As an investigation method it is unreliable, and even it wasn’t we couldn’t trust the government with the right to torture. Beyond that I can’t muster much of a general principled condemnation. Some people need to be tortured to death. Preferable in public. Fuck them.
al-Qaeda by their own words loves death more that we love life - the Golden Rule would be to nuke the shit out of them.
Let’s keep the insults to a minimum. Everyone - that means you, Boom - tone it down a notch.
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.
How would this be an answer to the question of what makes torture immoral?
Expectation is not the same as wanting. An enemy expects to get droned or shot. He does not *want *to get droned or shot.
An enemy spy probably expects to get tortured. He does not *want *to get tortured.
That may be, but members of al-Qaeda want to die. They love death, they’ve said so many times. For instance Bin Laden: “I am a person who loves death.” They should all be killed since that is what they want and what we want. It’s a win-win situation.
it’s not about wanting. Do not unto others what you would not others do unto you. when you kill, you accept that you might be killed in return.
no torturer ever expects to be tortured. a spy risks torture but he does not (?) torture. in any case, cyanide pills are an option (?) to choose death over torture. do not torture if you do not want to be repaid in kind.
on a related tangent, this is one reason why there are some objections to drones and other long ranged weapons. in the relative short term, a technologically superior country does not follow the Golden Rule - they wish to kill but not be killed.
There are numerous non-suicidal enemies whom we kill, but should not torture. They don’t want to be killed OR tortured. How does the Golden Rule work?
I think this is the best argument so far.
Piffle. Arguing that torture is OK because other bad things happen is nothing more than elevating personal grudges and sadism to the level of ethics. Torture does not provide accurate information at a rate even as good as random chance, so it cannot be justified as “necessary” regardless of any purported scenario. Since it cannot be justified as necessary, it simply becomes a poor excuse for the infliction of pain. That is unethical and no amount of special pleading by those who harbor the macabre desire to employ it can justify it.
Actually, it says something worse than that, ‘we DON’T object in any meaningful way how you mistreat our citizens.’
I’m trying to get my uncle to understand why this shit is so unacceptable. He posted a stupid image macro of the twin towers falling with “This is why I don’t care how we interrogate terrorists”, and then we got into a discussion about torture not working, and it being wrong, and I want to try to hammer home the morality aspect, because he’s apparently not interested in the scientific side of things. That said:
And when I brought up that that was kind of an important tenet of the 4th amendment…
…So I guess I’m wasting my time. For someone so preoccupied with “second amendment solutions” he sure does trust his government. :rolleyes:
Because torture is inflicting pain on another person for no good reason. Since it doesn’t work, that leaves a few rather unsavory choices for the reasons to torture someone.
You cannot win. This is like abortion – it’s entirely a matter of personal morality and how you relatively value certain pros and cons. I can’t come up with any sort of cogent argument that will sway a pro-life person from really, truly believing that a recently fertilized egg doesn’t have a soul and all the same rights to live as a baby or a toddler.
You almost certainly cannot convince someone that the tiniest possibility of a sliver of info that can save Americans is worth less than the health and relative comfort of a human being who we consider a criminal. (Whether they actually are a criminal is another matter).
If you’re looking for some absolutist argument about why torture has to be wrong, you simply won’t find one. It’s clear that, as insane as those posts read, he truly believes that torture is for the greater good, even if it doesn’t usually work. So is unlawful search and seizure. This is not a person you’re going to win over with a flash of insight or some clever rhetoric, this is a person whose fundamental values are so diametrically opposed to yours you may as well be arguing in different languages.
Because governments are big and powerful and therefore they must be absolutely bound by the rule of law.
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.
An example would be a critical laptop with sensitive information only accessed via password. In such an instance, would you be in favor of using torture to obtain the password?
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.
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?
One additional argument in favour of totally, categorically excluding torture IMO is that this is possible. A society cannot practically exist without legitimate use of force as a last resort (internally by police, externally by a military used for defence only), but it can exist without the use of torture even as a last resort.
Back to the Jack Bauer fantasy.
On financial grounds alone … would you object to me spending every penny you ever earned on lottery tickets because you could win?
On moral grounds alone … would you object to me fucking your partner because one day you might break up?
On scientific grounds alone … would you object to me throwing you out the window because one day someone may prove Newton wrong?
Lets do all those things now becasue I saw it on a TV show once.
and that one earns the warning. Don’t personalize things, Boom!