|
|
|
Garrette
SFN Regular
USA
562 Posts |
|
|
Lars_H
SFN Regular
Germany
630 Posts |
 Posted - 02/06/2002 : 11:55:27 [Permalink]
|
I voted NO!
The reason for this is rather simple: I don't want to be tortured myself.
It does not have anything to do with caring about other people but with selfishly caring about my own hide.
Everytime I hear about stuff like that and do nothing about it, I have to wonder: who will be left to care about my rigths and speak up when they come for me?
It is just a first step in the wrong direction it does not nessecrally have to lead anywhere 'bad', but it could.
Sure one could always take a chance and hope that one will realize when it goes 'to far' and say something about it.
A lot of people appear to be willing to take this chance right now. Hope they will fare better then those that have made this decision before them.
There also are those people who are against such things because they care about other people and not just themseves but they are pretty rare.
|
 |
|
|
Archistrategos
New Member
28 Posts |
Posted - 02/13/2002 : 20:27:51 [Permalink]
|
I'm one of those who think that some times the end justify means, and if I have to do it fore greater good, aside with heaviness of morals, the person who's been torture usually is not an innocent and if he is there must be for something!
Better be one hurt than a hundred dead!
|
|
|
|
Xev
Skeptic Friend
USA
329 Posts |
Posted - 02/13/2002 : 20:56:14 [Permalink]
|
I think that there are instances when torture is necessary. Morally acceptable? Maybe not somthing one would like to live with, but if:
A: There is a real, and urgent danger to the lives of others.
B: One is very certain that the person who would be tortured actually knows somthing.
C: The use of torture would save lives.
I could do it, under those circumstances. And feel quite horrible about it for the rest of my life.
Machiavelli said somthing to the effect that he loved his country more than he loved his soul.
I love other people's lives more than I love my sense of decency.
Does this put me on the same level as M. Atta? I think not. Motivation is key. He wanted to destroy life, I would be seeking to protect it.
Xev -Ad astra!- Bellringer |
|
|
|
Boron10
Religion Moderator
USA
1266 Posts |
Posted - 02/13/2002 : 21:04:22 [Permalink]
|
...and this is the fundamental problem with abstract moral questions. One can always think of a hypothetical situation in which something might be justified, but most of the time, it is not possible for theses situations to arise. quote:
A: There is a real, and urgent danger to the lives of others.
This is obviously quite possible.quote:
B: One is very certain that the person who would be tortured actually knows somthing.
Here is the main problem. How can you be certain? Is it ever possible to know what and how much any other person knows?quote:
C: The use of torture would save lives.
And the secondary problem with this scenario, this can only be determined after the fact. So, the torture may or may not be justified at the time you begin.
-me. |
|
|
|
Xev
Skeptic Friend
USA
329 Posts |
Posted - 02/13/2002 : 21:36:49 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Here is the main problem. How can you be certain? Is it ever possible to know what and how much any other person knows?
You can't. But you can be reasonably certain.
quote:
And the secondary problem with this scenario, this can only be determined after the fact. So, the torture may or may not be justified at the time you begin.
Again, reasonable certainty.
Thought experiment:
A man is caught trying to board an airplane. He has a suitcase containing explosives, and other terrorist 'paraphenilia'. You take him into custody, and hear of a simular man who has been apprehended trying to destroy a building.
Now, there could be more of them. And you are reasonably certain that these men are connected. So, do you torture him to find out what he knows?
Thought constitutes the greatness of man -Pascal |
|
|
|
Slater
SFN Regular
USA
1668 Posts |
Posted - 03/21/2002 : 18:22:40 [Permalink]
|
[quote]So, do you torture him to find out what he knows?
[/quote]
Depends. If it's "Jet Blue" then he is probably just a steward
-------
It will sometimes be necessary to use falsehood for the benefit of those who need such a mode of treatment.
----Eusebius of Nicomedia,
The Preparation of the Gospel |
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13477 Posts |
Posted - 03/21/2002 : 19:26:26 [Permalink]
|
[quote]I'm one of those who think that some times the end justify means, and if I have to do it fore greater good, aside with heaviness of morals, the person who's been torture usually is not an innocent and if he is there must be for something!
Better be one hurt than a hundred dead! [/quote]
[quote]
Here is the main problem. How can you be certain? Is it ever possible to know what and how much any other person knows?
[/quote]
[quote]
You can't. But you can be reasonably certain.[/quote]
Reasonably certain? Well, you know, a lot of witches were burned at the stake because they confessed to being witches under the pain and duress of torture. And many of their accusers and torturers were reasonably certain that they were torturing witches. Sometimes they had proof. Eye witness's, good circumstantial evidence. There were even sure fire tests for finding out if a suspect was a witch.
My guess is you probably draw the line about what constitutes "reasonable certainty" somewhere closer to what is generally excepted in this more enlightened age.
There are many people sitting in jail, some on death row, because they confessed to crimes they did not commit in this more enlightened age. Victims of good cop, bad cop and that sort of thing. And they weren't tortured. They were just fucked with.
The end justifies the means? For the greater good? Who's version of the greater good would you be referring to?
Boy, do we start down a slippery slope when we start choosing exactly who it's ok to torture. I was under the impression that it was those governments that condoned torture for "fact finding" that we were supposed to be opposing. Maybe I'm confused on this point. It seems to me that if we really want to live in a civilized country, then we have to do more then pay lip service to what it means to be civil. Even if that means putting off our immediate goal for a while.
The Evil Skeptic
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous. |
|
|
|
Omega
Skeptic Friend
Denmark
164 Posts |
Posted - 03/21/2002 : 20:07:26 [Permalink]
|
No. According to the Human Rights declaration, torture is one of the most horrible things.
Yes, I've also pondered the question about what I would do, if I happened upon a situation like the terrorists in my house or others of the same drawer.
It's easy to say “yes” in that situation, but I don't want a police-state. Denmark violates the Human Rights, as the legal system use isolation against people, who haven't even been convicted of any crime yet.
Torture is degrading, and to extract truthful information, I'd rather someone invented a better “truth-drug”. I don't want society to use what it deems wrong. It's the same reason I'm a strong opponent of the death-penalty. Using torture is no guarantee for anything. It is not a guarantee for truth. Killing someone will not undo the deaths of others. Nor does it prevent murder in society.
In the case of the 5-year old kidnapped child, the kidnapper may just spew out a wrong location. In the scenery with terrorists who refuse to defuse a bomb, they may be just fanatical enough to eat the pain and wait for the bomb to go off and die along with everyone else.
But the question was “morally acceptable”. Certain circumstances. I say “no”, because what will be next?
"Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the the universe."
-Albert Einstein |
|
|
|
Boron10
Religion Moderator
USA
1266 Posts |
Posted - 03/28/2002 : 00:37:45 [Permalink]
|
Xev:[quote]So, do you torture him to find out what he knows?[/quote]
I had been avoiding answering this question for a while, and then Kil beat me to it, and answered better than I could have. Utilitarianism doesn't work to choose your actions; that is, it is not physically possible to determine the "greater good" before the scene fully plays out. Because of that, I cannot conceive of a situation in which I could be certain enough to harm another person.
-me. |
|
|
|
Garrette
SFN Regular
USA
562 Posts |
Posted - 03/28/2002 : 09:36:16 [Permalink]
|
[quote]I had been avoiding answering this question for a while, and then Kil beat me to it, and answered better than I could have. Utilitarianism doesn't work to choose your actions; that is, it is not physically possible to determine the "greater good" before the scene fully plays out. Because of that, I cannot conceive of a situation in which I could be certain enough to harm another person. [/quote]
I agree with the beginning of this but must admit to human faults in regard to the conclusion.
I can conceive of situations when I'd be certain enough.
Were my children in mortal peril and were my assessment of the situation lead me to conclude that my best option in saving them were to torture someone for information, I might very well do it.
I would not require certainty that the person were guilty, nor certainty that torture would provide me with useable or correct information. I would only need the belief that torture was my best option.
I hope that afterwards I would be willing to accept the consequences, but as I've never been to that extreme, I don't know. When it was all over, I might just run like a rabbit and hide on an island somewhere.
My admission of an ability to engage in torture is NOT equivalent to an argument that it should be legal. I don't believe that is an inconsistency.
My kids still love me. |
|
|
|
Boron10
Religion Moderator
USA
1266 Posts |
Posted - 03/28/2002 : 13:29:32 [Permalink]
|
Garrette, I mostly agree with you here. Since I have never been in such a situation, I really do not know what I would do. I might be better able to answer this if I had children of my own.
-me. |
|
|
|
Xev
Skeptic Friend
USA
329 Posts |
Posted - 03/31/2002 : 02:31:27 [Permalink]
|
Interesting. It seems to depend on how readily you accept the possibility of being in error, and how you deal with that possibility.
I have a rather fluid moral code. Or rather, a strict set of guidlines, but only guidelines.
Kil asked:
quote:
The end justifies the means? For the greater good? Who's version of the greater good would you be referring to?
*Shrugs*
I had hoped that the preservation of life would be the end. I could be wrong, of course.
Now the thing is, we could all be wrong on everything. There is no certainty except that things are uncertain, (and I am not even certain of that  ).
So what are we to do? Do we stand by while, potentially, thousands of people are killed, because we are not certain that our ideals are right?
You can't be certain of anything. One can accept this and try to be as certain as possible, or one can do nothing, ever.
BTW, I am referring to personal choice. I do not think the government should be allowed to use torture under any circumstances.
- Cthulhu Saves! - |
|
|
|
Boron10
Religion Moderator
USA
1266 Posts |
Posted - 03/31/2002 : 16:07:59 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Interesting. It seems to depend on how readily you accept the possibility of being in error, and how you deal with that possibility.
Yup. The reason for this is, I know torture harms somebody, and unless I am that sure that it would alleviate any other harm, I would not do it. quote:
I have a rather fluid moral code. Or rather, a strict set of guidlines, but only guidelines.
Yeah, me too. quote:
Now the thing is, we could all be wrong on everything. There is no certainty except that things are uncertain, (and I am not even certain of that ).
Again, me too.quote:
So what are we to do? Do we stand by while, potentially, thousands of people are killed, because we are not certain that our ideals are right?
Aye, there's the rub. It is not the certainty of ideals that is the issue. It is the certainty of information and consequences. I will choose not to torture somebody unless I am as certain of the results and consequences as I am certain that I will cause deliberate harm to that individual. quote:
You can't be certain of anything. One can accept this and try to be as certain as possible, or one can do nothing, ever.
Yet again, I agree.
-me. |
|
|
|
Mespo_man
Skeptic Friend
USA
312 Posts |
Posted - 04/05/2002 : 08:26:31 [Permalink]
|
Say gang,
Here's some gasoline to pour on the fire...
http://msnbc.com/news/734530.asp
Which is why we have to be extremely careful about the prisoners at Guantanamo Bay.
(:raig |
|
|
 |
|
Topic Locked
