# Can someone concisely formulate what makes torture so immoral? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [December 22, 2014, 11:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-someone-concisely-formulate-what-makes-torture-so-immoral/707903 "2014-12-22T11:45:02Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![BOOM](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/c4cdca/32.png) [@BOOM](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BOOM)\ **Post date:** [December 23, 2014, 11:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-someone-concisely-formulate-what-makes-torture-so-immoral/707903/41 "2014-12-23T11:23:18Z")
> [@Jonathan\_Chance](#): > > and that one earns the warning. Don’t personalize things, Boom! I don’t understand this at all. The poster is using an analogy, I am pointing out flaws in the analogy. I really don’t know what you’re doing, or why you are so interested and/or bothered. ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [December 23, 2014, 11:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-someone-concisely-formulate-what-makes-torture-so-immoral/707903/42 "2014-12-23T11:41:38Z")
> [@IMfez](#): > > There is an easy solution for the pro side to satisfy the anti-side on the unreliability objection. We can constrain torture to only those instances where there is an easily verified answer. Nonsense. Those employing the torture would simply rationalize its use with improbable scenarios and hope to get forgiveness once they were through. SCOTUS gave police the ability to execute “no knock” searches instead of serving warrants and several police have used it recklessly, killing or injuring several innocent homeowners in the process. Your rules would have the same result. > [@IMfez](#): > > To directly address the ethical objection: > > Few people take satisfaction in the idea of torture; it’s almost always weighed against the outcomes of not torturing i.e. collateral damage. I seriously doubt that this is true. I have never seen any evidence to support your claim. In fact, the zealous manner in which the CIA removed various prisoners from the control of FBI and Army iIntelligence , where the prisoners were already beginning to give up information without torture, in order to torture (bad) information from those prisoners suggests the opposite. > [@IMfez](#): > > On ethical grounds alone, would you still object to torture if the act of torturing a single individual convicted for terrorist acts in a fair court could further save 1,000 or more innocent lives? No. I see no reason to trash the Constitution to engage in an incredibly improbable hypothetical just to make Cheney and the writers and audience of 24 happy. ---
**Author:** ![Jonathan\_Chance](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jonathan_chance/32/701_2.png) [@Jonathan\_Chance](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jonathan_Chance)\ **Post date:** [December 23, 2014, 12:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-someone-concisely-formulate-what-makes-torture-so-immoral/707903/43 "2014-12-23T12:58:38Z")
> [@BOOM](#): > > I don’t understand this at all. The poster is using an analogy, I am pointing out flaws in the analogy. I really don’t know what you’re doing, or why you are so interested and/or bothered. You’re new, so I’ll try to make it clear. I’m interested and/or bothered because I’m a moderator for this forum. It’s my job to keep things civil in Great Debates and so forth. I promote good debate, keep things from getting overly personal, kill spam and so forth. In your post #6 you personalize your argument against IMFez by making it about him personally…“you’ll be right at home with”…instead of keeping it more remote. By doing so you insulted IMfez and his ‘emotionally and intellectually stunted’ positions. That’s not allowed. I tossed out a mod note on your post and mentioned you in particular in it. When you went back to the Jack Bauer thing it seems that you’re continuing to personalize another poster in a way that you feel denigrates that poster. That’s continuing to insult a fellow poster. There are certainly ways you could have referenced Jack Bauer in this thread without making it personal - and therefore not get warned - but you chose not to take that route. Hence the warning. Please don’t do it again. ---
**Author:** ![Bone](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bone/32/407_2.png) [@Bone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bone)\ **Post date:** [December 23, 2014, 4:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-someone-concisely-formulate-what-makes-torture-so-immoral/707903/44 "2014-12-23T16:41:30Z")
> [@Budget\_Player\_Cadet](#): > > 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? I’m opposed to torture in all cases. Just to be clear. But none of the responses thus far have addressed the question in the OP. The question is why is it bad and in response we have several instances of begging the question, essentially assuming it is so without an explanation: > [@BOOM](#): > > It’s not “bad”, it’s depraved. > [@Wesley\_Clark](#): > > The intentional infliction of pain and suffering on a sentient creature is immoral. > [@IMfez](#): > > I think the general idea is that inflicting suffering upon others is a deeply immoral and inhumane act. All of these either assume the answer, or state it as matter of fact in that it’s bad because we say it’s bad. I don’t think these are responsive to the OP at all. Then there are a series of responses that explain why torture is bad based on what seem like variable conditions, or because of the resulting potential consequences: > [@John\_Mace](#): > > 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. > [@Bryan\_Ekers](#): > > Morality aside, it’s not a technique I feel a government agent can be trusted with. > [@BobLibDem](#): > > 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. > [@Monty](#): > > I’d think “it doesn’t work all that well” would be enough of an answer to the OP. > [@shijinn](#): > > they kind of do. when you’re in war and you use a weapon, there is a sort of expectation of that being met in kind. you learn to live (or not) with that, kill or be killed. > > nobody wants to be tortured. i hope. > [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > Because governments are big and powerful and therefore they must be absolutely bound by the rule of law. The idea that it’s bad because the law says so means that if the law didn’t say so, it would be okay. I don’t think that’s quite right. The idea that it doesn’t work means that if it did then it would be okay. I don’t think that’s quite right either. The idea that it can lead to other bad things is more pragmatic but still, not a reason why torture is bad per se. It says the other resulting outcomes are bad, but if those outcomes change to me it doesn’t change the inherent badness of torture. Ultimately I think this is one of those things that stems from [first principles.](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_principle) A person can be convinced that pragmatically it’s not a good idea because the goals do not align with the means, but if they don’t share those foundational principles then they will never come around to the idea that torture is simply wrong. ---
**Author:** ![IMfez](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/f07891/32.png) [@IMfez](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/IMfez)\ **Post date:** [December 23, 2014, 5:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-someone-concisely-formulate-what-makes-torture-so-immoral/707903/45 "2014-12-23T17:36:52Z")
> [@tomndebb](#): > > No. I see no reason to trash the Constitution to engage in an incredibly improbable hypothetical just to make Cheney and the writers and audience of 24 happy. Okay but you are attacking the framing of the hypothetical (issues of improbability and third-parties who benefit), instead of its question itself, which aims solely at the ethics issue. Assume torture is the only answer and the victim has no moral high ground, he’s not an innocent. Significant lives are at risk and can be saved through this means only. On ethical grounds, would you still not use torture? Or would it make sense given the extensive benefits? ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [December 23, 2014, 5:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-someone-concisely-formulate-what-makes-torture-so-immoral/707903/46 "2014-12-23T17:45:40Z")
> [@IMfez](#): > > Okay but you are attacking the framing of the hypothetical (issues of improbability and third-parties who benefit), instead of its question itself, which aims solely at the ethics issue. > > Assume torture is the only answer and the victim has no moral high ground, he’s not an innocent. Significant lives are at risk and can be saved through this means only. > > On ethical grounds, would you still not use torture? Or would it make sense given the extensive benefits? You can justify anything using those kind of unrealistic hypotheticals. Would you rape a six year old if aliens told you that they’d blow up Earth if you didn’t? If yes, then does that make child molestation “ethical”? If not, then by the same logic creating hypothetical situations that’ll never happen doesn’t make _torture_ moral, either. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [December 23, 2014, 5:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-someone-concisely-formulate-what-makes-torture-so-immoral/707903/47 "2014-12-23T17:50:06Z")
> [@Bone](#): > > Ultimately I think this is one of those things that stems from [first principles.](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_principle) A person can be convinced that pragmatically it’s not a good idea because the goals do not align with the means, but if they don’t share those foundational principles then they will never come around to the idea that torture is simply wrong. If you don’t accept that intentionally causing pain to another person with no resulting benefit to anyone is wrong as a first principle of morality, there is little basis left for further discussion. ---
**Author:** ![babygoat666](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/2acd7d/32.png) [@babygoat666](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/babygoat666)\ **Post date:** [December 23, 2014, 6:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-someone-concisely-formulate-what-makes-torture-so-immoral/707903/48 "2014-12-23T18:10:43Z")
> [@IMfez](#): > > …Significant lives are at risk and can be saved through this means only. > > On ethical grounds, would you still not use torture? Or would it make sense given the extensive benefits? No, because this situation is impossible. You cannot know with certainty that you will get the “benefits” you want, and there are always other means. ---
**Author:** ![IMfez](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/f07891/32.png) [@IMfez](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/IMfez)\ **Post date:** [December 23, 2014, 6:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-someone-concisely-formulate-what-makes-torture-so-immoral/707903/49 "2014-12-23T18:17:24Z")
> [@babygoat666](#): > > No, because this situation is impossible. You cannot know with certainty that you will get the “benefits” you want, and there are always other means. Like the previous poster, you are attacking the hypothetical itself. I’m asking you to tell me if you would accept torture under tightly constrained hypothetical scenario in order to isolate a single concern. Don’t be afraid, this isn’t a trap, as we both know your answer does not extrapolate back to any real world event. Though it does help us uncover the true positives and negatives to be discussed individually. ---
**Author:** ![Budget\_Player\_Cadet](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/budget_player_cadet/32/205_2.png) [@Budget\_Player\_Cadet](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Budget_Player_Cadet)\ **Post date:** [December 23, 2014, 6:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-someone-concisely-formulate-what-makes-torture-so-immoral/707903/50 "2014-12-23T18:29:06Z")
> [@IMfez](#): > > Like the previous poster, you are attacking the hypothetical itself. I’m asking you to tell me if you would accept torture under tightly constrained hypothetical scenario in order to isolate a single concern. Don’t be afraid, this isn’t a trap, as we both know your answer does not extrapolate back to any real world event. Though it does help us uncover the true positives and negatives to be discussed individually. But it’s a pointless hypothetical. **Der Trihs** was right - hypothetically, if the choice was between raping and murdering a 5-year-old and blowing up the earth, then _of course_ raping and murdering the 5-year-old would be the correct decision. But it’s not a realistic hypothetical. There’s no point to engaging in your hypothetical whatsoever. ---
**Author:** ![HoneyBadgerDC](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/honeybadgerdc/32/1033_2.png) [@HoneyBadgerDC](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HoneyBadgerDC)\ **Post date:** [December 23, 2014, 6:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-someone-concisely-formulate-what-makes-torture-so-immoral/707903/51 "2014-12-23T18:48:29Z")
If when dealing with anything in life and we find ends will justify the means the criteria will have been met. If it does not then it should not happen. This thread is ironic in a lot of ways. The liberals or athiest types seem more willing to turn the results over to a higher power where the more conservative types tend to go with the theory that ends will always justify the means. It gets back to the Lord helps those who help themselves. ---
**Author:** ![IMfez](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/f07891/32.png) [@IMfez](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/IMfez)\ **Post date:** [December 23, 2014, 6:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-someone-concisely-formulate-what-makes-torture-so-immoral/707903/52 "2014-12-23T18:54:36Z")
> [@Budget\_Player\_Cadet](#): > > But it’s a pointless hypothetical. **Der Trihs** was right - hypothetically, if the choice was between raping and murdering a 5-year-old and blowing up the earth, then _of course_ raping and murdering the 5-year-old would be the correct decision. But it’s not a realistic hypothetical. There’s no point to engaging in your hypothetical whatsoever. There is a point, it independently addresses the issue of torture ethics. Even your example point, an even more extreme example, makes a difficult point that rape and murder can be an ethical decision under exceptionally rare circumstances. ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [December 23, 2014, 7:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-someone-concisely-formulate-what-makes-torture-so-immoral/707903/53 "2014-12-23T19:10:41Z")
> [@IMfez](#): > > There is a point, it independently addresses the issue of torture ethics. Even your example point, an even more extreme example, makes a difficult point that rape and murder can be an ethical decision under exceptionally rare circumstances. Does the word “ethical” thus mean anything at all in your lexicon? ---
**Author:** ![YogSothoth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/8edcca/32.png) [@YogSothoth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/YogSothoth)\ **Post date:** [December 23, 2014, 7:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-someone-concisely-formulate-what-makes-torture-so-immoral/707903/54 "2014-12-23T19:12:00Z")
Torture increases suffering without decreasing it elsewhere. That’s a good a reason as any for me to be against it. ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [December 23, 2014, 11:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-someone-concisely-formulate-what-makes-torture-so-immoral/707903/55 "2014-12-23T23:46:51Z")
> [@IMfez](#): > > Okay but you are attacking the framing of the hypothetical (issues of improbability and third-parties who benefit), instead of its question itself, which aims solely at the ethics issue. Of course I attacked the hypothetical since it was an absurd attempt to provide an impossible scenario in order to set up a basis to rationalize torture. Torture exists in the real world and if the only way to rationalize it is to create unrealistic and utterly imaginary scenarios, that pretty well demonstrates that the hypothetical has no value. This is not a hypothetical physics experiment where one imagines frictionless ice in order to consider the effects of friction on momentum. > [@IMfez](#): > > Assume torture is the only answer and the victim has no moral high ground, he’s not an innocent. Significant lives are at risk and can be saved through this means only. > > On ethical grounds, would you still not use torture? Or would it make sense given the extensive benefits? I am not going to play your game. There is an old hypothetical regarding ethics where your friend is trapped in a burning car and in excruciating pain. You have the option to shoot him in the head, ending his suffering, or abiding by the law that regards the infliction of death as murder. Regardless which option you choose, some number of people will hold that it was the wrong choice. In the real world, if you chose to kill your friend, the police will look to see whether you and your friend actually were friends and that you did not have an ongoing feud with him and that you did not stand to iherit a large portion of his estate or that you were not the beneficiary of a large insurance policy. The local prosecutor may choose to indict you on one of the possible crimes of homicide or he may, for various reasons choose to not indict you. If you are indicted and go to trial, your defense attorney may persuade the jury or the judge to let you go or you may be convicted. If you are convicted, the judge may choose to give you a wrist slap instead of a harsh sentence. If you are given a harsh sentence, the governor or president may grant you clemency, issuing a pardon or commuting your sentence. So all along a whole series of events there are multiple occasions where you may escape a long sentence or execution for murder. What we do NOT do is to pass a law excusing everyone who shoots friends trapped in burning cars from culpability. That is what you are attempting to do with your ridiculous scenario. ---
**Author:** ![clairobscur](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/839c29/32.png) [@clairobscur](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/clairobscur)\ **Post date:** [December 24, 2014, 12:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-someone-concisely-formulate-what-makes-torture-so-immoral/707903/56 "2014-12-24T12:50:21Z")
I can do that : what makes torture so immoral, concisely, is that I find it utterly repulsive and depraved. ---
**Author:** ![IMfez](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/f07891/32.png) [@IMfez](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/IMfez)\ **Post date:** [December 24, 2014, 1:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-someone-concisely-formulate-what-makes-torture-so-immoral/707903/57 "2014-12-24T13:21:53Z")
> [@tomndebb](#): > > What we do NOT do is to pass a law excusing everyone who shoots friends trapped in burning cars from culpability. That is what you are attempting to do with your ridiculous scenario. This is incorrect, and you are attempting to anticipate my arguments and shoot them down before I make them. We can’t have a discussion that way. If you’ll engage with me, then you can give your disagreements on the points after I actually make them. ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [December 24, 2014, 1:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-someone-concisely-formulate-what-makes-torture-so-immoral/707903/58 "2014-12-24T13:35:05Z")
> [@IMfez](#): > > This is incorrect, and you are attempting to anticipate my arguments and shoot them down before I make them. We can’t have a discussion that way. If you’ll engage with me, then you can give your disagreements on the points after I actually make them. You are the one who keeps coming up with increasingly sillier scenarios trying to get someone to say that torture is OK. It is not and I have simply pointed out the end point of the path that you have already chosen. If you do not recognize the course of your own arguments, someone needs to point them out to you. ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [December 24, 2014, 1:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-someone-concisely-formulate-what-makes-torture-so-immoral/707903/59 "2014-12-24T13:39:40Z")
> [@tomndebb](#): > > There is an old hypothetical regarding ethics where your friend is trapped in a burning car and in excruciating pain. You have the option to shoot him in the head, ending his suffering, or abiding by the law that regards the infliction of death as murder. Regardless which option you choose, some number of people will hold that it was the wrong choice. Hey, merry fucking Christmas, dude! ---
**Author:** ![IMfez](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/f07891/32.png) [@IMfez](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/IMfez)\ **Post date:** [December 24, 2014, 1:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-someone-concisely-formulate-what-makes-torture-so-immoral/707903/60 "2014-12-24T13:48:45Z")
> [@tomndebb](#): > > You are the one who keeps coming up with increasingly sillier scenarios trying to get someone to say that torture is OK. If you do not recognize the course of your own arguments, someone needs to point them out to you. I disagree, can you demonstrate the path of increasingly sillier scenarios that I’ve laid out? > [@tomndebb](#): > > If you do not recognize the course of your own arguments, someone needs to point them out to you. I disagree; if I’m not able to lay out my arguments and have them challenged after they are made, then we cannot have a debate. I cannot have my opponents write my script for me. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-someone-concisely-formulate-what-makes-torture-so-immoral/707903.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-someone-concisely-formulate-what-makes-torture-so-immoral/707903.md?page=4)