the wrong end of the economic oppression so rife in the world, if our circumstances changed to a point where the world was seriously unfair to us, would that not affect your moral stance at all?

Can your morals not be changed? Are your morals a totally objective thing that you merely channel on to the world or are they actually a construct of your relatively safe life in one of the fairest countries in the world?

Morals ain't absolute, they are dynamic constructs of society, I appreciate that you have a very strongly held views (ON EVERYTHING) but I can't help but think that shouting about your moral fortitude from a position of essentially no power without actually ever having to put these high ideals to any sort of test is more than a little naive.

1) can you define a moral difference between the two situations?
Well in one you torture more thna you save in the other you save more thna you torture - will that do?
2) is torturing one person to save one acceptable?
If it is my child yes- depends who am i torturing and who am I trying to save?
3) is torturing thousands to save thousands acceptable?
Depends

4) How many people need to be at risk to justify the torture?
Depends
It is a scale of grey there is no absolute cut off or cut in point the badness of the peron involved would make me more likely to torture them for example

So is it ever ok to let innocent people die to save other innocent people?
Here as a real world example. Was Churchill correct to let innocent people die in Coventry so the Nazis did not know we had cracked the enigma code? Innocents died innocents were saved was it right?
I see why you see it as black and white but it is all grey area to me. I would prefer a world where this never occured, or war or violence but sometimes it is justified and sometimes it is not it just depends on the exact scenario

 

I am sorry - to me morals are absolute. if its wrong in one circumstance it is wrong in all circumstances.

Really? Does this apply to all your morals or just torture?

Is it ever morally justifiable to steal? To take a life?

Context and outcomes have no bearing on decisions of morality?

Just playing devil's advocate like.

What constitutes a moral act is something that has pre-occupied philosophers for centuries. They've obviously been wasting their time.
I wonder if TJ would like to tell us the meaning of life while he's at it.

TJ: AC Grayling he aint.

if you torture someone committed to the cause they won't tell you anything useful
if you torture someone not committed to the cause they'll tell you anything to make you stop

great method for keeping us all safe 🙄

Hmmmmmmmmmmmmm

I think trying to debate Kant and MIlls on here will be a little hard.

the categorical imperative is the key concept I believe here

"Act only according to that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law."

If you apply the tests of the categorical imperative to torture you get the position I arrive at. It can never be justifiable for if it is justifiable in one context then it must be justifiable in all.

IE if it is justifiable to torture one person to save thousands than it is also justifiable to torture thousands to save one. They are morally identical situations.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Categorical_imperative

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Groundwork_for_the_Metaphysics_of_Morals

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Stuart_Mill

Still waiting TJ!

If we want to live in world where "torture" is a thing of the past, surely there must come a point where we have say stop. We can argue that in some cases torture is justifiable, but you could use that argument untill the end of time and i'd like to think that as a species we will at some point advance beyond such cruelty.

I was visiting a Chatuea in France, at which they randomly had a torture exhibiton to highlight the fact that toture still goes on. Waterbaording featured and oddly enough so was tickling the feet with a feather. It was morbidly fascinating, i felt compelled to finish the exhibition but i genuinley felt sick to the core at the end

Zulu - I have given you the only possible answer. I am sorry you are unable to understand.

Teej I was gonna back you up until you said this

Your moral compass is clearly sadly lacking.

I'm with the torture is irrelevant/pointless because the results can't be trusted camp.