All Earth's Life is at Stake, Would You Still Eschew Torture?

Great Debates
21

I would venture to say that very little logical decision making remains valid unless it is at least considered in its extremes.

Your lame attempt at humor in the face of a serious question is duly noted.

Please explain your comment. Any understanding of me or preconceived notions of my own stance in this matter should have absolutely zero effect on your own reply. I’ll save my comments about basing your decision on a coin toss for later.

Finally, a somewhat straight forward answer. Pray tell, why are you responding to something you consider to be “really stupid.” You do realize what your own statement therefore concedes about yourself?

More lame humor, please find a more appropriate forum for it, like MPSIMS.

Please refer to the above answer.

I appreciate your ability to give a solid and serious reply. You are the first to do so.

This is not a Twilight Zone episode, it is a serious thought problem and your Serlingesque moralizing is irrelevant to the issue at hand. This is not a test put forward by some alien civilization. This a question being posed by one human being to another.

If this is so nonsensical, why are you answering? Please read my reply to kitarak.

Thanks, Revtim, this perception seems to have escaped nearly all of the other responders. Again, if it’s so “silly,” what are you doing here? And if you consider “useful thought experiments” to be “silly,” what does this say about your regard for rational mentation?

Please explain what you perceive to be fallacious about the question.

Finally, another unequivocal answer.

You have mistakenly incorporated elements of someone else’s observations into your reply. Please delete them from your parameters and return with another response. This is not some externally imposed litmus test or alien initiation ritual. This is a very serious thought problem.

Thank you for attending, McDuff. To answer your questions in the order posed:

  1. You are able to torture the alien because you have caught it at an unexpected disadvantage that will not happen again, per the original scenario.

  2. You cannot be sure this is one of the aliens’ litmus test. You can only be absolutely sure that the entire earth’s population will perish if you do not act.
    [sub](If you require further clarification, imagine that you have been presented with incontrovertible proof that cobalt shrouded fusion bombs have been distributed in such a fashion as to kill all life on the planet.)[/sub]

  3. This has everything to do with your own position on the topic of torture.

Now please answer the original question.

A very interesting, counter-question. Please pose it in another thread. This thread deals with the morality and repugnancy of physical torture, not the sexual abuse of children.

There is most definitely a fallacy in your attempt at a comparative analysis. Hell is absolutely in no way proven to exist and therefore is an invalid component of your construct. This renders your question moot.

I have attempted to scrupulously remove all ambiguity from the scenario and question posed. Please request clarification on anything that might seem equivocal to you.

22

Zenster

Why?

Seriously, why does it have anything whatsoever to do with my position on torture. The situation is not just extreme, it is impossible. Take a look at my last post in the “torturing kids” thread. The answer I give to this specific situation is obviously so far removed from any semblance of reality that it cannot possibly be taken as having any relevance to my stance on torture.

  1. I don’t believe torture works as a reliable method of extracting information from humans. The “absolute guarantee” that I have in this case can, in no way, be applied to any possible scenario occurring on the planet earth.

  2. In this scenario, I am the one applying the torture. In the real world, an agent of the government I played a role in democratically electing would be the one applying the torture. I would absolutely never be in this position myself.

These two statements of fact are incontrovertible and form a large part of the basis for me holding my stance on torture. Since, for the purposes of this little mindfuck of yours, these incontrovertible, baseline facts underpinning my opinions are to be disregarded, any decision I make about this hypothetical can, in no sense and in no universe, be taken as a commentary on my opinions on torture as it stands and would be applied on the planet Real Life.

That is possibly true, but you have taken this situation to extremes so far removed from the original that it isn’t the original logical decision any more, it’s a completely different one. Los Angeles could be considered to be New York “taken to the extremes”, but this doesn’t mean I should expect LA to be the same as NYC, does it? Hell, Iraq could be considered as “London, taken to extremes.”
But, having said all that, let me look at the scenario again.

  • OK, I’ve caught him through some wild eyed wacky fun chance, he’s vulnerable.
  • Whatever a “fusion bomb” is, they’re everywhere, and this bloke apparently knows how to stop them going off. Quite how I can be absolutely sure that the bombs will go off, and not absolutely sure that this isn’t a cosmic Abraham & Isaac mindfuck, I don’t know, but I’m willing to run with it for now.
  • So how do I get the information out of him?

Well, I need some more information here as well. You see, I wouldn’t think of torture personally, because I don’t think it works, you see. Especially physical torture. Therefore, that business about requiring serious physical torture that will guarantee an absolutely true answer that will save the whole world. Where did I find that out? Is it printed on a label on his shirt? Has someone told me the alien’s special weakness? Can I be sure that that person is trustworthy? Do I know because of my super mind powers I suddenly have? If so, why can’t I use those instead?

Actually, You utterly and completely missed the point of what he was saying here. He was highlighting the problems of your own reasoning in using such an extreme hypothetical situation and deliberately suspending the rules by which people ordinarily make their moral judgements. If you claim MY answer to this question has everything to do with my position on torture, then YOUR answer to this question has everything to do with your position on Paedophilia.

How about rape? In this situation, would you rape an alien’s wife? Would you kill an alien’s child in this extreme situation, if you could guarantee that by doing so you would save the whole world and that if you didn’t the whole world would go boom? Remember, how you answer these questions has everything to do with your positions on rape and the slaughter of innocents, so answer carefully.

23

This serious question sounds more like the setup of an old joke…

He: Would you sleep with me for a billion dollars?
She: Uh… yeah, I guess I would.
He: Here’s a twenty, wanna come back to my place?
She: No! What kind of woman do you think I am?
He: We’ve already found that out; now we’re just negotiating the price.

The point being, of course, that her answer to “Would you sleep with me for a billion dollars?” doesn’t actually tell him whether or not she’s a prostitute.

24

Zenster:

And the aliens who will choose a random person to get a chance to torture them and save the planet, and who you can be absolutely sure are completely honest with you, are proven to exist?

Also, how do you know that, for instance, the aliens aren’t here to evolve humanity to a higher level. If you refuse to torture them, maybe the aliens will destroy the planet but then reincarnate everyone in better forms.

25

Oh pshaw, there’s always room for Serlingesque moralizing. I thought the whole point of the question was a moral dilemma, so a tip of the hat to ol’ Rod seemed rather apropos–especially with omnipotent aliens and all. I could invoke Gene Roddenberry instead if you like. Hey, if you want people to treat your thought problems seriously, maybe you shouldn’t do a Karl Malden impression when you ask them. Just a thought.

I have to admit that I misunderstood your question slightly. I didn’t quite pick up on the idea that the scenario involved somehow getting the drop on an alien and torturing information out of it; rather, I thought you were asking what we’d do if the aliens asked us to torture someone to get the information necessary to save the planet. Not that it makes no nevermind; your actual scenario is, if anything, even more goofy. If I can get the drop on an “infinitely more powerful” alien, they can’t be all that omnipotent. Anyway, how am I supposed to know that torturing it is the only way to get information out of it? How am I supposed to be sure that torture would produce “valid and certifiable” information? How do I know, absolutely, that any such information is the only possible way to save the Earth? And if I had the psychic ability to know all these things with absolute certainty, then I wouldn’t need to torture the guy in the first place. No, I’m still inclined to stick with my original response–a Bruce Campbell quote, and the finger. There’s always a better way than torture.

26

Zenster, I did in fact answer your bizarre leading question in an unequivocal manner, pausing only to mock it on the way, because it’s so far in the realms of fantasy as to be risible.

27

Hmmmm…

Zenter, I originally thought your topic was an exagerated attempt at humour in the light of the recent moral dilemmas being posed and therefore the only valid response to it was a humourous one.

Mr2001 and xenophon41’s answers were quite vaild, IMO, in the light of your completely impossible, totally disconnected with reality question. Mine was possibly pushing the envelope in hindsight - but nonetheless…

Oh, and you might want to take yourself a little less seriously in replying to each and every answer in professor-mode. I mean, like, get over it dude!

28

I would get in my magic time machine, go back a year and prevent the whole scenario occurring.

Well, if we’re going to make up ridiculous dilemmas I say we’re allowed ridiculous solutions.

29

Zenster, since I’m not taking this course for credits and really don’t care how you grade my answer, my response to your highly unlikely scenario is this-Even though I am a pacifist that has never raised a hand to another human being, I would have no difficulty whatsoever in causing the torture and/or death of an imaginary person. Hell, I’d kill millions of imaginary people if I thought it would do any good.
Look, if you want me to take your question “seriously”(at least more seriously than you yourself did in the op), I would have to answer that, if aliens would stoop to kidnapping, extortion and threats of mass murder, how in the hell can you expect me to trust them when they make the offer to me in the first place?
Saying yes to their offer guarantees absolutely nothing except the loss of my dignity, self respect, and perhaps even my humanity.

30

Or, in the situation where the all-powerfuls have arranged this little torture situation, my acquiescence could be the first pathetic step down a road of enslavement, for me personally and for humanity as a whole --after all, I’ve shown them that humans can be compelled to do the morally repugnant at the all-powerfuls’ whim.

Or, in the situation where I’ve somehow placed a representative of the all-powerfuls in my power, I’ve created a situation where the single entity in my control is no longer “all powerful” and so not only do I no longer have certainty in its power to relinquish a solution which can be trusted, this fact means that I am also no longer compelled by certainty of a successful end into a contemplation of objectionable means.

Serious enough answer for you, Zenster?

31

As others have said, this scenario leaks.

It reminds me of Starship Troopers, where apparently all of humanity are menaced by giant bugs in another galaxy that are … throwing rocks at us. (The exercise for how long it takes for these hurled missiles to reach us - let alone hit us - is left to the student.)
So we land on their planet and … errr… walk towards them. We have inter-galactic travel, but apparently no artillery.

Zenster,

what kind of ‘infinitely more powerful alien life forms’ set up a situation where simply getting some information by distasteful means would suddenly overthrow all their cunning plans?
Have you been watching TV reruns of Batman?
But purely in a surreal philosophical sense I’ll answer your question.
I suppose I would reluctantly use torture (I much prefer bribery).
BUT I WOULD STILL NOT VOTE REPUBLICAN, EVEN IF THE ALTERNATIVE WAS THE TOTAL DESTRUCTION OF THE PLANET!!

Here is a question for you in turn:

A highly infectious virus is about to be released. It will kill everyone on earth, including you.
The only alternative is to release another virus, which will act as an antidote to the first one. Unfortunately the only person immune to this is you.

Do you unleash the second virus, or do you prefer to kill all life on this planet?
Bonus question:

If you do release the second virus, how would you fill in your time afterwards?

32

I think the following quote from A Man For All Seasons is appropriate to this thread:

*Sir Thomas More: “This country is planted thick with laws from coast to coast. Man’s laws, not God’s. And if you cut them down–and you’re just the man to do it–do you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then?”

33

It’s a well known fact that people will respond very differently to almost identitical moral choices when one is personal and the other is not. The common examples are the “trolley” problems.

The basic one is that there is an out of control trolley speeding towards a group of people (say, five) that will almost certainly kill them unless you throw a switch to change the tracks… at which point the trolley will surely hit and kill just one person.

When faced with this problem, most people choose to throw the switch: choosing to assure the death of one person to save many.

However, strange things happen when you alter the problem. Say that, instead of throwing the switch, you have to push a heavy man to his death onto the tracks to stop the trolley (you are too light to stop it). The moral choice seems to be the same: either take action to ensure the death of one man, or do nothing and watch five people die.

But, to this second problem, few people are willing to push the man in the way of the trolley.

What’s going on here? Extensive MRI work shows that people tend to have much more emotional reactions to the second problem. The moral choices and outcomes may be the same… but the emotional and moral intuitions are vastly different.

Could this sort of discrepancy affect people’s unwillinginess to torture a person to save lives, especially when they are at the same time clearly willing to KILL to save lives?

34

Forget saving humanity; I’m willing to start torturing the people who come up with these ridiculously hypothetical scenarios and then act sanctimonious about them.

35

Yes, I would.
I wouldn’t like it, but if not doing it meant the entire planet would suffer … I suppose I would.

But let’s sweeten the pot … what if, in order to save the planet, you were given the choice of subjecting torture on another human being, or shooting yourself in the head – which would you choose.

As for me … I don’t know, I really don’t. For one thing, I don’t want to die, but I don’t know if I could live with myself if I were forced to torture another human being.

Aside: Hey Chris, how ya doing? Nice to see you.

36

Well, sure, why all the drama?

37

And the prize goes to Mr2001. He managed to cite a little less eloquently an anecdote about Winston Churchill that came to mind after I posted this thought problem.

That so few of your were willing to give a straight out answer to a fairly clear scenario speaks volumes to me. The very few who gave concise responses have my respect even if I do not agree with them. I find it exceptionally curious that somehow the question was perfectly clear to them, but not for so many others.

My answer? Hell yes! There are few things I would not do to save life on this beautiful earth. One or two people realized that the true essence of this equation is what number of people are worth saving through this questionable method. Ultimately, the lower the number, the more dubious any validity for it becomes.

I will restate for the umpteenth time that I am opposed to torture.

I will also restate that human life is so precious to me that beasts who seek to indiscriminately extinguish it are quite possibly beyond redemption and need to be exterminated.

I will also say that if a successful solution to the problem could be obtained through my own demise, I would just as quickly seek that route, if not quicker.

I want to give special thanks to Apos for mentioning MRI work on mapping neural decision-making processes. I firmly believe that there will soon be available technology that shall forever consign torture to the same moral scrapheap as Nazism and al Qaeda’s murderous terrorism. Few people here seem to fully comprehend the importance of this new tool.

I also really appreciate Tracer’s superb quote from A Man for All Seasons, it is similar to another one about giving even the devil due process of law to ensure law’s supremacy.

I am unable to locate the exact post, but whoever provided the constructive criticism that my Karl Malden quote cast this thought problem in a less than serious light has my thanks.

38

—I want to give special thanks to Apos for mentioning MRI work on mapping neural decision-making processes. I firmly believe that there will soon be available technology that shall forever consign torture to the same moral scrapheap as Nazism and al Qaeda’s murderous terrorism. Few people here seem to fully comprehend the importance of this new tool.—

I’m not sure I see where you are coming from, or how you got your take on my post. If anything, the MRI results call INTO QUESTION our emotional intuitions about morality, because they show we are liable to make very different judgements about situations that are, for all intents and purposes, very much the same (it’s no better to throw a switch that will kill someone than it is to push them to their deaths).

And indeed, there is some question whether our emotional responses should be relevant at all. While “is” can teach us quite alot about how we make moral decisions, it’s not clear that it can ultimately inform a discussion of how we “ought” to make them. We certainly can’t, in any simple way, conclude that something is wrong simply because we have a strong gut reaciton to it, or that it is right simply because we don’t.

39

Y’know, this… ridiculous sentence neatly sums up your position, Zenster. You expend kilobytes in this thread and others disavowing any support for torture (“I will restate for the umpteenth time that I am opposed to torture.”) yet expend twice the effort in providing possible justification for torture in the absence of any magic new technology. I’m sure you fail to see any problematic aspects to your own assertion that such technology is the thing which would “forever consign torture” to a moral scrapheap, rather than the nature of torture itself, but I assure you that is the problem with your position in a nutshell.

40

Winston Churchill was a prostitute?!

Seriously, I always thought that story was about George Bernard Shaw.

Don’t mention it.