So. Torture.

[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.

 

[Loonyyy]

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.

I'm really glad you made this post (There's a couple of others in the same vein). This thought experiment is meant to accomplish what exactly? Get people to choose torture, when we completely redefine torture and the world? Congratulations. That's an incredibly intellectually vapid pursuit. What next, will we read Atlas Shrugged, for the thought experiment of Objectivism? I mean, what do we fucking learn from this? To take anything from the thought experiment would be 1.) Stupid. 2.) Really stupid. 3.) REALLY FUCKING STUPID. 4.) Lead us to an immoral, illogical conclusion.

The worst part is, this thinking minus the caveats is what justifies numerous crimes against humanity, including ones committed BY THE CIA.

 

[spartan231490]

No. Even in this perfect fantasy world, no. Not until and unless he had been convicted of conspiracy or worse.

 

[Gorrath]

Simply put, no. NO way. Not ever. A bit of elaboration though. As I've mentioned around these parts before, I was in the military for years. As part of some elective training, I submitted myself to being tortured using several different methods. I know what torture is, I know what it feels like and I know how it can affect you long-term. Under no circumstance should torture be used. You can come up with whatever hypothetical you like and dress it up however you want, it does not matter. If you engage in torturing your enemies, no matter how you justify it by pointing to outcomes, you have already lost any and all moral high ground. You are no better than the "terrorists" you are torturing and you may as well just be another dictatorial regime.

TO all of those who read this, please take it from someone who knows; torture is wrong. Morally, ethically and in every way possible, torture is wrong. Do not support it, ever, under any circumstance. And in case anyone is wondering, hell yes water boarding is torture.

 

[Madkipz]

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.)

EDIT: I want to clarify a few things that not everybody seems to get.

1. In this hypothetical scenario, the torture is guaranteed to produce accurate information only.

2. There is no other way to acquire the information.

3. You know for sure that the attack will take place.

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.

No.

 

[Thaluikhain]

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.)

EDIT: I want to clarify a few things that not everybody seems to get.

1. In this hypothetical scenario, the torture is guaranteed to produce accurate information only.

2. There is no other way to acquire the information.

3. You know for sure that the attack will take place.

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.

No.

Careful, the mods don't like one word answers. Now, say the same thing using a sentence or two, that's fine.

 

[loa]

EDIT: I want to clarify a few things that not everybody seems to get.

1. In this hypothetical scenario, the torture is guaranteed to produce accurate information only.

What's the point of this then?
One of the biggest counterpoints to torture is that it just doesn't work since it tends to create so much misinformation.
It's like going "let's ignore all false convictions in this scenrio I made up because it suits my agenda" when discussing the death penalty.

Maybe the extent to which you need to bend reality to coerce the answer you want should tell you something about you posiion.

 

[Gorrath]

EDIT: I want to clarify a few things that not everybody seems to get.

1. In this hypothetical scenario, the torture is guaranteed to produce accurate information only.

What's the point of this then?
One of the biggest counterpoints to torture is that it just doesn't work since it tends to create so much misinformation.

Frankly, we don't even need to make an argument that it does not work. The way the CIA and other intelligence agencies work, you don't torture someone and just take what they say as truth. It is one way of obtaining information that is then checked against other forms of intelligence to help put pieces together. The whole, "Torture does not give accurate information" argument is a weak one and also unnecessary. Even if torture gave good intelligence every single time, it wouldn't matter. Torture is morally and ethically wrong, its efficacy has no bearing on whether we should use it.

 

[loa]

Frankly, we don't even need to make an argument that it does not work. The way the CIA and other intelligence agencies work, you don't torture someone and just take what they say as truth. It is one way of obtaining information that is then checked against other forms of intelligence to help put pieces together. The whole, "Torture does not give accurate information" argument is a weak one and also unnecessary. Even if torture gave good intelligence every single time, it wouldn't matter. Torture is morally and ethically wrong, its efficacy has no bearing on whether we should use it.

I like to have arguments that aren't solely based on "morality" since those tend to be weak as well.
See anti abortion protesters and basically anything involving porn or religion.

 

[Frankster]

In this fantasy scenario you've pretty much eliminated all the downsides of torture save for the ethical side.

So what it comes down to is...Are you willing to sacrifice a bit of your humanity to save other peoples lives? Damn that's heavy.

I'm almost glad this is a fantasy scenario, the world would be such a worst place if we happened to know torture worked and should be used whenever possible.

The whole, "Torture does not give accurate information" argument is a weak one and also unnecessary.

It's weak by itself but it's usually said in retort to "you gotta torture someone for their info to save your loved ones!" line of thinking. It is very necessary in context otherwise a lot of people would dismiss YOUR stance as being weak and unnecessary since they don't give a fuck about ethics in torture, they just care about its efficacy to protect their loved ones/country or w/e.

 

[babinro]

100% Absolutely torture the person.
This specific scenario makes it seem negligent to simply let the event happen.

I'm completely against torture in real life because situations are never going to be this clear cut. I'm told that torture in real life is an ineffective means of getting reliable information. I want to believe this to be true. So being able to apply this clear cut 'greater good' rationale no longer works.

 

[Gorrath]

Frankly, we don't even need to make an argument that it does not work. The way the CIA and other intelligence agencies work, you don't torture someone and just take what they say as truth. It is one way of obtaining information that is then checked against other forms of intelligence to help put pieces together. The whole, "Torture does not give accurate information" argument is a weak one and also unnecessary. Even if torture gave good intelligence every single time, it wouldn't matter. Torture is morally and ethically wrong, its efficacy has no bearing on whether we should use it.

I like to have arguments that aren't solely based on "morality" since those tend to be weak as well.
See anti abortion protesters and basically anything involving porn or religion.

The whole, "Torture does not give accurate information" argument is a weak one and also unnecessary.

It's weak by itself but it's usually said in retort to "you gotta torture someone for their info to save your loved ones!" line of thinking. It is very necessary in context otherwise a lot of people would dismiss YOUR stance as being weak and unnecessary since they don't give a fuck about ethics in torture, they just care about its efficacy to protect their loved ones/country or w/e.

The problem is though that the efficacy argument simply isn't a good one. Anyone who actually looks into the issue will learn that torture can be an effective means of intelligence gathering, so if that is a part of your anti-torture argument, it's actually hurting your position. If the person you are debating with does not care about the moral or ethical obligations that are violated by torture, then they need to be challenged philosophically because you can justify doing pretty much anything if you don't care about ethics and morals.

There are plenty of really good reasons to oppose torture but efficacy is not one of them . Using that argument only serves to undermine you.