|
|
|
Chagur
New Member
USA
21 Posts |
 Posted - 04/22/2002 : 20:26:26 [Permalink]
|
URL doesn't work for me, Mespo_man.
"Fie, fie how franticly I square my talk!"
- EDWIN A. ABBOTT
Edited by - Chagur on 04/22/2002 20:28:43 |
 |
|
|
opus
Skeptic Friend
Canada
50 Posts |
Posted - 06/30/2002 : 22:34:43 [Permalink]
|
What I do not understand coming from those that think tourture might be justified under the right circumstance, is how any of the information could be trusted? There are many examples of false confessions from the last 20 years of American justice, even after Miranda. I do not even think it is very often the case that the police were acting in malice. They had a reasonable suspect, light eveidence, so they push a little harder on a person they already think to be guilty. Voila confession!
Whom do you get to perform the tourture? Those that are most often willing, may be exactly the people that you do not want to give power to. Could an average person survive inflicting such pain on a person? I do not believe I could.
Further I am not even slightly convinced that the 'authorities' have the ability to know who should or should not be tourtured. These people make mistakes constantly, not because they are incomptent or idiots, but because information is imperfect. They have to interpret what they know against what they do not know. A keeness to succeed could well force a bad decision.
It is in fact the very imperfectness of current information that the idea of tourturing is being put forward. This alone should raise alarms. Basically, it comes down to the concept that we do not know what is going on, so we need to get meaner. Why not choose to get smarter?
|
|
|
|
Atheist_Conspirator
New Member
Canada
6 Posts |
Posted - 07/01/2002 : 00:00:45 [Permalink]
|
An act need not be moral for one to be justified in committing said act. For example, eating is not a moral act, yet we do it all of the time; nor is the act of typing on a computer, as I am doing right now. I answered "no" to the question whether or not it's morally justified to torture a person for information.
Is it ever a necessary act? I will say yes. The bomb scenario is a good example (stated in an earlier post). And whether one can be certain if the information is correct or not is irrelevant when one is forced into an exceptional situation. Exceptional situations call for exceptional actions.
In a "perfect" world all people get treated for their illnesses; however, there is a medical concept known as "triage" where Drs have to choose which people they will attempt to save. This is not the rule, rather the exception as brought on by emergency situations. In this situation I don't see any case of immorality being brought against Drs when forced into this situation. But is it moral? Or is it free from the implication of moral and immoral acts? I'll go with the latter of the two.
On the other hand, if it is one's moral obligation to ultimately protect one's family, then it might be morally justified to torture someone for information?
Anyhoo, I'd torture someone in a heartbeat were I in an exceptional circumstance.
P.S. About the torturee possibly giving false information--varify it. If what he says corresponds to reality, then the torture stops. Well, then I guess a little bit more might be needed for punishment *wink wink*
"Shall I show you the muscular training of a philosopher?"
"What muscles are those?"
"A will not disappointed; evils avoided; powers daily exercised; careful resolutions; unerring decisions." |
|
|
|
Lars_H
SFN Regular
Germany
630 Posts |
Posted - 07/01/2002 : 08:07:52 [Permalink]
|
quote:
An act need not be moral for one to be justified in committing said act.
How do you justify something without invoking your own moral code at some point.
quote:
For example, eating is not a moral act, yet we do it all of the time; nor is the act of typing on a computer, as I am doing right now.
Of course eating and typing are moral acts. They might be so trivially moral that you don't even realize it most of the time, but everytime when you make a decision you do so based on your own moral code. You eat because otherwise you would be hungry, strave or face the humiliation of being forcefed intravenously. Normally the avoidance of hunger, humiliation, pain and possible death take a very high priority in ones moral code and allow for justification of a large number of actions including eating. Typing is just the ends to the means of communication. wich is by comparison a rather complex concept, but since you are doing it this special instnce of communication must be justified according to your moral code.
quote:
In a "perfect" world all people get treated for their illnesses; however, there is a medical concept known as "triage" where Drs have to choose which people they will attempt to save. This is not the rule, rather the exception as brought on by emergency situations. In this situation I don't see any case of immorality being brought against Drs when forced into this situation. But is it moral? Or is it free from the implication of moral and immoral acts? I'll go with the latter of the two.
You can't make decisions free from moral implications. The decision to save as many as possible is based on the moral that one should save the largest number of humans possible. And that the needs of many ouweigh the needs of the few.
quote:
On the other hand, if it is one's moral obligation to ultimately protect one's family, then it might be morally justified to torture someone for information?
That depends on your priorities. Morals are not absoult but highly subjective.
quote:
Anyhoo, I'd torture someone in a heartbeat were I in an exceptional circumstance.
If you would do that it means that you would consider it morally justified.
In my opinon nobody ever does anything that he does non think is morally justified. Problems can arise when the morals he really holds clash with those he likes to think he holds.
|
|
|
|
opus
Skeptic Friend
Canada
50 Posts |
Posted - 07/01/2002 : 12:01:40 [Permalink]
|
quote:
On the other hand, if it is one's moral obligation to ultimately protect one's family, then it might be morally justified to torture someone for information?
The old bs protect the family argument. What a load of crap that is. It has more to do with some guy trying to be a big man than anything to do with protecting the family. Not that I would know if that is the case with you.
Further parents reacting to a threat to their children in an emotional and perhaps violent way, is not the same as the state using torture. Is it ok to torture a nieghbourhood child because he knows who is selling crack to your child? Or should you only torture your own child for that information? Keep it in the family...pass on the techniques.
quote:
Is it ever a necessary act? I will say yes. The bomb scenario is a good example (stated in an earlier post). And whether one can be certain if the information is correct or not is irrelevant when one is forced into an exceptional situation. Exceptional situations call for exceptional actions.
Whether you can or can not rely on the information is not irrelevant. Getting the needed information is the whole point of committing the tourture in the first place. If it is done knowing that the information is not reliable then that is an immoral act.
Being forced into exceptional circumstance is what is irrelevant. Any circumstance can be made to seem exceptional. Self belief on the part of the torturer can not be the guide line.
Then you have the falsely tortured. They would suffer the most, because they would never be able to give the correct information. So they keep getting tourtured until some varifiable truth comes out of there mouth. Which can't happen.
quote:
In a "perfect" world all people get treated for their illnesses; however, there is a medical concept known as "triage" where Drs have to choose which people they will attempt to save. This is not the rule, rather the exception as brought on by emergency situations. In this situation I don't see any case of immorality being brought against Drs when forced into this situation. But is it moral? Or is it free from the implication of moral and immoral acts? I'll go with the latter of the two.
Sorry, I do not see what Triage has to do with torturing people. Is not that more of a time managment exercise when the number of casualties are greater than the Doctors ability to treat everyone? There is no moral judgement brought against the doctors, because trying to save peoples lives as best you can is not an immoral act. Fruther triage is not even an exceptional circumstance. It is an emergency to be sure. A doctor would need to invoke an exceptional circumstance for not having started triage when the need called for it.
quote:
Anyhoo, I'd torture someone in a heartbeat were I in an exceptional circumstance.
P.S. About the torturee possibly giving false information--varify it. If what he says corresponds to reality, then the torture stops. Well, then I guess a little bit more might be needed for punishment *wink wink*
Yeah right.
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
