You notice that you’ve had to posit, once again, that the violence is necessary to accomplish the goal. That’s the fantasy world you have to live in to advocate torture, where torture will work and accomplish a goal. Here, in the real world, there is no evidence to support that idea.
Well, if that is accurate, and I’m not saying it’s not, I’m just saying that in the middle of a debate it is hard to turn around, admit you are wrong, and reverse your position. But, if the consensus among people who have carried out EIT is that EIT doesn’t work, then I would not have a very good argument against their findings.
I will readily admit there are very few occasions where an imminent threat would exist.
Again,how does the torturer know it is ? Think for one bleeding second here. Go through the process in your head.
I expect that to be the case, though I’ve yet to be assayed in that particular crucible. I hope I’d be able to actually rise above my baser urges, but I’m not that self-deluded that I think it likely. Lord knows I’ve been revealed as a monkey under pressure, time and again. So, yeah, I’d likely want to break bad, in that particular instant.
Which, to reiterate, is not hypocritical in the least. And I really appreciate the fact that a number of societal forces and institutions would prevent me from **actually **breaking bad.
ETA : that said, my opposition to torture is about more than morality or personal distaste. I believe it not only doesn’t work as an investigative tool, but also gives “the other side” one hell of a recruitment and loyalty tool.
Me personally, I am no fighter and have no stomach for torture. If my daughter was kidnapped I would rely on the police (or other authorities) to save her for me. That may make me seem (or even be) weak, worthless or pathetic in your eyes but at least I am honest. I don’t delude myself and won’t try to lie to you.
However I note your scenario is ridiculous. Asking me what I would do if no rules applied? That’s a massive flaw in your reasoning. Rules DO apply and for any actions I took there WOULD be lasting consequences.
Then there’s the whole unreliability of torture as mentioned repeatedly upthread.
Torturing a wide range of prisoners over a long time and gathering and collating the information and then checking the information out will likely uncover at least some useful data. Over time.
But grabbing an individual, who may or may not be guilty and even if guilty may or may not have information pertinent to saving my daughter and torturing them for a specific fact to save her life? It doesn’t seem very plausible to me.
To repeat I would let the authorities try. My belief is they would do a better job than me.
TCMF-2L
If someone broke into your home and you had a gun and they tried to harm you, would you defend yourself? I assume you would. Why then would you feel bad/immoral to use violence to protect your loved ones in other situations. And, I am not being hyperbolic, I really mean it, if a couple of broken ribs are all it takes to keep someone safe, safe from someone who intends them harm, what is the problem?
I dont know if I would be good at doing violence to others either. I am simply pointing out that before you talk about morality in an abstract sense you have to be honest and say how would you REALLY react in a certain situation before you judge someone else for using violence to achieve a necessary end.
that factor is kind of hard to ignore, i agree with you in this sense
First, I’m really torn on the subject of the morality of self-defense itself, so you’ve got kind of a problem on your hands there ;).
Second, there’s a world of difference between taking an action that would end a demonstrable and immediate threat (even more so when it’s a snap decision) and a conscious decision to go through the lengthy, deliberate process of torturing somebody. And I expect if I ever actually killed somebody in self-defence or defence of my loved ones, I’d likely spend the rest of my life guilting about it and wondering whether it really was the only thing I could have done anyway.
Lastly, “a couple of broken ribs” are **never **all it takes, if you put torture on the table. Once more, torture doesn’t stop when the torturee gives the correct information. Torture stops when the torturer is through. Depending on the individual evilness of the torturer, that could take a while. Would **you **really want to be that guy ? Or are you just glad somebody out there is doing that work for you, ostensibly to keep you safe ?
Good point. But if my daughters life depended on it, I can’t say I wouldn’t approve it
Well hopefully these cases are rare enough that it wouldnt come to that
Why do you continue to posit this as if it is in any way, shape, or form relevant to the real world discussion of torture. Torture isn’t self defense, torture isn’t better than other techniques, and torture is immoral. You constant need to devolve into loaded hypotheticals should be telling you something about your position.
I have never been in a situation remotely like being offered a “no strings attached” opportunity to torture a real (or alleged) bad guy. Therefore I can only offer an abstract view on the morality involved.
I believe I would turn down the opportunity for any “hands on” torture.
I honestly believe I would turn down any such opportunity although I do find it difficult to imagine a situation where such an offer was made.
TCMF-2L
Right, because criminals never kidnap people. Or stalk people. Or threaten them. And terrorists never blow anything up, ever.
They probably are quite rare.
It helped them find a corpse. That’s not very useful, when the stated purpose of the torture was to find a living, breathing child.
You don’t seem to grasp that you’re trying to argue about two different types of crime in this thread and pretending that they’re the same crime.
exactly, terrorism is worse, so i’m not really sure what point you’re making
You’re equating shooting an armed person who’s broken into your home while they’re in your home with attempting to extract information from someone by the use of torture. You don’t see the point that those are absolutely not the same thing at all?
Yeah, well if Adolph Hitler was a second away from killing 6 million Jews and you had a gun and you would kill him, then torture is moral! So there.
Robert163, you are really missing the key factor here, even though it has come up before, I’ll give it a go.
So, in order to save your daughter, you (or some authority) start torturing a suspect. At the first rib crack, he gives you an address. Cops investigate, but your daughter is not there. At this point you have no way of knowing if the suspect A)Lied B)doesn’t know, or C)meant to tell the truth but in his agitated state transposed the numbers. So what’s next? Do you crack another rib and try again? And after the sufficient number of ribs are cracked, figure he must not be the guy and bring in the next suspect and start over again?
This inefficiency alone is should be good enough reason not to torture the suspect.
And even if your guy gives up the right info on the first try, and your daughter is saved (the 100 sided dice coming up 1), what about the next suspect who isn’t so ‘lucky’. And the next, and the next…that’s a lot of innocent ribs broken.