[Closed] Torture - is it ever justified?

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.

surfer says it is. I would like him to define the boundaries.

Is that a question?

If so fine I can answer that quite easily. Given the outrageous example I mentioned I would probably be the case that anything goes to gain the information. If threatening to give him a "good talking too" got a result then great.

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

If you say so 🙄

if you have to torture 100 people to save one life its worth that persons life, to them and their family

how do you like them apples 😉

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

No TJ, you've quite specifically and repeatedly [b]avoided[/b] answering the question, all you have said is that the answer is obvious, and tried to waffle about moral compasses

Its a simple, categoric and specific question, yes or no answer

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?

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

Now, please answer that specific single question, in your opinion does sleep deprivation, legally, amount to torture?

Yep.

Not answering for TJ, btw, im sure he can fight his own battles.

and refering to law doesnt help us here because we are interested in your "moral compass"

im sure he can fight his own battles

he's a categorically imperative pacifist. He'll not fight.
In fact he's a bit of a Kant.

Did I spell that right?

Clong, does Ton sitting on your chest and tickling you with grass constitute tortue? Does placing somebodies arm up their back repeatedly constitute tortue?

I suspect they both do however I dont need laws to tell me I am hurting people or that in most instances it is wrong to do so. Being a paid up member of the human race tells me this. I dont need to refer to a law to make that judgement.

They are morally identical situations

they are all theft bit not all identical unless you lack the power to differentiate IMHO Yes I disagree it does not have to be universalizable only a Kant would disagree - so many gags with this one 😉
I would say utility -utilitarianism saysthat in some cases this justifies it - maximum good etc

I think these are the key issues that the pro tortures won't or are unable to answer. Morals seem easy to define until you start looking deeply at tehm

TandemJeremy - Member

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?

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.

TJ you offer so little in return 😥

By making up scenarios your nor contrbuting.

Answer the questions youve asked regarding what constitutes torture (without refering to law)

E 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.

Beacuse you can quote it doesnt really make it so! I would not agree they are the same and I suspect most people would feel the same way. You can kid yourself into thinking these decisions arent being made in your name if you want but I think we all know the truth. I'm just not as ready to hide behind legislation and call it a "moral" approach,

surfer - the legal definition is clear to me. I cannot explain it any better. I can give no other answer

Any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted is torture.

You will not answer direct questions to you

if its wrong in one circumstance it is wrong in all circumstances.

Does this also mean that you are against red light jumping in all circumstances?

Dogsby

 

You will not answer direct questions to you

I've answered them, what ones are outstanding?

Nice debating point dogsby.

The answer is no - the circumstance that decides is my safety. Teh question is " what maximises my safety here?"

So at a red light I take the action that maximises my safety at all times - that is the rule here. So I stop when it is safer to do so, I don't when it is not.

1) can you define a moral difference between the two situations? ( torturing one to save thousands or torturing thousands to save one)
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?

severe pain or suffering

Precisley

So, what acts constitute [b]severe[/b] pain or suffering TJ?

Come on, its a reasonable question!

In your opinion, does sleep deprivation cause [i][u]severe[/u] pain or suffering[/i]?

Its a perfectly fair question, and simple to answer, why the reluctance to do so TJ?

T-J
But surely there is a strange parrallel here. We are talking about torture to stop soemthing bad happening; ensuring safety.

Dogsby

that is only true if we accept the categorical imperative as the correct method to judge our ethics by.
I assume you have never ever lied then TJ and there are no circumstnces in which this is ever justified?
As I said I prefer a utilitarian approach on this issue - torturing one person to save one is not the same as torturing one to save thousands whatever you say one clearly has a greater "good" than the other
I , just like stoner, would prefer to just give them a good talking too , tut loudly and stare at them in disbelief and hope they speak but if it saved thousabds Iwould be prepared to let Ton sit on them and tickle them with grass

Surley breaking the law in one circumstance breaks the imperative?

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

a person acts morally when he or she acts as if his or her conduct was establishing a universal law governing others in similar circumstances (the "Third Maxim").

1) can you define a moral difference between the two situations? ( torturing one to save thousands or torturing thousands to save one)
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?

But this is a smokescreen.

1: maybe and even without being privvy to detail I would hazard that if a known criminal was holding a child in a basement who was tied up and starving of oxygen (and we knew this) then I (and I suspect many others) would be happy to give him a "thumping" if I thought it would result in her release.

2: I cant think of an easy scenario for this or in practical terms how this would work, maybe holding back aid to a state to punish the government? is this tortue?

3: I dont understand this question