Torture (non-pacifists only please)

[Darth Executor]

The topic assumes you believe use of violence is a tool available to you or your nation if it should be required. If you're a pacifist and want to participate, you will have to at least assume as much for the sake of argument.

I'd like your thoughts on something. Assume, for a second, that a man takes command of a kindergarten class, ties up all the children and sets up a complex bomb to explode if anyone goes near them. The bomb has a timer that will go off in about 20 minutes from its start. The man calls the police who surrounds the building. Then the man starts the bomb, surrenders, and tells the police the children are going to die and if they tamper with the bomb it will explode. The only way to stop it is to input the right password. You happen to be a cop. The chief has the man tied to a chair in a cell away from public eyes, loads up a table with power tools and tells you you have 10 minutes to get the number, using any method you wish.

1. Is it ok to torture the man in an attempt to get the number?
2. Is it worse than shooting and killing an armed criminal who is posing a danger to somebody else before he can cause any harm?

[Jillyn'Toast]

1. Is it ok to torture the man in an attempt to get the number?

If you start with the assumption that violence is a tool, then you've answered your question. Yes, it's ok.

But, in my opinion and a purely moral stand point, I don't see how torture could ever be justified. It's too much of a slippery slope.

2. Is it worse than shooting and killing an armed criminal who is posing a danger to somebody else before he can cause any harm?

I'd say they are equivalent. I think the question is loaded because you're asking us to choose the lesser of two moral wrongs to solve a greater wrong.

[Darth Executor]

If you start with the assumption that violence is a tool, then you've answered your question. Yes, it's ok.

But, in my opinion and a purely moral stand point, I don't see how torture could ever be justified. It's too much of a slippery slope.

Can you elaborate?

I'd say they are equivalent. I think the question is loaded because you're asking us to choose the lesser of two moral wrongs to solve a greater wrong.

Can you elaborate on this also? I'm not sure what you're saying?

[Jillyn'Toast]

If you start with the assumption that violence is a tool, then you've answered your question. Yes, it's ok.

But, in my opinion and a purely moral stand point, I don't see how torture could ever be justified. It's too much of a slippery slope.

Elaborating... oy... ok, if violence is a tool, then it's implied that you may use it.

But, if you agree that it's ok to torture a criminal of this degree, it would be very easy to keep pushing the lines... maybe it's ok to torture a criminal of a lesser degree? Maybe it's ok to torture someone for another reason?


I'd say they are equivalent. I think the question is loaded because you're asking us to choose the lesser of two moral wrongs to solve a greater wrong.

Elaboration: You're assuming first that it's wrong on some level to kill someone for attacking someone else. (Not giving an opinion on this, just pointing out something with your question.) By asking if it's "worse", you're asking us to make a value judgement when you haven't defined the terms. Not to mention, you've included it as part of a greater scenario, which is wrong for the criminals to be in.

[Darth Executor]

Elaborating... oy... ok, if violence is a tool, then it's implied that you may use it.

Well yes, but the amount you use varies. For example, nuking a city to kill a serial killer is way too much. Shooting him isn't.

But, if you agree that it's ok to torture a criminal of this degree, it would be very easy to keep pushing the lines... maybe it's ok to torture a criminal of a lesser degree? Maybe it's ok to torture someone for another reason?

I dunno, doctors cause pain when they give flu shots but nobody is saying they're gonna start carving people up like turkeys.




Elaboration: You're assuming first that it's wrong on some level to kill someone for attacking someone else. (Not giving an opinion on this, just pointing out something with your question.)

No, I'm not. How am I doing this?

By asking if it's "worse", you're asking us to make a value judgement when you haven't defined the terms. Not to mention, you've included it as part of a greater scenario, which is wrong for the criminals to be in.

I'm afraid I don't understand what you're saying. Define what terms?

[Vigilante]

The topic assumes you believe use of violence is a tool available to you or your nation if it should be required. If you're a pacifist and want to participate, you will have to at least assume as much for the sake of argument.

I'd like your thoughts on something. Assume, for a second, that a man takes command of a kindergarten class, ties up all the children and sets up a complex bomb to explode if anyone goes near them. The bomb has a timer that will go off in about 20 minutes from its start. The man calls the police who surrounds the building. Then the man starts the bomb, surrenders, and tells the police the children are going to die and if they tamper with the bomb it will explode. The only way to stop it is to input the right password. You happen to be a cop. The chief has the man tied to a chair in a cell away from public eyes, loads up a table with power tools and tells you you have 10 minutes to get the number, using any method you wish.

1. Is it ok to torture the man in an attempt to get the number?
2. Is it worse than shooting and killing an armed criminal who is posing a danger to somebody else before he can cause any harm?


Assuming ONLY what you've typed and no other outside influences, I'd say torture the freak!

----

After that, assume we DO have some outside influences. Well then once the criminal is aprehended, and doesn't have a remote detinator, bomb squads would probaly be able to take care of it. Surely if he has some home-made contraption, it can't be that complex.
Second, there is no motive for him to do that, when he knows from the start he will be captured and tortured. He just has a death wish I suppose.
You can also blame bad security at the school, lack of any security guards or trained professionals, lack of action by any adults who are able to stop him once he appears on the seen with a huge backback and rope sticking out of it!

So basically, given ONLY your argument, I'd say the lives of the children is more important then the personal comfort of a mad man. After all, whatever torture techniques they use, he will surely heal within a matter of months. Unless you are lopping limbs off. But cuts, bruises, broken bones, loss of a finger or two, will hardly prevent him from having a normal life if he were ever able again. If reasonable torture doesn't produce results, lopping off limbs or other massive blood loss techniques probably wouldn't help.
The man would probably talk if given a drug to break his sense of resolve in the first place.

I guess I'm saying, that situation probably would not occure, but if so, given your parameters, I personally think it would be ok to use that as an option. Even as the bomb squad does their thing, or some other methods to save the kids are being done.

I would ask you, though, why are you bringing this up? What is your interrest in the subject?

[JSDileo]

If you start with the assumption that violence is a tool, then you've answered your question. Yes, it's ok.

But, in my opinion and a purely moral stand point, I don't see how torture could ever be justified. It's too much of a slippery slope.

First, you have to demonstrate how torture necessarily is a slippery slope. You could also say that the death penalty is a slippery slope to executing eight year-olds for stealing loaves of bread, but the death penalty has been around in the US for two-hundred years and hasn't been used on anything but (accused) murderers.

I'd say they are equivalent. I think the question is loaded because you're asking us to choose the lesser of two moral wrongs to solve a greater wrong.

Things are only evils if you assume that the circumstances do not warrant their use. By calling Darth's option a choice between a lesser and greater evil, you are assuming right from the start that torture is wrong in all circumstances, and therefore you are loading the discussion in your favor.

[Tladatsi]

About 100 years ago there was an amazing horse called Hans. He could any mathamatical problem whose answer was an integer. 2 + 2 or the cubed root of 27, he could do them all (he gave his answer by stomping his foot). He was a great sensation until someone stumped him. It was discovered that Hans could only answer the question if the person asking the question knew the answer. What was happening was Hans was reading the face and body language and stomped his foot until the person asking the question gave some "tell" to Hans indicating that the correct number had been reached. All Hans was doing was telling people what they already knew and wanted to see.

Torture is very much the same. The victim will tell the torturer anything to stop the torture, especially if the torturer knows what he or she wants to hear. Then the victim says things until the torturer hears what he or she wants or expects the result to be, then they stop. This is usually not the truth but that is another matter.

Your implicit assumption is that torture is an effective means of obtaining the information needed. In the example given, you can assume that the bomber is quite aware that torture of some sort is comming. He has either prepared to resist it or prepared to give false information long enough for the bomb to go off. This is of course contrary to every Hollywood movie ever made but that is a different issue.

So, I would argue against torturing the man in question as it is unlikely to be effective and would waste valuable time and energy.


The topic assumes you believe use of violence is a tool available to you or your nation if it should be required. If you're a pacifist and want to participate, you will have to at least assume as much for the sake of argument.

I'd like your thoughts on something. Assume, for a second, that a man takes command of a kindergarten class, ties up all the children and sets up a complex bomb to explode if anyone goes near them. The bomb has a timer that will go off in about 20 minutes from its start. The man calls the police who surrounds the building. Then the man starts the bomb, surrenders, and tells the police the children are going to die and if they tamper with the bomb it will explode. The only way to stop it is to input the right password. You happen to be a cop. The chief has the man tied to a chair in a cell away from public eyes, loads up a table with power tools and tells you you have 10 minutes to get the number, using any method you wish.

1. Is it ok to torture the man in an attempt to get the number?
2. Is it worse than shooting and killing an armed criminal who is posing a danger to somebody else before he can cause any harm?

[jason]

The topic assumes you believe use of violence is a tool available to you or your nation if it should be required. If you're a pacifist and want to participate, you will have to at least assume as much for the sake of argument.

I'd like your thoughts on something. Assume, for a second, that a man takes command of a kindergarten class, ties up all the children and sets up a complex bomb to explode if anyone goes near them. The bomb has a timer that will go off in about 20 minutes from its start. The man calls the police who surrounds the building. Then the man starts the bomb, surrenders, and tells the police the children are going to die and if they tamper with the bomb it will explode. The only way to stop it is to input the right password. You happen to be a cop. The chief has the man tied to a chair in a cell away from public eyes, loads up a table with power tools and tells you you have 10 minutes to get the number, using any method you wish.

1. Is it ok to torture the man in an attempt to get the number?
2. Is it worse than shooting and killing an armed criminal who is posing a danger to somebody else before he can cause any harm?
You could torture him, but in reality it probably wouldn't work.

He only has to put up with 20 minutes of the torture to acheive his end.

If he is commited to blowing the kids up, torturing him will not actually acheive anything, as he can probably last that long.

I don't have a problem with using torture to get information in principle, but in reality it doens't actually work very well. Well, I don't have a problem with using torture to get information in circumstances where it is necessary, but I don't think it works reliably enough to be worth using.

Jason

[Johnny MacManky]

Despite the fact that when I think rationaly (yeah, I know!) I'd say I'm a pacifist, I'd torture the hell out him just for doing what he'd done, irrespective of the likelihood of getting the information required.

I honestly do not believe that torture is a good way of getting reliable information. No, that is the role of expert negotiators, psychologists, etc.

[Vigilante]

No, that is the role of expert negotiators, psychologists, etc.

I wonder how effective it would be for negotiators and psychologists to torture him then!

[jason]

I wonder how effective it would be for negotiators and psychologists to torture him then!
It depends what you mean by torture in such a context.

I'm sure psychologists et al. could bring an interesting collection of drugs and techniques to bear to break someone and get the information that is wanted.

But I doubt there is any technique beyond maybe hacking their fingers off one by one or something, that would yield results in 10 minutes, assuming even that would.

Unfortunately I don't think there is anyway to break someone and get the information that is desired in 10 minutes, if they are commited to not being broken and know they only have to hold out for a fixed period of time.

The whole value of torture is the knowlege that the suffering will continue until you give up what is wanted. If you know it will end at a definite point, then you have a major psychological advantage in terms of resisting it.

Jason

[Teallaura]

The topic assumes you believe use of violence is a tool available to you or your nation if it should be required. If you're a pacifist and want to participate, you will have to at least assume as much for the sake of argument.

I'd like your thoughts on something. Assume, for a second, that a man takes command of a kindergarten class, ties up all the children and sets up a complex bomb to explode if anyone goes near them. The bomb has a timer that will go off in about 20 minutes from its start. The man calls the police who surrounds the building. Then the man starts the bomb, surrenders, and tells the police the children are going to die and if they tamper with the bomb it will explode. The only way to stop it is to input the right password. You happen to be a cop. The chief has the man tied to a chair in a cell away from public eyes, loads up a table with power tools and tells you you have 10 minutes to get the number, using any method you wish.

1. Is it ok to torture the man in an attempt to get the number?
2. Is it worse than shooting and killing an armed criminal who is posing a danger to somebody else before he can cause any harm?

1) No, both morally wrong and totally stupid in context. There's a much easier way that doesn't involve torture.

2) Yes, assuming the armed criminal is posing an immediate threat that cannot be neutralized otherwise. To shoot him merely to prevent potential, but not immediate, harm is also morally wrong - and unnecesary.


By the way, the bomb squad should have arrived (the chief had time) and there's always the simplier solution - carry the kids out. Ample time for that - kindergarten classes aren't that big - and you can pass them off to by-standers at the door as necessary.

Barring that (somehow :ahem:), in your scenario, our boy very clearly does not want to die. Haul his little self back inside and sit there. He'll crack pretty quickly - sociopaths don't go for the self-destruction thing as a general rule.


Relying on violence to solve problems often blinds us to the better alternatives (been there, done that).

[Darth Executor]

1)
By the way, the bomb squad should have arrived (the chief had time) and there's always the simplier solution - carry the kids out. Ample time for that - kindergarten classes aren't that big - and you can pass them off to by-standers at the door as necessary.

"ties up all the children and sets up a complex bomb to explode if anyone goes near them."

Barring that (somehow :ahem:), in your scenario, our boy very clearly does not want to die. Haul his little self back inside and sit there. He'll crack pretty quickly - sociopaths don't go for the self-destruction thing as a general rule.


I take it you support torture then? :teeth:

[Teallaura]

DE, there's no way for a single man to do that - it's gonna be too big and too complex - what, no one's gonna notice him hauling all that junk in there? :eh: Your scenario simply won't work and there's no reason a simplier solution wouldn't.

No, because making someone uncomfortable - and to face the consequences of their actions - is not torture. :ahem:

You're grasping at straws trying to produce a justifying situation, and if one exists, this ain't it. :no:

[Amazing Rando]

Christianity Today did a feature article on this issue about 6 months ago or so. The cover article was entitled "5 Reasons Why Torture is Always Wrong," by David Gushee.

The article is a condensed version of an essay Gushee wrote on the subject, which can be found here (http://www.no2torture.org/study/) in Word format. Just click on the link that says "Against Torture."

[Tladatsi]

It depends what you mean by torture in such a context.

I'm sure psychologists et al. could bring an interesting collection of drugs and techniques to bear to break someone and get the information that is wanted.

No such "truth serum" exists.

But I doubt there is any technique beyond maybe hacking their fingers off one by one or something, that would yield results in 10 minutes, assuming even that would.

That does not work either.

There is an effective strategy for resisting torture. You develop your "story" (which may, if it is useful, even be the truth), you test it out on others to check to see if it holds together, you practice it over and over until you have it memorized, then you stick to it no matter what. What the torturer is looking for is for you to change your story to match what he wants to hear. Since the torturer believes torture is effective, the only reason you will not change your story is because the story is true.

[Darth Executor]

DE, there's no way for a single man to do that - it's gonna be too big and too complex - what, no one's gonna notice him hauling all that junk in there? :eh:

Actually I could do it with a backpack's worth of equipment if I can get some decent explosives. Not gonna say how though, people think I'm a few dynamite sticks short of a suicide bomber already. :teeth:


You're grasping at straws trying to produce a justifying situation, and if one exists, this ain't it. :no:

I'm doing no such thing. I'm simply trying to figure out if people support torture and if they do, why they do so. I didn't make this thread to debate the ethics behind torture, and have tried to keep my participation restricted to correcting misunderstandings.

[Darth Executor]

Christianity Today did a feature article on this issue about 6 months ago or so. The cover article was entitled "5 Reasons Why Torture is Always Wrong," by David Gushee.

The article is a condensed version of an essay Gushee wrote on the subject, which can be found here (http://www.no2torture.org/study/) in Word format. Just click on the link that says "Against Torture."

Thanks, I'll look over it soon.

[jason]

No such "truth serum" exists.
I realise that. But I suspect you can get a lot of information out of people by damaging their mind sufficently.

That does not work either.
Didn't I say that ? It might work on certian sorts of people with only 10 minutes to work, but not on a commited opponent.

Since the torturer believes torture is effective, the only reason you will not change your story is because the story is true.
Yep.

There are lots of ways to resist torture and interrogation. The best way to resist it is to know that their is a deadline after which the information in question will no longer be of any use.

And this is generally the case with any information of interest that someone might use torture to try and extract.

Which is why it isn't generally very useful as a means of getting information.

I was under the impression that torture was normally used simply to inflict harm on the victim and not to gain information.

Unless your one of those lefty anti-war idiots that seems to think speaking harshly to someone is a form of torture.

Jason

[Tladatsi]

I was under the impression that torture was normally used simply to inflict harm on the victim and not to gain information.

Well, that is true in some cases, such as what seems to be happening in Baghdad. Mass murder is being committed on a sectarian basis, which is preceeded by, if news reports are accruate, torture. Here to goal is either, pure vengance and / or intimidation.

However, the general use of torture is, in principle, to extract information from a source that would not give up that information by other means. I say in principle because the individual torturer may have his or her own agenda. However, irrespective of the motivations of individuals, torture is (and torturers are) employed for the purpose of involuntary extraction of information.

Unless your one of those lefty anti-war idiots that seems to think speaking harshly to someone is a form of torture. Jason

I am not really certain that harsh speach is torture, or, by itself, any more effective than torture.

[Tladatsi]

Thanks, I'll look over it soon.

I had argued that torture is not generally effective, however it can be effective in a rather limited way. If you want see how torture is used "effectively" there is a movie that shows it's use, it is called "The Battle of Algiers". In the 1950's Algeria was under the rule of France and had been since early in the 1800's. The Algerians began a guerrilla war against the French. The French responded with great violence. The war degenerated into terrorism and counter-terrorism. The French Army used tortured to destroy the guerrilla organization. So torture was effective in the short term. However, Algeria ultimately achieved indenpedance so it was failure over the long haul.

The movie itself is quite amazing and harrowing at the same time. It is detached and unflinching in examining the use terrorism and torture, among other things. It has just beeen re-released and is quite timely.

[Rahab]

I had argued that torture is not generally effective, however it can be effective in a rather limited way. If you want see how torture is used "effectively" there is a movie that shows it's use, it is called "The Battle of Algiers". In the 1950's Algeria was under the rule of France and had been since early in the 1800's. The Algerians began a guerrilla war against the French. The French responded with great violence. The war degenerated into terrorism and counter-terrorism. The French Army used tortured to destroy the guerrilla organization. So torture was effective in the short term. However, Algeria ultimately achieved indenpedance so it was failure over the long haul.

That is an excellent example. However, the 1966 film of Pontecorvo was cut from some of the torture scenes in both the US and the UK. The extent of the use of torture to undermine the FLN and ordered by Massu still remains under illustrated despite of Pontecorvo's efforts to include such realistic scenes.

.The movie itself is quite amazing and harrowing at the same time. It is detached and unflinching in examining the use terrorism and torture, among other things. It has just beeen re-released and is quite timely.If the movie describes torture methods used by the French paratroopers to obtain information from FLN members and sympathizers, it also concludes with the expression of Algerian popular consensus for "une Algerie libre".

Even the attempts of the OAS ,after the Evian's agreements of 1962, to form a counter revolutionary rebellion, pursuing havoc to include capturing Algerians to torture them, hoping to provoke the pacified FLN into acts of violence, failed to jeopardize the decolonization of Algeria.