John Oliver discusses torture

[Upchurch]

It's an obvious fact that torture doesn't work because the subject will say anything to stop the torture.

And anyone who says that would be incorrect.

 

[Monketi Ghost]

It's an obvious fact that torture doesn't work because the subject will say anything to stop the torture.

I remember in the other thread making the point that the truth is a subset of "anything" but it mostly fell on "torture doesn't work"-deafened ears.

 

[sunmaster14]

I disagree. Everybody has their own morality and they are often incompatible. Discussing the facts and finding out what they are is far more interesting to me.

In my experience, most humans have a fairly consistent sense of morality, which is a part of our biology. I suspect the vast majority of us will agree on the scenario that I proposed. And most of the rest will equivocate because they don't want to admit it.

 

[Crossbow]

If one has a large scale torture program, then the torture will produce vast amounts of bad data along with a very small amount of useful data.

However, since one cannot tell in advance which data is good and which data is bad until it is thoroughly checked out, then one will waste a great deal of resources in the pursuit of the bad data.

Also, the use of official use of torture encourages essentially approves the use of torture by all which makes it quite difficult to make a legal and moral case against anyone for performing torture.

Therefore, in reality, the use of torture causes far more problems than it can solve.

 

[sunmaster14]

That is not even close to a scenario that will add value to the discussion. Being coerced into torturing someone is not what the discussion is about. The discussion is about using torture to gain intelligence.

Humor me. I will relax constraints one by one, and you will see that it does add value.

 

[sunmaster14]

<snip>

If you think any of this puts us on the level of China and North Korea, then you are blissfully ignorant of the true nature of both of those countries.

He may have a point. Any day now, Obama might start rounding up his political opponents and having them executed by anti-aircraft gun.

 

[Belz...]

In my experience, most humans have a fairly consistent sense of morality, which is a part of our biology.

For the major stuff, maybe. But it's in the details that most disagreements arise, and there's not much to do to bridge the gap. Look at the conservative-vs-liberal discussions, particularily in the US. It's pretty fascinating to see the underlying assumptions that block discussion between both sides, and the values that underly those, but ultimately it doesn't make for an interesting discussion as much as a frustrating one.

 

[Belz...]

Humor me. I will relax constraints one by one, and you will see that it does add value.

I'll play. 10 > 1. You should press the button unless you value life itself less than life free of pain, and reason that ten dead people don't suffer while one person otherwise would. Of course, then you could point out that the families and friends of the dead will feel pain, etc.

Personally I'd say press the button, but I may not have the stomach to do it if I were in that situation.

See, everyone ? You CAN address hypotheticals.

 

[Belz...]

If you think any of this puts us on the level of China and North Korea, then you are blissfully ignorant of the true nature of both of those countries.

I don't think that anyone is fooling themselves into thinking that NK is on par with the US, but if both the US and NK engage in torture, it's hard for the US to decry the use of torture by NK. Having the moral high ground, so to speak, is useful when trying to tell people that they are wrong. Otherwise you run the risk of being called a hypocrite, which is exactly what Putin did when Russia was criticized for their actions in Crimea.

 

[marplots]

Consider the following scenario: 10 innocent people are trapped in a room with a bomb that will go off in a minute. The exit door has an electronic lock that opens with the press of a button that you control. Unfortunately, pressing that button also delivers an extremely painful electrical shock to a person who is bound and gagged and hooked up to electrical wires right in front of you. If you press the button, the helpless person in front of you is tortured (but the people in the room will escape). If you don't press the button, then the people trapped in the room will die. Do you press the button or not?

First, let the bomb go off, eliminating the 10 people in the other room. Then, start shocking the guy where you are until he confesses to the crime.

Hypotheticals are easy.

 

[Belz...]

First, let the bomb go off, eliminating the 10 people in the other room. Then, start shocking the guy where you are until he confesses to the crime.

Hypotheticals are easy.

They are also useful to establish some things that are not based on evidence or that will vary depending on the circumstances. Morals are a good example of this.

 

[sunmaster14]

First, let the bomb go off, eliminating the 10 people in the other room. Then, start shocking the guy where you are until he confesses to the crime.

Hypotheticals are easy.

Says the guy who advocates eating Vietnamese. Actually, I could go for a little Pho right now.

 

[sunmaster14]

I'll play. 10 > 1. You should press the button unless you value life itself less than life free of pain, and reason that ten dead people don't suffer while one person otherwise would. Of course, then you could point out that the families and friends of the dead will feel pain, etc.

Personally I'd say press the button, but I may not have the stomach to do it if I were in that situation.

See, everyone ? You CAN address hypotheticals.

Ok, I agree with you. What if there was only a 50% chance that the button would work to free the trapped people, but there was still a 100% chance of shocking the guy in front of you?

Would the potential torture victim's moral responsibility in creating the situation matter?

 

[Belz...]

Ok, I agree with you. What if there was only a 50% chance that the button would work to free the trapped people, but there was still a 100% chance of shocking the guy in front of you?

Would the potential torture victim's moral responsibility in creating the situation matter?

Odds of death vs certain harm... it depends how much it hurts the person in the chair, I suppose, but at 50%, or even 20%, it might still be a numbers game: 10 vs 1.

 

[marplots]

Says the guy who advocates eating Vietnamese. Actually, I could go for a little Pho right now.

I think it was Vietnamese babies. I'm not a barbarian.

 

[magellan]

Ticking time bombs exist in the real world.

Do they?
Ticking bombs/clocks exist as a story telling device.
They usually have 3 cables to cut.

But in the real world? You can count instances on one hand (I think it was 2), and that was all torture apologists could find 5 years ago (while stretching the definition)

 

[Monketi Ghost]

Do they?
Ticking bombs/clocks exist as a story telling device.
They usually have 3 cables to cut.

But in the real world? You can count instances on one hand (I think it was 2), and that was all torture apologists could find 5 years ago (while stretching the definition)

... That we know of.
Sometimes withholding op details trumps crowing about a success.

 

[Upchurch]

I remember in the other thread making the point that the truth is a subset of "anything" but it mostly fell on "torture doesn't work"-deafened ears.

You aren't remembering that correctly. You're thinking of your straw man argument.

 

[Cl1mh4224rd]

I disagree. Everybody has their own morality and they are often incompatible. Discussing the facts and finding out what they are is far more interesting to me.



I have it on good authority that we can't discuss hypotheticals.

This is why I'm picking on you in this thread; you claim to want to discuss facts, but all you've done is construct hypotheticals...

 

[sunmaster14]

Odds of death vs certain harm... it depends how much it hurts the person in the chair, I suppose, but at 50%, or even 20%, it might still be a numbers game: 10 vs 1.

Ok, now how about if there is only a 50% chance of the bomb going off at all, so that if you did nothing, there's a 50% chance of no harm? Is it worth pressing the button, even though it's only reducing the chance of death to the people trapped in the room from 50% to 0%?