|
|
|
tergiversant
Skeptic Friend
USA
284 Posts |
 Posted - 10/24/2001 : 17:40:37
|
Poll Question:
Are there any possible circumstances under which it would be morally acceptable to torture people for information?
Edited by - tergiversant on 10/24/2001 17:56:00
|
| Results: |
|
Poll Status:
Locked »» |
Total Votes: 0 counted »» |
Last Vote:
never |
|
|
|
|
Marc_a_b
Skeptic Friend
USA
142 Posts |
Posted - 10/24/2001 : 18:06:40 [Permalink]
|
I vote no, because a person under torture could be saying anything if only to get it to stop. There is still no way to tell if they are telling the truth. Such as torturing a person for information that they simply don't have. If the torturer does not believe him then the abuse will continue untill the victem says anything that will sound likely, and get the person to stop.
Here is an article viewing terrorists as a form of cult. It is rather likely the same cult programming that convinces people to take poison to join a comet will also convince them to kamakazi planes. Perhaps what needs to be done with terrorists is not torture, but exit-counceling. Could opening their minds to the evils of thier group be a better course?
http://www.cultinfo.org/resources/understandterror.html
|
 |
|
|
ZaphodBeeblebrox
Skeptic Friend
USA
117 Posts |
Posted - 10/24/2001 : 18:19:51 [Permalink]
|
quote:
I have seen the man of the future; he is cruel; I am frightened by him.
So, should we all, as Man is capable of Great Evil. I will reveal who uttered, the above quote, by the end of this Post, but suffice it to say, it may be even more true, now. The Reason why Torture is NEVER Acceptable, for ANY reason, is that once you stoop to that level, it is very hard, if not impossible, to come back into the Light. To Live in a Free Society, is One of the Many Gifts, that our Forefathers left to us, and if we go against our Principles, the Moment that it becomes Difficult, then we cheapen their Memory, and do not deserve to be called, Americans!
BTW, that quote, with which you so agreed, was spoken by none other than, Adolf Hitler to Hermann Rauschning, the President of the Danzig Senate.
If you Ignore Your Rights, they WILL, go away.
Edited by - ZaphodBeeblebrox on 10/24/2001 18:23:36
Edited by - ZaphodBeeblebrox on 10/24/2001 18:24:12 |
|
|
|
Gorgo
SFN Die Hard
USA
5310 Posts |
Posted - 10/24/2001 : 19:27:06 [Permalink]
|
I voted no but the question should be re-worded. Does it promote the kind of world that we want? Is it the way that we want others to behave?
I'ts much like the questions people are asking about things like the War on Drugs. Is our goal to reduce the amount of harm done to citizens and promote peace and good health, or is the object to lock up a bunch of our citizens - mostly just for being poor and black - and promote violence and disease?
Stop the murder of the Iraqi people.
http://www.endthewar.org |
|
|
|
ianjack
New Member
Australia
1 Post |
Posted - 10/24/2001 : 19:44:38 [Permalink]
|
I'm sure it wasn't the intention, but the question is loaded. In all honesty there can be only one answer and that is YES. Why ? Because irrespective of a person's moral standards there will be a situation when torture is condoned. For example, what would your reaction be if your 5 year old daughter had been kidnapped and the kidnapper was captured but wouldn't reveal where she was and time was running out. (Make him talk perhaps ????)This is but one example of an infinite number.
Very little in this world is absolute when discussing morality.
|
|
|
|
tergiversant
Skeptic Friend
USA
284 Posts |
Posted - 10/24/2001 : 19:44:56 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Are there any possible circumstances under which it would be morally acceptable to torture people for information?
A friend of mine provided the following analogy. Imagine you arrive at home to find your family held hostage, tied securely to a timed bomb. As you arrive you manage to somehow disarm and subdue the criminal. They tell you that the bomb is going to go off in a matter of mere minutes but refuse to disclose the disarm codes. You have only two choices: (1) inflict severe pain upon the criminal in hopes of getting them to reveal the codes or (2) allow your family to die in the explosion. What do you do?
"Nihil curo de ista tua stulta superstitione."
|
|
|
|
tergiversant
Skeptic Friend
USA
284 Posts |
Posted - 10/24/2001 : 19:57:04 [Permalink]
|
quote:
I vote no, because a person under torture could be saying anything if only to get it to stop.
There is still no way to tell if they are telling the truth. Such as torturing a person for information that they simply don't have.
The question was about any possible circumstances. To answer in the negative based on the above objections, you would have to claim that it is downright impossible to use torture to extract useful and truthful information from someone who actually has it. But this is possible, in fact, it happens quite often. Under such circumstances your objections are irrelevant.
"Nihil curo de ista tua stulta superstitione."
|
|
|
|
Lisa
SFN Regular
USA
1223 Posts |
Posted - 10/24/2001 : 20:04:18 [Permalink]
|
Okay Terg, good points, but...
Say I'm a jailer and I have a known terrorist sitting in one of my cells. Am I so ethically and morally upright that the temptation wouldn't be there? Hell no! Only the constraint of the law would keep me from digging out the rubber hoses.
So shall we institutionalize torture? Torture handbooks? Torture schools?
Lisa
If you're not living on the edge, you're taking up too much room. |
|
|
|
Garrette
SFN Regular
USA
562 Posts |
Posted - 10/24/2001 : 20:05:58 [Permalink]
|
I find myself in agreement with Terg specifically and Gorgo generally.
Ramifications are a consideration, but more so in the creation of rules/laws/ethics, not so much in their implementation.
Allow me to use the military as I so often do. It amuses me when I see Hollywood's portrayal of the military as an institution bound by strict 'regulations.' Perhaps with some exceptions, regulations, manuals, pamphlets, and doctrines are guidelines only. They are meant to give structure to the organization but are recognized even in their propagation to be imperfect. Implementation is left to the individual (most appropriately the commander). Obedience to the rules is expected except when it's not. The final arbiter is usually some form of the question "Did it work?" (with all the attendant complications regarding consequences and costs).
So Gorgo is right in how we formulate the rules, but Terg is right that there are exceptions.
My kids still love me. |
|
|
|
tergiversant
Skeptic Friend
USA
284 Posts |
Posted - 10/24/2001 : 20:07:12 [Permalink]
|
quote:
I voted no but the question should be re-worded. Does it promote the kind of world that we want? Is it the way that we want others to behave?
The question stands as is, a moral hypothetical. If you want to ask questions of pragmatism or policy you are free to create your own poll.
"Nihil curo de ista tua stulta superstitione."
|
|
|
|
tergiversant
Skeptic Friend
USA
284 Posts |
|
|
tergiversant
Skeptic Friend
USA
284 Posts |
Posted - 10/24/2001 : 20:35:18 [Permalink]
|
quote:
I'm sure it wasn't the intention, but the question is loaded...
I assure you that was in fact my intention. The idea was not to ask what is practicable as public policy, but rather whether torture could ever be justified. I'm interested in hearing people's moral reasoning.
"Nihil curo de ista tua stulta superstitione."
|
|
|
|
Gorgo
SFN Die Hard
USA
5310 Posts |
Posted - 10/24/2001 : 20:36:44 [Permalink]
|
And as a moral hypothetical I would still have to say that the answer is no, but am not sure that "moral" is relevant nor does it mean that "moral" is some hard and fast rule that I care about.
To answer the question of whether or not I would torture to save my family, the answer is I don't know. My idea is now that it's a false choice to say that either I torture or my family dies. I hope that I would concentrate on getting my family free and realize that my wish to torture has more to do with blaming my torture victim for my feelings than getting my family free. As has been stated, there is no reason to trust someone that I tortured and my time will probably be better spent on some other task.
quote:
quote:
I voted no but the question should be re-worded. Does it promote the kind of world that we want? Is it the way that we want others to behave?
The question stands as is, a moral hypothetical. If you want to ask questions of pragmatism or policy you are free to create your own poll.
"Nihil curo de ista tua stulta superstitione."
Stop the murder of the Iraqi people.
http://www.endthewar.org |
|
|
|
Lisa
SFN Regular
USA
1223 Posts |
Posted - 10/24/2001 : 20:38:48 [Permalink]
|
quote:
You have those? 
Prefer leather. 
quote:
No, no, and no. Except maybe the CIA, but then what makes us think that those in covert ops have not already done this?
I already thought of that. You can bet if our government has any elements employing torture, the public will never hear about it. Which sort of makes this whole discussion moot, but its fun to open the can of worms anyway.
Garrette, what was your point about the military? In 20 years I never (okay, maybe once) used physical force against the airmen who worked for me. The military truly frowns upon this.
Lisa
If you're not living on the edge, you're taking up too much room. |
|
|
|
Marc_a_b
Skeptic Friend
USA
142 Posts |
Posted - 10/24/2001 : 20:54:22 [Permalink]
|
Ok, I can go along with that. It is because of thinking like this that I try to avoid speaking in absolutes. It is almost always possible to think up some situation where the answer would be different.
"Since when is what's right as simple as a set of rules?" - Cmd Riker
|
|
|
|
ZaphodBeeblebrox
Skeptic Friend
USA
117 Posts |
Posted - 10/24/2001 : 22:05:19 [Permalink]
|
quote:
A friend of mine provided the following analogy. Imagine you arrive at home to find your family held hostage, tied securely to a timed bomb. As you arrive you manage to somehow disarm and subdue the criminal. They tell you that the bomb is going to go off in a matter of mere minutes but refuse to disclose the disarm codes. You have only two choices: (1) inflict severe pain upon the criminal in hopes of getting them to reveal the codes or (2) allow your family to die in the explosion. What do you do?
Isn't that, The Punisher Hypothesis? Anyway, what I'd do, is I'd simply tie the Criminal to the Bomb, and then threaten to leave them there, for the Next Five Minutes at least. Unless, of course, Emotional Torture is also on your list, in which case I'd just have to Disconnect the Red Wire, because it's always the Red Wire, unless of course, it's the Green Wire, or the Blue One, or they're All Black, hmmm...
Seriously though, if Emotional Torture is wrong, then we Really have a Problem, because Law Enforcement Agents, All over the World, use a Variation of that Technique. Furthermore, tying them to the Bomb, has a Poetic Justice to it, and if they are so inured to Death, that they'll willingly Die Tied to the Bomb, then there's Absolutely Nothing more that you could Accomplish, by Shoving Bamboo Shoots Under their Fingernails!
If you Ignore Your Rights, they WILL, go away.
Edited by - ZaphodBeeblebrox on 10/24/2001 22:07:14
Edited by - ZaphodBeeblebrox on 10/24/2001 22:11:37 |
|
|
 |
|
Topic Locked
