Your stand on torture

[Letum]

For the purpose of discussion, I will assume torture is effective. This is debatable, but
not something I am qualified to speculate about.
Further more, I will assume that torture is in it's self a bad thing. I make this assumption
based on the common consensus and my own humble compassion for all of humanity
to some extent.

This in mind, it seams to me that the question can be boiled down to:

Is it right to do any evil if you think that more good will come out of it?

Making decisions with this maxim is problematic. It could potentially used to justify
anything, there are problems with predicting outcomes, it sets a dangerous president
for evil acts, and the morality of your ends are most likely highly subjective.

The term "torture" and it's ends are too broad for me to universaly condem it, but
I struggle to find a situation in wich the problems with it would not be significant.

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by Letum

For the purpose of discussion, I will assume torture is effective. This is debatable, but
not something I am qualified to speculate about.
Further more, I will assume that torture is in it's self a bad thing. I make this assumption
based on the common consensus and my own humble compassion for all of humanity
to some extent.

This in mind, it seams to me that the question can be boiled down to:

hundreds killed by terror is better than to do torture ourselves.
Making decisions with this maxim is problematic. It could potentially used to justify
anything, there are problems with predicting outcomes, it sets a dangerous president
for evil acts, and the morality of your ends are most likely highly subjective.

The term "torture" and it's ends are too broad for me to universaly condem it, but
I struggle to find a situation in wich the problems with it would not be significant.

That is the major moral dilemma here, isn't it. You ask:

Is it right to do any evil if you think that more good will come out of it?

Poll option 6 reads:

Hundreds killed by terror is better than to do torture ourselves.

[Letum]

Originally Posted by Skybird

That is the major moral dilemma here, isn't it. You ask:

Is it right to do any evil if you think that more good will come out of it?

Poll option 6 reads:

Hundreds killed by terror is better than to do torture ourselves.

Yup, to invoke the "ticking bomb" example, one of note in moral philosophy:

Lets say there is a criminal who knows the location of a massive bomb. He won't
tell the police where the bomb is, however he is known to be a coward and will likely
tell the police about them bomb if they kicked him a bit i.e. a very mild torture.

It looks open and shut at first glance, but I don't think it is.

[Tchocky]

Originally Posted by Letum

Yup, to invoke the "ticking bomb" example, one of note in moral philosophy:

Lets say there is a criminal who knows the location of a massive bomb. He won't
tell the police where the bomb is, however he is known to be a coward and will likely
tell the police about them bomb if they kicked him a bit i.e. a very mild torture.

As a hypothetical it's a cobbler, difficult to come down on either side.

This is mostly due to the assumption of perfect knowledge, which makes the situation less and less relevant. If you knew this much about the character, you probably wouldn't be in this situation in the first place.

[Letum]

Originally Posted by Tchocky

As a hypothetical it's a cobbler, difficult to come down on either side.

This is mostly due to the assumption of perfect knowledge, which makes the situation less and less relevant. If you knew this much about the character, you probably wouldn't be in this situation in the first place.

Oh quite, but even if we don't assume perfect knowlage, or at least no more perfect
than in every day circumstances, it is still a difficult question.

The situation has certinaly occured, all be it in a less stark way.

Jury is out for me for now.

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by Letum

Yup, to invoke the "ticking bomb" example, one of note in moral philosophy:

Lets say there is a criminal who knows the location of a massive bomb. He won't
tell the police where the bomb is, however he is known to be a coward and will likely
tell the police about them bomb if they kicked him a bit i.e. a very mild torture.

Dirty Harry, part V, I think. It caused a public uproar in Germany when it was released in the mid-80s. It's not a bomb but a girl kidnapped and burried in a sealed box, running out of air.

What weighs heavier: the rights of the criminal, or the interests of his victim and it's right to live and be healthy? Not torturing a terrorist, or preventing the killing of hundreds? Having both is not possible, that is why I excluded multiple choices. What makes an ethic value saying that torturing is wrong, and that there are too many risks for innocents become victims, so superior to an ethics that says: torturing terror suspects and even accept the risk to torture an innocent or two by misake is morally superior if it saves the lives of hundreds who else would get killed.

If you would have had a word in it, and decided against torturing, and then learn that the investigations failed to find the needed info and now 400 (or 40, or 4000) are dead, what would you say, how would you feel, what would to tell their next of kin?

With this in mind, if you would have decided to allow torture, and then learn that your people caught an innocent one: what would you say, how would you feel?

[Letum]

Originally Posted by Skybird

Dirty Harry, part V, I think. It caused a public uproar in Germany when it was released in the mid-80s. It's not a bomb but a girl kidnapped and burried in a sealed box, running out of air.

What weighs heavier: the rights of the criminal, or the interests of his victim and it's right to live and be healthy? Not torturing a terrorist, or preventing the killing of hundreds? Having both is not possible, that is why I excluded multiple choices. What makes an ethic value saying that torturing is wrong, and that there are too many risks for innocents become victims, so superior to an ethics that says: torturing terror suspects and even accept the risk to torture an innocent or two by misake is morally superior if it saves the lives of hundreds who else would get killed.

If you would have had a word in it, and decided against torturing, and then learn that the investigations failed to find the needed info and now 400 (or 40, or 4000) are dead, what would you say, how would you feel, what would to tell their next of kin?

With this in mind, if you would have decided to allow torture, and then learn that your people caught an innocent one: what would you say, how would you feel?

Indeed.
Even if you are right not to torture, you could be accused of "moral indulgence"; you
have been moral and kept your own hands clean, but at the expense of others.
To switch from utilitarianism to Kantian/rule ethics: is it worse to do a small bad than
it is to do nothing about a greater bad.

However, things get more complicated when we consider that should not really be
discussing whether the decision to torture is right or wrong.
Instead we should be discussing whether it is right to trust other people or the
government to make that decision.

If we decide we should let them make that decision, then we can not complain if
we think they have got it wrong.

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by Letum

Instead we should be discussing whether it is right to trust other people or the
government to make that decision.

If we decide we should let them make that decision, then we can not complain if
we think they have got it wrong.

True. That scenario would be covered by option 5, i think.

Generalised rules and blueprints obviously do not solve the dilemma. I wonder if the single case examination could be a "moral" solution, done by a gremium that is not an internal government's or service'S affair, and that is accepted in public and countercontrolled by the public. Which would need that the currently apparently robust majority of people being against torture in general and for most principal reasons, would need to rethink the issue. Law-free spaces wothout any countercontrol like guantanamo of course cannot be the solution, or extraordinary prisoner deliveries into countries where torture is not forbidden.

Although I have seen what terrible conseqeunces torture (for just breaking people) can cause, i rate the interests of victims as higher than those of the criminal perpetrators, and that on a very principal level. So eventually I can imagine to accept the use of torture, but not on the basis of general rules, but only after close analysis of the single case in question by a gremium that is not under exclusive control of the government and it's services, by that avoiding any risks of automatic processes getting started once somebody finds himself trapped in the system. The risk of trapping an innocent still remains, that'S why I cannot imagine to accept torture as a standard procedure, and it should be reserved only for most extreme example and single, rare excepötions from the rule, and when there is reasonable assumption that torture indeed could be of help. ragaridng the subject's personality and character and biography.

And even then it does not feel well to accept it.

And hopefull it never will.

as long as it is not like this, I will stick to option 4, and run the risk of causing the suffering of many more innocents becoming victims by that. A real dilemma.

What I do not like is the hypocrisy. In europe, intel data from American sources of which it was known that it was won by "harsh interrogations", nevertheless was used in terror prevention. At the same time one was pointing finger at the US and complained that they were using these procedures. You either will the outcome, than you will the means as well, or you refuse both.

[Seadogs]

No, I only have a problem with people being too liberal with the term "Torture". I had to stand for an hour "TORTURE!", Someone ate something religiously offensive for lunch in my field of view "TORTURE!" I ran out of TP and did not get anymore for an hour "TORTURE!". You get the idea, but thanks to our, listen to the label not look at the content, society these days it's happening.

[Jimbuna]

No 6...... Treat others the way you would like to be treated.

[Letum]

Originally Posted by jimbuna

No 6...... Treat others the way you would like to be treated.

Frankly, thats daft. I would like everyone to give me cakes. That doesn't mean that
I should give cakes to killers.

"Behave in the way you think everyone should behave" is somewhat better, but it does not
make questions any less complex.

[Stealth Hunter]

Originally Posted by jimbuna

No 6...... Treat others the way you would like to be treated.

I never ordered it, our colonel did, and at the risk of being shot for treason I carried them out. Part of the reason why I shot them was not only because they killed civilians, but also because they were in such bad shape I took pity on them (and also I wouldn't want the government to get their hands on them; that would be a thousand times worse).