The Moral Justification of Torture

[MrPresident]

Can torture ever be justified? Is it just absolutely wrong regardless of situation or circumstance? Does it depend the type of torture? Or some more justifiable than others? Can a nation be against torture but still practice it itself if the situation calls for it? What are your views on the subject?

 

[Simon Darkshade]

Yes, it is frequently justified. It is not the optimum means of obtaining information, but dire situations will arise which do not allow the time for these more complicated means to be implemented.
In more conventional circumstances, it is simply not an effective use of resources.

 

[Cimbri]

Voted: Yes, but only in certain "special" situations.

Aye, I believe that some situations unfortunately require some sort of torture. I may sound rough, but what is a single terrorists life worth compared to an entire busload of innocent civilians?



Oh, and welcome back MrPresident. I’ve missed the Giant Radioactive monkey option.

 

[Simon Darkshade]

Graphically illustrated in the first 'Dirty Harry'.

 

[Cimbri]

Indeed

 

[Mescalhead]

Torture is completely obsolete. The only thing its good for is revenge, and revenge is not very pragmaticly concious. Using certain drugs is much more effective at getting info, even if it takes a few tries. But with torture there is no information 'quality control'.

 

[Maj]

Depends on whose morals you choose to follow. They're neither universal nor absolute.

 

[Phantom Lord]

We're talking about if means can be justified by ends.

No, if it comes to human rights, justification is too easy and will too likely lead to abuse for my taste. I can imagine situations in which I would likely break my principles, to be honest. But I would never legalize torture.

 

[Alex the Great]

In some circumstances it is justifiable indeed. I would (were I a bad guy) accept torture as right if it would save innocent lives.

 

[SeleucusNicator]

Originally posted by Mescalhead
Using certain drugs is much more effective at getting info, even if it takes a few tries. But with torture there is no information 'quality control'.

You would not call that torture?

 

[De Lorimier]

I would never legalize torture... but, behind close doors, with the lives of hundreds or thousands of people at sake, I might reconsider my position.
There is a certain kind of individual in this world who will go to the extreme to make their point and, sadly, sometimes the opposition will have to go down to their level if they want to have a chance to "win".

 

[newfangle]

Didn't the Belgians develop a very effective means of obtaining information using only psychiatric methods?

 

[De Lorimier]

In Tintin's album "Flight 714 for Sydney" they did... He's belgian after all.

 

[FredLC]

Tricky question.

I'd say that it's something unacceptable in 99,9% of the cases. It's wrong to violate the physical constitution of anyone.

Only circumstance that I can imagine that could give any validity to torture is in order to prevent a greater harm that needs to be countered immediately. Someone mentioned the first "Dirt Harry" movie... if not mistaken, it's the one where he steps in a bullet wound on the suspect in order to force him where he has hidden a kidnap victim that was under the threat of suffocating, isn't it?

Well, as I accept that one can kill someone else if that's what it takes to save another life under immediate threat, it would be incoherent not to accept torture - in principle, a smaller aggression - to achieve the same goal.

But the state of necessity, that characterizes the impossibility of demanding the torturer to act differently due to the threat to a substantially important right, should be crystal clear, beyond the possibility of doubt. That cannot ever be done lightly, never if the threat isn't immediate, never when there is still another credible option, and most certainly never as an official policy over rendered prisoners.

Regards .

 

[SeleucusNicator]

Originally posted by newfangle
Didn't the Belgians develop a very effective means of obtaining information using only psychiatric methods?

Such things, as well as drug use, can be just as torturous, if differently. What could be worse than losing control of your mental facilities and being forced to say what you do not want to say?

Torture need not be physical.

 

[.:KNAS:.]

I think torture is acceptable as a punishment for certain crimes. But as an interrogation method it is very unreliable.

 

[FredLC]

I disagree. I am against any cruel form of punishment.

 

[.:KNAS:.]

I am not saying we should chop off the hands of those who steal, but putting electrodes on a rapists testicels is fine by me. Lets see how he likes that kind of stimulation...

 

[Sims2789]

i morally agree with 'an eye for an eye'. the only reason why i don't support execution of murderers and the castration of rapists judicial system isn't good enough. so i don't support the death penalty/torture only because innocent people die. but if we make a 100% perfect judicial system, then we should kill murderers and carve up their bodys for organs. rapists also deserve to have one kidney removed.

 

[Sims2789]

torture is good since it allows the victom to get some peace. however, when we kill them, we MUST NOT damage their organs, since we need to give murderers/rapists organs to people.