Torture – is it ever justified?

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 avoided 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?

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

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

and yet completely different
Lets look at stealing
Stealing 5 p would I imprison someone no
Robbing baby food to feed your child – no I would give them money
Stealing the pension form a pensioner would I possibly
Robbing a bank would I -no heros for sticking it to the man 😉

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 severe pain or suffering TJ?

Come on, its a reasonable question!

In your opinion, does sleep deprivation cause severe pain or suffering?

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

We all jump red light when it is safer to do so or just you?

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

Junkyard. I do my damnedest not to lie and its hard to think of circumstances when it is justifiable.

so then you must always use torture to ensure you have maximum information. Thats the result of “the end justifies the means”

all suspect must be tortured at all times in case they have information that may save someone? Torturing innocents to make sure you have not missed anyone with information?

Would you be prepared to have Ton sit on you and have him tickle you with grass on the basis that “some-one” believed you were about to commit an act of terror?

No idea who this Ton fella his, but hope doesn’t take offence at him being used as a method of torture.

Yes – we all should jump red lights when it is safer to do so and we should always jump red lights when it is safer to do so.

Clong……….i am not easily offended mate…. 8)

Yes – we all should jump red lights when it is safer to do so and we should always jump red lights when it is safer to do so.

But isnt that against the law? if so you were prepared to quote law earlier or are you saying its only the law when you feel a moral obligation to recognise it as such?

Quite convenient really.

Surfer – the law on torture provides a easily recognised definition.

I don’t refuse to torture because its against the law, I don’t torture because its morally wrong

What is legal and what is morally correct are not the same. Some things are legal but morally wrong, some things are illegal despite not being morally wrong.

The obey a red light and put yourself in danger is a clear example.

the good old knuckle drill in the chest is a real sod too………
not many blokes can withstand the old chest knuckle……….. 😀

What is legal and what is morally correct are not the same. Some things are legal but morally wrong, some things are illegal despite not being morally wrong.

I agree with you on this point however if it is not the “law” that stops you from torturing but a moral position (and I agree here also) then why dont you answer the questions as what constitutes tortue unless the law encompasses you position on what activities constitute tortue exactly?

It works in 24 and thus it works IRL.

If it provided reliable results then I wouldn’t have a problem with it.

I have answered the question. The definition given in the law is good enough for me. Not because its the law but because its a good definition . Its clear and obvious to me. You can attempt to count the angels on a pinhead all you want – it gets you no closer to the truth.

Well – I don’t think I can make my point any clearer. Its just going round in circles

Thing is, where’s the proof that torture works?

Guantanamo exists as a propaganda exercise; mess with us and we’ll torture you. ‘Shock and Awe’ tactics. Otherwise, it would be tucked away out of sight somewhere.

iDave – Member
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

That more or less sums it up really. Many military and psychological experts agree that torture is ineffective and unreliable at producing useful information. And these are people far more knowledgeable than any of us. I’m inclined to go along with their judgement.

As for the argument on here; TJ must be chuffed that he’s been likened to such a great philosophical figure.

Zulu/Labrat is a fantasist with a penchant for guns and some very dodgy attitudes in areas we won’t go into. Zulu; you often present a very good-looking case, and are undoubtedly highly intelligent and educated, but I think you would do well to examine your need to ‘win’ conflicts all the time; the only time you ever turn up on here is to argue. I suspect that the argument itself is secondary to your need to be victorious. I’d hazard a guess that you harbour some deep set unresolved conflicts within yourself, and attempt to deal with matters by entering into arguments with others. Perhaps consider professional counselling/therapy. And I’m not saying this to be a ****.

TJ; you could perhaps consider this about yourself too. Seems to me that you need to carry an argument to exhaustion, which must surely be quite draining. What’s the outcome though? What is achieved? What conflicts are resolved?

The irony here is that ultimately, you’re just torturing yourselves.

Yours,

Elfin ‘Sigmund’ Safety.

XX

all suspect must be tortured at all times in case they have information that may save someone? Torturing innocents to make sure you have not missed anyone with information?

I am not sure that this necessarily follows. You are applying the rule I reject to the situation why – i dont agree with Kant or you on this as your example demonstartes that is why the rule is cr@p. Yes if you agree with that rule you should do as you describe or not torture. Thankfully I can look at different situations and make an appropriate decision based on things other than that rule Torturing innocent people is clearly stupid

Well – I don’t think I can make my point any clearer

you could say whether you though sleep deprivation was torture with a yes or a no that would be much clearer than what you have said so far

Poetic elfin poetic

TJ; you could perhaps consider this about yourself too. Seems to me that you need to carry an argument to exhaustion, which must surely be quite draining. What’s the outcome though? What is achieved? What conflicts are resolved?

Elf – I am trying to learn this lesson hence I butt out of this now and I didn’t get sucked into counting angels on pinheads with Zulu on this thread.

doubled edit

you could say whether you though sleep deprivation was torture with a yes or a no that would be much clearer than what you have said so far

Yes

final one 🙂

So junkyard if torturing one to save thousands is justifiable and torturing thousands to save on is not then where do you draw the line?

Junkyard said, amongst other things:

(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?

So you are happy for another child to be tortured to (possibly) save yours?

I think you need to look long and hard in the mirror.

So junkyar

d if torturing one to save thousands is justifiable and torturing thousands to save on is not then where do you draw the line?

I think you have to make decisions TJ at the time with the information you have based on assessment of the situation in question. That wont concern you as they can be made by other people who hopefully will make them on your behalf and not refer to philosophers.

You can attempt to count the angels on a pinhead all you want – it gets you no closer to the truth.

Bit rich coming from you TJ!

where’s the proof that torture works?

But given the situation even a very low success rate would mean its worth a try. Theres hardly an opportunity cost in the “ticking bomb” scenario is there.

That more or less sums it up really. Many military and psychological experts agree that torture is ineffective and unreliable at producing useful information.

Why didnt you tell us ealier I’ve wasted ages on this and you knew all along.

I wont request evidence as you are obviosuly very busy.

You can’t fight a noble and just war against a worthy adversary.

Look at the war crimes committed by the allies in WWII in response to the Germans bombing Coventry, London etc.
Look what the Americans did the Japanese population.
Look at what the Americans did in the deep south.
Look at what the Americans did in Vietnam and surrounding areas. Heard of the legacy of Agent Orange?

Waterboarding pales into significance compared to any of the above.

I posted up a link recently on here about what happened to an Iraqi who was serving his country and the detail about his torture was just mind-blowing cruel and sadistic.

War is bloody grim. When someone is holding pointy-sticks you want to ensure the people guarding you have the sharpest weaponary available.

Sad really.

Right or wrong that’s the made by the ex-President and bear in mind he was once the “most” powerful person in the world.