Torture is bad. This should be obvious to everyone.
But why is it bad? What, exactly, moves it from “immoral” to “we should never, ever do this even if it did hypothetically work”? The German supreme court makes it clear that, in their opinion, that even the threat of torture is a violation of the most fundamental human right - I’m not 100% sure how you’d translate it, but in this context I think the best way of explaining it is “the right not to be dehumanized”. This is not something applied to normal crimes or threats.
So what makes torture so particularly awful? It seems to me that for many, it’s even worse than the death penalty, and not acceptable as a form of retribution (although straight-up murder is?). Let’s accept for the purpose of this discussion that torture is not an effective means of gathering information (because, you know, it isn’t). What elements go in to making torture so morally reprehensible?
The US has invaded and killed half a million people on a bogus pretext, you have mass surveillance of the population, you have up to 10 times the rate of incarceration of comparable western democracies, the state has been engaged in the systematic kidnapping and torture of thousands, the leader engages in warlike rhetoric at the drop of a corporate hat, and torture is “bad” - what next do you think?
The intentional infliction of pain and suffering on a sentient creature is immoral. We still do it all the time, but generally if it is done excessively or unnecessarily that is immoral.
I think the general idea is that inflicting suffering upon others is a deeply immoral and inhumane act. I think the arguments against torture generally fail to consider the realities of violent conflicts in their inglorious, ruleless context.
It’s a clear abuse of power whenever it is used. Governments or even individuals who feel empowered to intentionally inflict pain on others demonstrate that they care not about human dignity. If they can do this, what if anything won’t they do? It’s an admission that “we have the power and we will do anything we want without any remorse or any consideration for anyone else”. It’s the very definition of the abuse of power.
I disagree. If it did work 100% of the time, it would not justify it. I don’t want to hang my hat on it not working, I want to base my opposition of the morality of doing it in the first place.
It’s closely related. If you torture, then you don’t have a right to object when the enemy du jour tortures *your *people. If you don’t even care much who you torture, that’s an even worse problem.
Is it immoral, depraved, or otherwise objectionable when it’s done to you? Then there’s your answer.
And torture tends to spread, once it’s allowed. People start looking for excuses for torture if it’s allowed. You might not think it’ll be applied to you or anyone you care about, but you can’t rely on that once it’s allowed to become prevalent.
Torture IMHO isn’t primarily about punishment, information gathering or even spreading terror; it’s about sadism. A delight in power over others and inflicting suffering on them. That’s why there’s always been so little concern over the effectiveness of torture by its proponents. The torturers don’t actually care if the “intelligence” they get is useful, they just want to indulge themselves.
And that’s one of the reasons it’s so immoral; allowing torture is just feeding victims to sadists. Sadists who won’t care if the victim is innocent or not, so it doesn’t matter if you think that some people “deserve torture”; they won’t be the only ones tortured, if they are even tortured at all.
Sign a consent form and I will demonstrate what is immoral about torture. You will be tied down and secured and then subjected to either waterboarding or tickling at the discretion of torturer until you agree that it is immoral. This will continue until you agree that it is immoral as a postulate, and doesn’t require further examination.
I think this is incomplete. Looking at history and the recent evidence an even larger (and still reprehensible) reason looms:
From stealing the possessions of the ones accused of heresy or witchcraft, through dictators like Muamar Qua-daffy finding “proof” that foreign doctors were to blame for infecting their population with AIDS, to the former administration finding justifications to invade Iraq; one big reason why torture is there is clear:
It allows the current rulers to “find” justifications to do other horrid things that they thought beforehand that they “needed” to do against their enemies.
I think this gets to the core of why its immoral. It’s a way for people indulge in their desires to hurt and main others without their consent.
I think dehumanizing conduct is a greater ill than has been discussed on this thread so far. Thinking of other people as simply tools to be used for the pleasure of the person inflicting pain or violence is something that is very destructive to society.
By the Golden Rule, enemies don’t want to be bombed, sniped with rifles, or sunk with torpedoes either, yet I don’t hear people calling for bombs, rifles or torpedoes to be banned.
I’m not defending torture, just so you know - I think it’s wrong. I’m just saying, if you’re going to use the Golden Rule that way, then al-Qaeda militants certainly don’t enjoy being bombed or shot anymore than you do.
Well, if it did work 100% of the time, then you’re venturing into the territory of weighing the benefit of the information gained over the harm caused to the person attempting–and failing, because in this scenario torture always works–to conceal the information.
We don’t allow torture because it’s an interrogation technique used on those who have not been proven guilty. A person is innocent until proven guilty and you do not inflict pain on an innocent man. And, the cops are not supposed to be judge, jury and executioner.
That covers the “until proven guilty part”. After that, we go with “cruel and unusual punishment” and the argument against that.