Offshoot Torture Thread: Your Reasons for Opposition

[amadeus]

Seeing Quacker's torture thread, I thought I'd make one of my own that asks the question: what's your reason for opposing it? What I'm getting at by asking this is whether it's a question of whether you are more opposed to it for moral reasons or for practical reasons.

Let's take a few different hypothetical situations.

(1.) A known terrorist has been captured and possesses valuable information that could save the lives of 10 people. If tortured, he will produce the information leading to the saving of those people's lives.

(2.) A known terrorist has been captured and possesses valuable information that could save the lives of 100,000 people. Again, if tortured, he will produce information leading to the saving of those people's lives.

(3.) A man believed to be a terrorist has been captured and may possess valuable information that could save the lives of 100,000 people. There is only a 50-50 chance that he is a terrorist that holds this information, and the only way to find out is to subject him to torture.

These situations are not supposed to be realistic, they are supposed to raise the question of whether the opposition to practicing torture to extract information is morally wrong under any circumstances, or whether it is more an issue of getting accurate information from the right person and not mistakenly subjecting someone to this horrible treatment.

 

[illram]

Ignoring your admittedly UNREALISTIC hypotheticals...

In the REAL world, which is where the big kids talk about big kid stuff in big kid voices, torture is a) counterproductive; b) produces questionable intelligence compared to legitimate interrogation techniques; and c) is illegal.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

Seeing Quacker's torture thread, I thought I'd make one of my own that asks the question: what's your reason for opposing it? What I'm getting at by asking this is whether it's a question of whether you are more opposed to it for moral reasons or for practical reasons.

Both.

The moral reason: If you betray the values you fight for while fighting, you have lost the battle beforehand.

The practical reason: There never is a torture or x-thousand people will die scenario in real life. Not even torture or x-thousand people might die.

 

[Earthling]

I have a better hypothetical that is clearly more realistic - say the Earth is being menaced by some malicious alien-robot intelligence, whose capture and torture could yield helpful life-saving information.
What would Optimus Prime do?

 

[Thoughtful Thug]

I have a better hypothetical that is clearly more realistic - say the Earth is being menaced by some malicious alien-robot intelligence, whose capture and torture could yield helpful life-saving information.
What would Optimus Prime do?

he would say, "Autobots roll out!"

 

[TheBladeRoden]

I love hypotheticals.

1. Your 8 year old child has multiple personality disorder. One of the personalities is a known terrorist insider (at least that's what the CIA says). The evil personality is the only one who knows the disarm code for a bomb in the public library(according to the CIA guy). The only way to get them to say the code is the tried and true rusty nails under the fingernails technique. Even though your sweet kid is not the dominant personality at the moment, she is still present enough to feel all the pain and stuff. And you must perform the act yourself. Evacuating the public library is impossible because I said so. Could you torture your own daughter in order to save the lives of maybe 20 people who are participating in socialist book lending?

 

[RedRalph]

If it worked I'd do it for the greater good.

 

[amadeus]

I'm requesting moderation on some of the above responses... it should be fairly obvious who is answering like a "big kid" and who is not.

The moral reason: If you betray the values you fight for while fighting, you have lost the battle beforehand.

Do you think that is always the case, though? I'm curious as to whether you're talking about doing so only in the present tense, or whether you believe it applies retroactively -- I'm thinking mostly of the Allied bombings of German and Japanese cities, or maybe the Allies (fighting for "democracy") aiding the Soviet Union and Nationalist China.

If it worked I'd do it for the greater good.

Do you have a margin of error that you'd find acceptable? Or is it more of something you'd have to judge case-by-case?

 

[RedRalph]

Do you have a margin of error that you'd find acceptable? Or is it more of something you'd have to judge case-by-case?

Case-by-case. If a torture technique has been show to be effective, and there is a high chance its use will save lives, then by all means go for it.


But don't BS me and claim it's not torture.

 

[warpus]

Seeing Quacker's torture thread, I thought I'd make one of my own that asks the question: what's your reason for opposing it? What I'm getting at by asking this is whether it's a question of whether you are more opposed to it for moral reasons or for practical reasons.

Both

Moral: Nobody should ever be tortured

Practical: Torture doesn't work as an information-retrieval mechanism

 

[Leonel]

If I recall, torturing only makes them retreat further or say anything at all for the sole purpose of stopping the torture.

 

[illram]

I'm requesting moderation on some of the above responses... it should be fairly obvious who is answering like a "big kid" and who is not.

I gave a reasonable answer to an unreasonable question. You can roll your eyes and complain or you can respond. I'll note that the big kid response is to actually deal with what someone says rather than complain to someone else about it.

 

[Silurian]

torture is a) counterproductive; b) produces questionable intelligence compared to legitimate interrogation techniques; and c) is illegal.

I agree

 

[G-Man]

In the REAL world, which is where the big kids talk about big kid stuff in big kid voices, torture is a) counterproductive; b) produces questionable intelligence compared to legitimate interrogation techniques; and c) is illegal.

About a and b - in a situation where the choice is between torture or no chance of obtaining intelligence, would it be possible for you to support it?
For example: there's a large bomb hidden in the center of an unknown US city. You captured one of the people who have hidden it. He knows exactly where the bomb is but he refuses to talk. It's about to go off in an hour, so there's no time for traditional interrogation techniques. Essentially, your choice is between torturing him hoping to stop the bom in time or not torturing him, knowing you've just doomed an unknown number of innocent people to death. What do you do?

And as to c - It's questionable exactly when and how much it is illegal due to the defence of necessity. But regardless, laws aren't written in stone and should generally reflect morals. If we decide that torture under certain circumstances can be moral, the law should be changed.

The moral reason: If you betray the values you fight for while fighting, you have lost the battle beforehand.

That's a nice moto, but in reality any form of fighting is immoral when measured by the standards of civilian life. Armies, even when following all the rules of engagment and all relevanlt laws, are doing things no one else is allowed to - most notably, kill people without a trial. If an enemy soldier shoots at soldiers from your army, you're allowed to shoot and kill him in order to stop him from doing so. From a purely moral POV, how is that different from torturing a terrorist in order to stop him from killing civilians? And wouldn't you say that letting civilians die when this can prevented is an even more immoral act, so that the torture is the lesser evil?

 

[illram]

About a and b - in a situation where the choice is between torture or no chance of obtaining intelligence, would it be possible for you to support it?

Would it be possible? I don't know sure why not. Does that matter? No. What is the point of answering that question if it has no application in the real world? You just asked the same silly hypo as that posed in the OP.

The use of this ridiculous question is ONLY to justify torture. The fact that one can seemingly only justify torture when one limits the scope of reality to lala land should give one a clue as to torture's legitimacy and utility.

And as to c - It's questionable exactly when and how much it is illegal due to the defence of necessity.

What defense of necessity? The one you just made up? Can you point that out in the multiple bans on torture in place in multiple civilized countries and international treaties?

 

[lovett]

If it worked I'd do it for the greater good.

This. In every one of the hypotheticals torture away. Unfortunately as acknowledged none of your hypotheticals are realistic. In the real world, torture produces unreliable information, incites widespread oppositions and is deleterious to the torturing country in general. That's why torture is a bad idea.

 

[SS-18 ICBM]

(1.) A known terrorist has been captured and possesses valuable information that could save the lives of 10 people. If tortured, he will produce the information leading to the saving of those people's lives.

(2.) A known terrorist has been captured and possesses valuable information that could save the lives of 100,000 people. Again, if tortured, he will produce information leading to the saving of those people's lives.

(3.) A man believed to be a terrorist has been captured and may possess valuable information that could save the lives of 100,000 people. There is only a 50-50 chance that he is a terrorist that holds this information, and the only way to find out is to subject him to torture.

What the hell is this, an action movie?

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

Amadeus & G-Man.

The trick Ama pulled there is to try to separate the practical and the moral. While practicality does have impact on the morality. The Hiroshima nuke for instance is reasoned to have saved lives to avoid a drawn out conflict. The carpet bombing was the only tool available to hurt the enemy strategically.

The analogy is, you can defend yourself from an attacking enemy in two ways. You can incapacitate them, take him prisoner without causing him much harm or you can shoot them dead. Can shooting them dead be morally justified when you had a less violent alternative at your disposal? I think not. Now, the same situation, but you have no alternative than shooting the enemy to save yourself. In this case you can justify protecting your own life, even at the cost of the aggressor's life.

These situation don't happen in a vacuum.

 

[G-Man]

Would it be possible? I don't know sure why not. Does that matter? No. What is the point of answering that question if it has no application in the real world? You just asked the same silly hypo as that posed in the OP.

The use of this ridiculous question is ONLY to justify torture. The fact that one can seemingly only justify torture when one limits the scope of reality to lala land should give one a clue as to torture's legitimacy and utility.


What defense of necessity? The one you just made up? Can you point that out in the multiple bans on torture in place in multiple civilized countries and international treaties?

That's just the point of the defence of necessity - it allows breaking the law in life-threatening situations.

And as to the situation being unlikely, here's a more likely situation - During the height of the intifada, Israel suffered many suicide bombing who originated from the west bank. In most cases, the bomber was driven to the area where he was to detonate himself by another person (usually a cab driver), who worked with the terror organization and was aware of what he was driving this person for. And in many cases Israel would recieve warning of such attacks in the hours prior to it happening through its intelligence sources, and would normally set up road blocks.
It's very much possible to imagine a situation where the said driver would be caught after he dropped the bomber but before the bombing itself took place. Which would be more moral - torturing the driver and hoping he would tell you where he dropped the terrorist or not doing so, knowing you have almost zero chance to stop the bomber otherwise?

Amadeus & G-Man.

The trick Ama pulled there is to try to separate the practical and the moral. While practicality does have impact on the morality. The Hiroshima nuke for instance is reasoned to have saved lives to avoid a drawn out conflict. The carpet bombing was the only tool available to hurt the enemy strategically.

The analogy is, you can defend yourself from an attacking enemy in two ways. You can incapacitate them, take him prisoner without causing him much harm or you can shoot them dead. Can shooting them dead be morally justified when you had a less violent alternative at your disposal? I think not. Now, the same situation, but you have no alternative than shooting the enemy to save yourself. In this case you can justify protecting your own life, even at the cost of the aggressor's life.

These situation don't happen in a vacuum.

It's often claimed that it's best to create laws behind a "veil of ignorace". I think that idea applies here very well, and the idea is exactly that - seperate the moral from the practical.
As to the case of torture, would you say you accept its use in a situation where there is no other option?

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

It's often claimed that it's best to create laws behind a "veil of ignorace". I think that idea applies here very well, and the idea is exactly that - seperate the moral from the practical.

It's applies very poorly here. It sidesteps the practical fact that torture in the kind of situation where you would think it is the only option is next to useless.

As to the case of torture, would you say you accept its use in a situation where there is no other option?

No, since torture is not a very good tool even without other options. For instance. The kind of situations, "a bomb will go off very soon, one guy knows where it is, will you torture him" is crap.

Bomb is about to go off, you know for suuuuuure the guy strapped on the board knows where it is. So you go about waterboarding him. He gags, struggles, gives up and yields the information. The Bomb will go off in Madison Square garden in 4 hours. People spring into action and rush there to find and dismantle the bomb.

Bomb in Washington DC explodes.