Is torture ever "right"

[MoseyWalker]

Instead of trying to prove torture wrong, let's see if anyone can prove torture "right."

Not to take away posts from the other thread, but it really bothers me that anyone would conceive of torturing another human being as being a choice within their moral and ethical boundaries.

[Taverner]

1. It depends

Nothing is black and white and each case is different

[StraightDope]

33. No. I disagree.

This is one of the few issues that IS black or white. Torture is ALWAYS wrong.

[Redstone]

2. THAT'll bring the trolls out, won't it? (Because I can't imagine anyone here who's NOT

a troll answering you in the affirmative.)

Real DUers are more sensible than that.

Good post. Excellent way of rephrasing the question, and I commend you for doing so.

Redstone

[Swamp Rat]

3. I abide by very few absolutes and this is one of them.

Under no circumstance is torture "right" (regarding ethical conduct).

[William769]

4. Torture is always right!

But it's never left. :evilgrin:

[blondeatlast]

5. No, and that is exactly the way the issue ought to be framed. nt

[slackmaster]

6. Only when done by consenting adults

[MoseyWalker]

8. with safe words

i think that's what they're called.

O8)

[stillcool]

7. it's so sad...

I had really believed that human beings evolved into higher beings...that eventually the more egregious behaviors would disappear like the dinosaurs. The stove is still hot...

[Der Blaue Engel]

9. I'd like everyone to substitute the word "rape" for torture and see how they feel about it

They are very similar things, and I defy anyone to tell me that a moral human being would find any exception where either would be acceptable. I don't care how many lives are at stake. Wrong is always wrong.

[longship]

10. Uhmmmm.

What good does torture accomplish?
Name one thing?

Does it work? Nope.
Does it help? Nope.

All it does is demean us and make us as bad as the "evil" our leaders demonize.

[melissinha]

11. how about: Which interrogation methods are effective and which are not?

Cause then you can throw out the majority of the perverted torture methods approved by Rummy and Bush..

We need to elevate the dialog... they say its for intel, well I want to know if the methods they use have ever proven to be effective and then I'll consider employing them...

[MoseyWalker]

13. call me naive, but

I don't know if any interrogation techniques are effective.

maybe we should ask McCain or any of the hundreds of thousands of 'nam vets?

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

15. Effective interrogations methods...

Asking their name, asking their rank, asking their serial number.

[Casablanca]

12. It can never totally right or effective.

There may be instances where information must be obtained in war quickly. But even then, weak people generally snap and tell the inquisition anything (even lies) that will stop the torture, and stronger people are even more steeled against the treatment. The most effective inquisition techniques involve playing to a person's rationalizations and tactically providing for their need for societal acceptance, as cults do.

Torture is also part of the amoral "might always makes right" ethos.

[The Straight Story]

14. HMMMM - define torture :)

Cause I think some people have different ideas of what it is.

To me it is seeing my wife dressed all sexy and then saying she is tired and going to bed ;)

[Redstone]

19. That DOES hurt. But it's not torture, because she didn't do it intentionally.

At least I HOPE she didn't.

Redstone

[The Straight Story]

32. Oh I think she does at times ;)

but then, I do too. Of course, I look like homer simpson in my undies...

[mentalsolstice]

16. A big fat no! It's never right!

Over the history of mankind, it has never proven to be a reliable way of extracting reliable information. If I'm tortured, I'm simply going to give you the answer you want to hear, whether it's true or not. Additionally, we are the only species that is guilty of this, and it's not good for our reputation.

Well, okay, on further thought, I have a right-wing torturous cat. She'll catch a bird, mouse, chipmunk, etc., but for some reason she prefers to torture it than to kill it. She has never brought me a dead animal. Just live ones, that I have to spend a half a day catching to get them back outside.

[mentalsolstice]

39. Here's a question...

...does torture include extracting information through chemical means? I said in a previous post...no torture. But when I put it to my my SO, he asked whether the injection of sodium penathol (sp?) is a method of torture. Just a question for the masses, we're totally undecided, so no flaming, PLEASE!

[morgan2]

17. of course situations can arrise where torture is "right"

there really are times when the choice is between the lesser of two evils. Yes they may be very rare, but talking in absolutes is generally reckless and baseless.

[Gwerlain]

18. It really disturbs ME....

that you think there are morals that are separate from the ethics that underlie them, or ethics separate from the values that underlie them.

The only way to resolve a moral dilemma is to examine the ethics that underlie the morals. The only way to resolve an ethical dilemma is to refer to the values that underlie the ethics. You can't resolve an ethical dilemma by referring to morals. Which is what you're trying to do here.

Torture is never "right." It is, however, sometimes better than the alternative. But you can only tell that by looking at the ethics, or the values; there's no way to resolve the conflict between the moral that you don't torture people, and the moral that you protect people from other people who are trying to hurt them. They're both morals. They are in conflict. You can't resolve this conflict by referring to morals; you have to examine the ethics and the values to resolve them.

If you're trying to justify torture by saying that you're "protecting" people from, let's say, being exposed to pictures of people engaging in sexual activities, then you're on very shaky ground. On the other hand, if you're trying to justify torture by saying that you're protecting people from, let's say, nuclear weapons, you've got a stronger case. But in NEITHER of these cases is torture "OK." It's NEVER "OK." It's just (perhaps!) better than the alternative in one case, and certainly not in the other. And let's remember, folks, that people are put in prison where they get raped by violent inmates, or perhaps even killed, for exposing people to pictures of people engaging in sexual activity. That's torture, and if the people exposed to the sexual pictures are minors, then you've got another ethical dilemma, don't you? So, are you going to argue that we shouldn't put people in prison for showing pictures of people having sex to minors?

Please think very carefully about these issues, and realize that the real world just doesn't fit into your little boxes.

[MoseyWalker]

20. why would this make a stronger case for torture of another human being?

"if you're trying to justify torture by saying that you're protecting people from, let's say, nuclear weapons, you've got a stronger case"

[Gwerlain]

22. Because...

on this side, I have the value of one human's personal right not to be tortured, and on that side, I have the value of thousands of peoples' rights not to die, some of them screaming. Ever read John Hershey's Hiroshima? Do you have any idea what torment many of the people who died in Hiroshima went through BEFORE they died? "Torture" doesn't even begin to cover it. Are they some sort of abstraction for you, or something?

[MoseyWalker]

24. Do you truly believe

that torturing one human being to gain questionable information would ever save "thousands of peoples' rights not to die?"

You are making an assumption that torture will cause useful, and truthful, information to be produced.

I'm not thinking that way.

[Gwerlain]

27. I assume nothing.

YOU assume that it will NOT.

You are avoiding the question. What are the VALUES?

[MoseyWalker]

30. I'm getting your meanings more clearly now

what are the values?

val·ue
n.
1. An amount, as of goods, services, or money, considered to be a fair and suitable equivalent for something else; a fair price or return.
2. Monetary or material worth: the fluctuating value of gold and silver.
3. Worth in usefulness or importance to the possessor; utility or merit: the value of an education.
4. A principle, standard, or quality considered worthwhile or desirable: "The speech was a summons back to the patrician values of restraint and responsibility" Jonathan Alter.
5. Precise meaning or import, as of a word.
6. Mathematics An assigned or calculated numerical quantity.
7. Music The relative duration of a tone or rest.
8. The relative darkness or lightness of a color. See Table at color.
9. Linguistics The sound quality of a letter or diphthong.
10. One of a series of specified values: issued a stamp of new value.
tr.v. val·ued, val·u·ing, val·ues
1. To determine or estimate the worth or value of; appraise.
2. To regard highly; esteem. See Synonyms at appreciate.
3. To rate according to relative estimate of worth or desirability; evaluate: valued health above money.
4. To assign a value to (a unit of currency, for example).


Which definition are you discussing? Monetary or material worth? Estimate the worth or value of; appraise? Rate according to relative estimate of worth or desirability? Assign a value to?

[Gwerlain]

35. I'm sorry, I didn't see this post.

Yes, now you're getting it.

Try #3. It's probably somewhere between that and #4.

We all assign values to things. Human life. Life in general. Individual living things. People we know. People we like. People we hate. People we have never met. Our own lives. Our own rights. Other peoples' rights.

From these values, we can derive ethics. For example, two planes are waiting to land. On one is carrying a man who is suffering a heart attack; the quicker he is on the ground, the more likely he will live. The other is nearly out of fuel; if it is not permitted to land immediately, it is likely that it will run out of fuel and everyone aboard will die. Which plane lands first?

The ethically correct decision is that the plane that is nearly out of fuel lands first, because it represents the greatest good of the greatest number. But many ethically complex situations are not nearly as clear cut as this.

OK, now solve this dilemma with morals. You can't. Either way, someone dies, and whoever makes the decision is a murderer. This is a moral dilemma, because morally speaking, everyone has a right to have their life saved. No matter what you choose, you are almost certainly condemning someone to death.

You are painting anyone who says you cannot judge the situation with the nuclear weapon using morals as "wrong." You are stating that there are morals that override value judgements. I believe you are wrong about that. I offer the spanking scenario as proof.

Does that make my argument clearer?

[MoseyWalker]

36. It does

and I appreciate your patience and tenacity.

I'm still pondering, however.........

[Gwerlain]

37. Hee hee, so am I (pondering), and I expect...

I will be as long as I live. Thank you for considering this carefully. I believe that it is an extremely important point, and that the more people understand it, the better our society will be.

Moralists often argue that relative ethics can "justify anything." What is it that they fail to realize? That is an overwhelmingly important question.

[MoseyWalker]

31. BTW

peace and thanks for the discussion! I'll reread and give your replies continued thought.

[Gwerlain]

38. I look forward...

to any thoughts you might share. Peace to you as well. :D

[MoseyWalker]

23. No to this

"are you going to argue that we shouldn't put people in prison for showing pictures of people having sex to minors?"

I would argue that prison should be made safer and more humane for any and all who find themselves in those pits of hell.

[Gwerlain]

25. You're avoiding the issue.

You can't do that. So you're sitting on a jury, and you KNOW that if you convict this guy, he's gonna get raped in prison, and you KNOW that if you don't, he's gonna show more porno to more kids. How do you choose? You don't get to move the goalposts.

[MoseyWalker]

28. No, 'fraid not

the jurist is not the one either promoting or condoning what may possibly happen when determining an individual's guilt regarding a crime.

How does a jurist KNOW that this person will be raped in prison? As you most likely are aware, child pornographers and other assorted nutcases are separated and segregated from the general population to avoid just that - torture.

[Gwerlain]

29. You're still avoiding the issue.

What are the VALUES?

[TallahasseeGrannie]

21. If I knew for certain an individual had information

that would save many lives immediately, then I would condone doing anything possible to get that information. I would have an expert use every other technique first.

The above situation is exceedingly rare. But it happens a lot on TV. (Jack Bauer and the famous broken fingers)

[MoseyWalker]

26. who would be the designated expert

who would condone the techniques utilized, and how would one ever know for certain that an individual had information that would save many lives immediately?

[TallahasseeGrannie]

43. Good questions, all

Jack Bauer did it himself in the back of a car, if I remember correctly. And saved the world!

I don't think you can make torture codified. I think what you do is break the law and do it if the situation warrants it, like if you know the guy knows where a nuke is planted somewhere in Manhattan, then you don't play by the usual rules. You apologize later. Better to live and apologize, I guess.

Happily, I never have to make these decisions, however.

[StraightDope]

34. And you know what you would get Grannie?

Misleading information. If I were Al-Qaeda, and being tortured by the U.S. or whomever, I would go out of my way to throw out as many false leads as possible, and/or try to lead my enemy into a trap.

Now, before you say, "But then they'd make it worse for you!", I say, "Worse how?"

After all, they've already proven their willingness to torture you BEFORE having antagonized them. They'd eventually step up their tactics anyway. Might as well sabotage their efforts as much as possible.

[TallahasseeGrannie]

44. What about truth serum in that situation?

Does that work? I hate the idea of torture and have been aghast at everything going on. I also have read, as you say, that basically it doesn't work, which makes it not only cruel but unproductive.

So is there any way, if you know a guy has planted a nuke in Manhattan, to get the information out of him? Are there people who can really resist that level of pain?

I'd spill my guts if they made me get up too early or withheld my coffee.

[StraightDope]

45. Sodium Pentothal and the like only work in spy novels.

And yes, there are people who can resist that level of pain, especially if they are fanatically dedicated to their cause, as Al-Qaeda and others of their ilk most certainly are.

Truth serum doesn't exist. You'd have better luck getting the guy drunk to get the truth out of him. In vino, veritas.

[mentalsolstice]

40. Here's a question?

I answered my own sub-thread by mistake, but I want to put this out to the general thread:

...does torture include extracting information through chemical means? I said in a previous post...no torture. But when I put it to my my SO, he asked whether the injection of sodium penathol (sp?) is a method of torture. Just a question for the masses, we're totally undecided, so no flaming, PLEASE!

[Gwerlain]

41. Great question, and here's another:

what about coercive psychological techniques, for example "good cop/bad cop?"

[mentalsolstice]

42. I dunno?

What about entrapment? I guess we question techniques that are mentally confusing, or physically invasive, but not painful or life threatening? I dunno?