A case where I would support torture.

Freakshow said:
Of course! Nothing has a 100% guarantee.
Click to expand...

Then my statement about your position being "torture regardless of results" was accurate.

Great. But why?
Click to expand...

Because it is against the principles for which we (the USA) claim to stand and fight.

I'll make it easy for you...check my conversation with Howie in this thread. I think there is good starting point with something I said there.
Click to expand...

So your goal is to have a philosophical discussion about the (im)morality of torture? Why then didn't you post this thread in the relevant forum? Forgive me if my estimation of your motives is in line with what was said by Kevin_Lowe.
 
Last edited:
Freakshow said:
The CNN crack was just meant as a bit of humor. :)

But the question is serious. In this scenario, would you support torture? Or would you still say that torture should never be used...not even in this scenario?
Click to expand...

I note those deciding not to use torture more likely than not would not die in the explosion, nor their families.

It is the typical philosophical example case, and it may be a real one someday.
 
Beerina said:
I note those deciding not to use torture more likely than not would not die in the explosion, nor their families.

It is the typical philosophical example case, and it may be a real one someday.
Click to expand...
Yes, it is a very interesting philosophical discussion. I posted here because it is (as you can see by the responses) a highly charged political issue.

Kevin commented on it being a discussion from a college philosophy class. Yeah...so? That's one of the reasons I come here! :) To have these sort of discussions. To break things apart and examine them, and try to figure out WHY we feel/think the way we do. That is what skeptics are supposed to do, isn't it? Or am I just supposed to automatically give into my knee-jerk emotional reactions, state tautologies, never question, and consider myself a skeptic because I'm on the "correct" side of the issue? :)
 
Freakshow said:
Yes, it is a very interesting philosophical discussion. I posted here because it is (as you can see by the responses) a highly charged political issue.

Kevin commented on it being a discussion from a college philosophy class. Yeah...so? That's one of the reasons I come here! :) To have these sort of discussions. To break things apart and examine them, and try to figure out WHY we feel/think the way we do. That is what skeptics are supposed to do, isn't it? Or am I just supposed to automatically give into my knee-jerk emotional reactions, state tautologies, never question, and consider myself a skeptic because I'm on the "correct" side of the issue? :)
Click to expand...

Why didn't you say so in the OP? I have nothing against such a discussion but it seems from your OP that you were talking about the merits of torture as a matter of policy as opposed to the morality behind objections to it.
 
Tony said:
Why didn't you say so in the OP? I have nothing against such a discussion but it seems from your OP that you were talking about the merits of torture as a matter of policy as opposed to the morality behind objections to it.
Click to expand...
I thought it was very obvious, from the way the scenario is presented. The scenario strips away the practical real-world objections ("He might not be the right person", "He might not actually know the info you are looking for", etc.) and reduces it to a core scenario of just whether that act is acceptable or not in and of itself.

I also didn't think that it would make any difference to the answer.
 
I keep thinking of the scene in Dr. Strangelove where he's locked in a room with an insane general, who has recall codes that he needs.

Would he have been able to get the info if he tortured the man?
 
fishbob said:
No civilized adult. Of course you could discuss such issues in front of kids if there were nothing to be ashamed of. If you knew you had done nothing to be ashamed of. Except for the incorrect 'emotive smoke screen' part, you exactly nailed the point.
Click to expand...

You misconstrue. I can think of many things that adults should not discuss with children who are not ready to deal with such issues. Shame has nothing to do with it.


Sort of the point again. It does not matter what you hope to gain. The information you might obtain might be accurate or maybe not. You know that. You don't have to worry about being able to justify your actions, there is no justification. So why allow yourself to perform acts you would be ashamed to describe to your kids?
Click to expand...

Did I ever say no actions had to be justified? You are waffling about nothing.


edit to add:

And in the meantime, there is an electrician that lives (lived) a couple of miles from me who may be separated from his head by now.
http://www.adn.com/news/alaska/story/7278251p-7189976c.html
You think maybe his captors heard something about Abu Ghraib and Gitmo and the CIA secret detention centers? You think maybe that might have something to do with their treatment of him and the other folks captured in Iraq? There just might be a relationship here.
Click to expand...

No I don't think there is a relationship. If you think terrorist acts are all a simple matter of revenge for some specific act as you descibe, then you have no understanding at all of what drives them.
Click to expand...
 
fishbob said:
No civilized adult. Of course you could discuss such issues in front of kids if there were nothing to be ashamed of. If you knew you had done nothing to be ashamed of. Except for the incorrect 'emotive smoke screen' part, you exactly nailed the point.
Click to expand...
Really? If there's nothing to be ashamed of you'd be perfectly comftable discussing it with kids? If you shot a guy in self defense you'd have no problem telling them how he slowly bleed to death? Or if you were a bomber pilot you'd have no problem describing how the enemy soldiers had been torn to bloody pieces by the explosion? That would be pretty god damned sick if it was true, but somehow I doubt it is. Or are you perhaps going to tell us that self defence and bombing military targets is torture? No? Then I'd say the 'emotive smoke screen' is a pretty accurate assesment.
 
Last edited:
I find I am able to conceive of situations where my loved ones were in pain when I could personally torture someone to make it stop. But I cannot agree to a state sponsoring torture. I cannot make up my mind whether this is an example of hypocrisy, or whether I would be morally in the right if I tortured for altruistic personal reasons. Would you hold me back or hold my coat?
 
Howie said:
I find I am able to conceive of situations where my loved ones were in pain when I could personally torture someone to make it stop. But I cannot agree to a state sponsoring torture. I cannot make up my mind whether this is an example of hypocrisy, or whether I would be morally in the right if I tortured for altruistic personal reasons. Would you hold me back or hold my coat?
Click to expand...
I don't think it is necessarily hypocrisy, Howie. The big risk with state sponsored torture is the same as with everything else the state does: it is very open to abuse, exploitation, over-use, and sometimes use on people that are just plain innocent.

I am guessing that in the picture you have in your mind for this, you are completely 100% confident in both the guilt of the person and the effectiveness of the actions. And that is very different from what we face in the real world when we tell a government it is okay to do something.

Does that sound about right?
 
I'm thinking of a proven serial killer who is openly boasting that he has my wife and kids somewhere with no food or water.
But
I do not see how I could ever be certain that torture would work, perhaps it would make the guy less likely to talk. So I torture him and my family still dies. I am now morally bankrupt and have made things immeasurably worse.

By the way this guy has a weak heart and drugs would certainly kill him.

I'm still not sure whether to use this red hot poker or not
 
Elind said:
fishbob said:
You misconstrue. I can think of many things that adults should not discuss with children who are not ready to deal with such issues. Shame has nothing to do with it.

Did I ever say no actions had to be justified? You are waffling about nothing.

No I don't think there is a relationship. If you think terrorist acts are all a simple matter of revenge for some specific act as you descibe, then you have no understanding at all of what drives them.
Click to expand...

1st - You misconstrue about my misconstruing. The many things you can think of that adults should not discuss with children have no bearing on whether you could describe your actions on a prisoner, without shame, to children.

2nd - You said all kinds of stuff about justification: "Secondly, if you did something unpleasant to someone and couldn't justify why you did it or what you hoped to gain, then it probably IS torture, which is not to say that it couldn't be torture even if you claimed a justification." What I was getting at is that justification is not an excuse.

3rd - Well you not thinking there is a relationship makes me feel all better.
Also, I did not say anything about thinking terrorist acts are "all a simple matter of revenge for some specific act". I asked a question - do stories of US mistreatment of prisoners may have some affect on the actions of kidnappers in Iraq?
Click to expand...
 
Kerberos said:
Really? If there's nothing to be ashamed of you'd be perfectly comftable discussing it with kids? If you shot a guy in self defense you'd have no problem telling them how he slowly bleed to death? Or if you were a bomber pilot you'd have no problem describing how the enemy soldiers had been torn to bloody pieces by the explosion? That would be pretty god damned sick if it was true, but somehow I doubt it is. Or are you perhaps going to tell us that self defence and bombing military targets is torture? No? Then I'd say the 'emotive smoke screen' is a pretty accurate assesment.
Click to expand...

You missed the update. Check back a couple of posts - yesterday at 11:00 pm. We are specifically talking about what is done to a person imprisoned, under your control. Your examples are not relevant.
 
fishbob said:
1st - You misconstrue about my misconstruing. The many things you can think of that adults should not discuss with children have no bearing on whether you could describe your actions on a prisoner, without shame, to children.
Click to expand...

I would scare the bejesus out of someone I had reason to believe was a terrorist, or similar, in order to get answers that could save lives. I wouldn't talk to children about that. OK?

2nd - You said all kinds of stuff about justification: "Secondly, if you did something unpleasant to someone and couldn't justify why you did it or what you hoped to gain, then it probably IS torture, which is not to say that it couldn't be torture even if you claimed a justification." What I was getting at is that justification is not an excuse.
Click to expand...

Justifications can be a reason for actions. Excuse doesn't have to come into it.

3rd - Well you not thinking there is a relationship makes me feel all better.
Also, I did not say anything about thinking terrorist acts are "all a simple matter of revenge for some specific act". I asked a question - do stories of US mistreatment of prisoners may have some affect on the actions of kidnappers in Iraq?
Click to expand...

Yes, such stories, both the true ones and the made up ones, probably have some effect on some people who are driven by simple revenge, but that is not what drives terrorism, or insurgency if you want to call it that.
 
Elind said:
I would scare the bejesus out of someone I had reason to believe was a terrorist, or similar, in order to get answers that could save lives. I wouldn't talk to children about that. OK?

Justifications can be a reason for actions. Excuse doesn't have to come into it.

Yes, such stories, both the true ones and the made up ones, probably have some effect on some people who are driven by simple revenge, but that is not what drives terrorism, or insurgency if you want to call it that.
Click to expand...
1st - 'Scaring the bejesus' is not what we were talking about. Also, to be precise, talking to children is off topic too. A definition of torture that included what you would not be ashamed to tell children that you did to a prisoner is the topic.

2nd - Justification and excuse are pretty much the same thing.

3rd - 'What drives terrorism or insurgency' is not what we were talking about either. Folks driven by revenge, are who our conflict is with. Perhaps it would be wise to anticipate responses in kind for our actions.
 
Freakshow said:
I thought it was very obvious, from the way the scenario is presented. The scenario strips away the practical real-world objections ("He might not be the right person", "He might not actually know the info you are looking for", etc.) and reduces it to a core scenario of just whether that act is acceptable or not in and of itself.
Click to expand...

Surely this is what makes it philosophy, rather than politics, though?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom