So. Torture.

[Lilani]

Agreed, I also believe in the death penalty for certain crimes, how can anyone tell me a child raping murderer should be kept alive is beyond me.

Well, first of all with the amount of litigation it takes to execute someone as well as obtaining the means to do so, it actually costs the state more money to execute a prisoner than to incarcerate them for the rest of their life. At first saving money may seem a petty reason, but consider how else that money could be used. For example, shoring up mental health resources, providing help to people who feel sexual urges toward children, providing education for both people and children to watch for signs of this and help them approach the situation. Pedophiles are usually quite aware of their problem and don't want to cause harm, but due to the fact that they'll be ruined simply for admitting they have those urges, it's impossible for them to seek help or support. This causes a cycle of self-hatred which makes them more likely to do something drastic or harmful.

Secondly, the death penalty is not an effective deterrent against crime. It never really has been, under any circumstances. People who murder and rape are not mentally well, and a fear of death is not going to help with that. If someone is considering rape or premeditated murder, whether or not they'll live or die is not a concern registering very high for them. It's simply not on their radar. And there are plenty of mental illnesses to consider.

Thirdly, there is always the statistical chance of someone innocent getting executed. Not every death row inmate's story is clear-cut even with all the litigation that goes on, and not to mention we still don't know what to do with people who are mentally ill or disabled.

The purpose of justice is not revenge, and nor can it ever be. Here in America we are far too concerned about revenge and punishment of prisoners, and it's biting us in the ass in a bad way. We incarcerate more people and for longer than any other first world country, and what has it gotten us? A revolving door prison system which does nothing but unteach inmates on how to live in normal society, and none of it has put a dent in murder, rape, or other violent crime rates. We still have solitary confinement which the UN has declared to be a form of psychological torture, and in every modern study has only proven to make prisoners more violent, more unstable, and less likely to recover.

We allow and practically celebrate prison rape, which just allows mob justice which circumvents the normal course of due process. I do not feel safer knowing that people who have been taken out of society for breaking the rules of the system are being shown that sometimes it IS okay to break the rules and violate another person, just as long as you feel morally justified in doing so. Nobody's being made safer, nobody's lives are being improved, and really it's just kind of embarrassing. Hell even Pakistan had banned the death penalty until that school shooting a couple of days ago.

As for torture, I'm obviously against that. The hypothetical is pointless, you can never know if torture is giving you accurate information, and even then I think by the time you resort to such measures it's clear you don't have a lot that's worth defending anyway.

 

[small]

why even bother to ask the question when its specifically designed to make people give one answer

 

[Smooth Operator]

Well if it's fine for people you don't like then it's also fine for people you do, i.e. every one of your people.
And you don't know what information they have until you break them completely, so you really need to do it with every single one of them.
Do you get the gruesome picture yet, do you understand you are setting the standard for what everyone will be doing to people?

This is why both Geneva and UN conventions forbid that shit, not that anyone gives a shit since the "ultimate good guy country" has torture camps in just about every country now.

 

[chikusho]

Well I'm not a terrorist so it would be somewhat pointless.

At least 26 people held by the CIA were not terrorists either. Tortured all the same.
Also, regarding waterboarding, you need to remember that it's not just "having an uncomfortable time and getting a little wet". The entire situation that you are put in is extremely hostile and being subjected to that treatment leaves deep scars in your psyche. Hell, some people who were waterboarded have developed severe hydrophobia, and can't even pull a shirt over their heads anymore without triggering a panic attack.

http://www.theguardian.com/law/2014/dec/13/learned-helplessness-enduring-effects-torture-haunt-victims

 

[Souther Thorn]

[/quote]
The point of the question wasn't to justify real-lie torture. I'm against real-life torture. I just wanted to see how people would react if the effectiveness wasn't an issue.[/quote]

If the argument is one of effectiveness I have a lovely cast of characters in red robes and black uniforms to introduce you to, they'd love to have you in your ranks.
The point, is perhaps not one of 'effectiveness', but to use a nasty term 'moral highground'. One cannot claim to stand for human rights if one violates them no matter what that means. If you torture them, any outrage, justification, or retaliation you make take on others for torturing you and yours are now moot, and we're reduced to 'who can hurt who most viciously'. Plenty of reasons in my opinion to take 'effectiveness' right out of the fucking equation. If we want to argue for 'effect' being respondent to action, lets look at the other extremes we could go to, and call me back when you want out.

 

[CrystalShadow]

Hmm... Very tricky question.

Taking it as is, I'm really not sure. Then again this is one of those "damned if you do... Damned if you don't" kind of questions... Arguably you could consider how many lives are potentially being saved torturing one person, though that utilitarian mindset can easily become very dangerous.

Of course in the real world we have the slight issue that torture is a very unreliable means of getting information.
One of the problems is that you can torture someone into admitting something they didn't do, or tell you whatever you want to hear. (not the truth, nessesarily, just whatever they think will stop you hurting them).
If you break a person through torture, the only thing you can really be sure of is they'll tell you whatever it takes to stop you torturing them more.
Often these are outright lies or fabrications. Not because they had any reason to lie, but because they didn't know anything to begin with, and just end up coming up with some story, anything, that sounds vaguely like what they think you'd want to hear...

 

[Eddie the head]

EDIT 2: This thread is meant for a discussion about whether you'd choose torture in this unrealistic fantasy scenario; not about whether torture works in the real world.

Naa. I think I would use unicorn farts instead. Much more effective. Seriously the effectiveness is the whole issue. It's an ineffective technique that causes undue harm unto people. I might not like war but it's at least somewhat effective at what it dose.

 

[M0rp43vs]

In this unrealistic scenario, I wouldn't complain if it really is that obvious. I wouldn't be happy with it but I doubt my word is gonna stop it either way (hell, considering my skin colour, I might be a prime next suspect/s).

What I'm most worried about is if, ignoring effectiveness, it will create a martyr, especially if word gets out. "The enemy will horribly torture our people to get what they want and will do the same to you if they catch you! Join us, and make sure you don't let them take you alive and take out as much of them before you go!".

You can argue that the enemy is already pulling off atrocities, eye for an eye and all that, but I still think creating more enemy soldiers might not be a good idea. But then, what do I know in this scenario?

 

[Imperioratorex Caprae]

I don't support hypocrisy in the Government condemning one form of barbarism (torture) while ordering another form and not being honest about what it does (drone strikes). I'm avoiding the question because I don't feel its a valid question to begin with. Too many caveats.

Rather I'll give my view on how the government handles itself. They air another administration's dirty laundry like they've got such a clean record themselves, its all hypocritical bullshit. Today's administration isn't any less dirty than the last one and aren't scoring any points with me by condemning one barbaric practice while carrying out another.

If it could produce good information reliably, I wouldn't necessarily be OK with it but if it ended up saving lives I could do the trade-off. Just like I'm not necessarily ok with drone strikes but if you can prove the strike actually prevented something worse from happening I won't be pissed off about it. Lets just call a spade a spade and be done with that and not try to pass ourselves off as wholly civilized folk. We're not there yet, even if we're making an effort.

 

[Ariseishirou]

EDIT 2: This thread is meant for a discussion about whether you'd choose torture in this unrealistic fantasy scenario; not about whether torture works in the real world.

The situation you've created is so far removed from reality that I might as well answer "neither: I compel him to give in with the power of magic and friendship."

 

[Adeptus Aspartem]

In your very loaded scenario where you railroad us into the only answer we can give the answer is: Yes.

What's the point of it now? I don't understand this thought experiment at all. What do you conclude from this?

 

[Cowabungaa]

What's the point of it now? I don't understand this thought experiment at all. What do you conclude from this?

It's clearly a moral/ethical thought experiment.

Going from that it poses a tough challenge to most ethical systems. Utilitarianism would obviously go "Jup it's fine" but fuck utilitarianism anyway. Broken-ass bullshit system that is.

 

[castlewise]

What's the point of it now? I don't understand this thought experiment at all. What do you conclude from this?

It's clearly a moral/ethical thought experiment.

Going from that it poses a tough challenge to most ethical systems. Utilitarianism would obviously go "Jup it's fine" but fuck utilitarianism anyway. Broken-ass bullshit system that is.

You're right in this is basically the Trolley Car problem with a different hat on. And you are right that Utilitarianism says that you violate the rights of the one to save the many and pretty much every other system says no. Funny thing is that while most people would say they aren't Utilitarians when you ask them in abstract, many certainly act "utilitarianesque" when they have to make hard choices.

 

[Pyrian]

This thread is meant for a discussion about whether you'd choose torture in this unrealistic fantasy scenario...

That's way too deep down the "hypothetical" rabbit hole. There's a point at which unrealistic fantasy scenarios are so unrealistic that they're only being used to lie. Torture simply doesn't work for gaining information; that's a well-established fact, indeed it was well-established even before the latest revelations underscored it.

 

[dreng3]

In less than a hearbeat.
I'm not in favout of using torture to punish people, though I'm not above thinking that some people should suffer horribly before being put out of their misery.
In order to gather information though? If there is reliable information, and I mean extraordinarily reliable info, that the person we are dealing with is a terorist or something along those lines I don't really mind (it would be different if he or she was an enemy combatant like a soldier). And before someone tells me that torture doesn't work I just want to say that beating and waterboarding someone is idiotic and not something i would condone, if nothing else then because it is horribly ineffective.
But I don't have much in the way of a moral compass so I might just be the odd one out.

 

[000Ronald]

Imagine if the CIA's caught an Al-Quaeda member that has been irrefutably proven to be a member. And for some reason convenient to this hypothetical secenario, they know for sure that torturing him extremely horribly will produce the info needed to stop a 9/11-scale attack scheduled for the very next day. This is the only way they can get that info.

Do you support torturing him?

(Oh, and I know perfectly well this kind of convenience isn't how it works in real life. That's why I didn't post this in the politics forum -- it's not applicable to real-world politics. Just interested in what you'll reply.)[/b]

So what you're asking is if-in your unrealistic fantasy where torture is not only the right option, but the only correct option, if I would go through with it?

Well then fuck you, because my answer is no. There are always better ways of getting information. Why not try bribing him? Why not try getting his family hand having them talk to him?

Furthermore, what about the blowback? Are you just going to torture every person you think has information? Are you going to expect to have the same circumstances literally every time? Because you won't. And how do you know that other people won't just make stuff up? And what happens when one of your soldiers gets captured and has his fingernails ripped out, and is forced to eat his own shit? Are you going to prosecute the bastard that did that? Do you think the world at large will let you?

Your Jack Bauer bullshit is not flying in my home, not without me getting a word in.

 

[kickassfrog]

Well, unless you can directly verify the information, torture doesn't work in the slightest bit, you might as well try to seduce him.

So no, it's not even that difficult a question.

I was going to comment in support of the torture in the hypothetical (not in real world, for reasons given throughout the thread), but I just had to say I love the notion of trying to seduce the plot out of someone. Now if I can just fit this into my next Pathfinder session.

 

[Adeptus Aspartem]

It's clearly a moral/ethical thought experiment.

Going from that it poses a tough challenge to most ethical systems. Utilitarianism would obviously go "Jup it's fine" but fuck utilitarianism anyway. Broken-ass bullshit system that is.

I already said it's a thought experiment. But where's the challenge. It sets up a scenario where the outcome is already predetermined.

A person does something horrible. We have 100% confirmation that this is the bad guy, we also have 100% confirmation that torture will give us information about the horrible thing.
All that is left is: Is it ok to save X people through torturing that one guy. And that answer is obviously yes.
There's no dilema nothing because the scenario gives us 100% certanity of the outcome and that the torutre will help us prevent the death of many.
Also the secnario denies us any other option.

I don't even want to start a discussion about "worth a person", so let's just assume every individual in this scenario is of equal importance to us. What's left is: (n*a > a) right or wrong?

 

[Cowabungaa]

All that is left is: Is it ok to save X people through torturing that one guy. And that answer is obviously yes.

The point is not which outcome we should pick, the point is whether the outcome is morally right or not. And no, the answer to that is not obviously yes. It completely depends on the ethical system you use, and there's a lot of discussing that can be done about this thing.

 

[144_v1legacy]

No, you shouldn't, and fortifying defenses for the threat would be the higher priority. It's easy to justify giving up rights under the guise of the logical choice, but we as a society want to live in a world without torture.