Not okay, Kerr. Not. Okay. There are things you just don't do, no matter what.Knight Captain Kerr said:
So. Torture.
- Thread starter Queen Michael
- Start date
Recommended Videos
This sounds like a case of the Ticking time bomb scenario.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ticking_time_bomb_scenario
The answer of course is yes. Since you have to weigh up the number of lives saved, for arguments sake you can just keep increasing the size of the attack.
What if it's a single life?
What if it's ten?
What if it's an entire town?
What if it's an state?
What if it's all life in the known universe? Maybe they have some kind of hypothetical doomsday device that will collapse the sun.
Since it was specified that it's a 9/11 scale attack, i would still say yes, in this hypothetical scenario.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ticking_time_bomb_scenario
The answer of course is yes. Since you have to weigh up the number of lives saved, for arguments sake you can just keep increasing the size of the attack.
What if it's a single life?
What if it's ten?
What if it's an entire town?
What if it's an state?
What if it's all life in the known universe? Maybe they have some kind of hypothetical doomsday device that will collapse the sun.
Since it was specified that it's a 9/11 scale attack, i would still say yes, in this hypothetical scenario.
It's also a very biased scenario because "bad guy is bad" let's people avoid the whole moral and ethic dilema because "bad guys deserve everything they get".FirstNameLastName said:
Might as well ask people if they'd personally torture a 'known' terrorist for a free cheeseburger... or even just for shit and giggles.
Since when did i say anything about it being justified as a means of punishment? Or for some kind of sick thrill?RhombusHatesYou said:
Even though you didn't specifically say that i said that, it seems implied. If that's not what you meant, then what?
The fact that they did it over 100 times to one of the Al-Queda leader and it still didn't break him would indicate to me that water-boarding probably isn't the most efficient method of torture.Nods Respectfully Towards You said:
BTW has anyone seen the movie 'Unthinkable'? That really makes you think about torture and how far you might go.
Good movie... although the ending might as well just be a torture apologists' circle jerk.Programmed_For_Damage said:
You didn't. However, when talking about people in general, the basic psychology is the same. You tell people that the victim/target is a provably 'bad' person and the cognitive dissonance for most actions taken against them resolves itself pretty damned quick (exactly how much and what actions depends on the individual), especially when stacked against "saving innocents".FirstNameLastName said:
Yes, my second sentence was unnecessary hyperbole that muddied my point... although I could probably dig up some studies to back that silliness up if it was worth the effort.
If torturing one person guilty of crimes was the only way to save several thousand innocent people, then the answer should be pretty obvious to everyone. I'm a very left-leaning guy myself, but to think everything can be overcome without getting one's hands dirty is incredibly naive.
So in a, admittedly purely fantastic, case like this I'd say torture for essential information would be justified if said information was known to be accurate.
So in a, admittedly purely fantastic, case like this I'd say torture for essential information would be justified if said information was known to be accurate.
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.Fonejackerjon said:
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.
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.
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.
At least 26 people held by the CIA were not terrorists either. Tortured all the same.Nods Respectfully Towards You said:
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
[/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.
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.
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...
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...
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.Queen Michael said:
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?
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?
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.
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.
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."Queen Michael said:
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?
What's the point of it now? I don't understand this thought experiment at all. What do you conclude from this?