Do you support forced interrogation/torture of suspected Terrorists?

Great Debates
301

Cem: Since you don’t have a problem with abuse of “known terrorists,” I’m very curious what you think of this story. The most relevant part quoted below:

So here’s a completely innocent person who just happened to share the same name as a known terrorist. He says he was beaten. For all we know, maybe they were trying to figure out where the ticking time bomb was. Now he has no recourse through our courts.

What are your thoughts on this case? Any comments on the moral implications of abusing an innocent man who was believed to be a terrorist?

302

No, of course not. Torture is only permissable in hypotheticals where the proposed torturer has perfect knowledge regarding the suspect’s guilt, the efficacy or torture, the efficacy of other interrogation methods, and that the knowledge gained from the tortured suspect will be pertinent to a bomb in New York, and will arrive in time to defuse the bomb. Otherwise, it is unthinkable.

303

[QUOTE=Testy]
No, Tom. I am not desperate to believe anything at all. I’ve seen something work, no belief is required. I also believe I gave you an example of it working. Possibly I was unclear. As far as whether there was a better way to get the information, I don’t have anything to base an opinion on.
[/quote]
Actually, you gave us an unverified account of what you believed at the time to have been successful torture. You really don’t know whether the other Iraqis were found based on the victim’s screams or whether it was coincidence that his unit was discovered at around the same time that he was being tortured. (Do you think the Kuwaiti cops were going to say, “Oh, we tortured him for some information, but we found out we didn’t need it.”?) Or maybe he gave a false position for his unit and was “lucky” enough that either his unit or some other unit was found at the false location he gave.
Certainly, there are people who will give up information under torture more readily than other people. However, that fact does not change the overall statement that torture fails to provide good data. It is simply a crapshoot and the torturer never knows whether the data is good or bad. That means that even good information is suspect, making the practice a failure. There are dowsers who have “found” water. There are psychics who have “discovered” information about the dead. There are numbers players who make the big strike. This does not mean that dowsing is an effective way to find water or that psychics are a good way to find missing murder victims or that gambling on random draws of numbers is a good way to make a living. Since torture is far more likely to produce bad information than good information, (which is why serious intelligence professionals oppose using it), it is a failure at intelligence gathering. Since it is a failure at doing the only thing it is supposed to accomplish and it seriously harms both its victim and its perpetrator, it should always and everywhere be shunned.

[QUOTE=Testy]
Also, you never answered my question a few exchanges back. If someone plops you into a chair and tells you they’re going to torture you unless you rat-out your country, bowling league, or some other thing you consider important, what will you do?

I would suggest that you, just like anyone else, are going to give-up the info. It isn’t a matter of whether, it’s a matter of when.
[/quote]
I am going to give up some info. If you threaten me to discover the location of tonight’s bowling, I am going to give it up before I have suffered any sort of abuse. If you threaten me in order to find my wife and kids so that you can harm them, I am going to give as plausible false information as I can until I begin to tell you whatever you want to hear. If you did not like my answers, I will begin to try to find out what you wanted to hear so that I could escape the pain–regardless whether or not it was true. If your claim was correct, we would find real life intelligence officers talking about how effective torture is rather than talking about how unreliable are the results of torture.

304

TWEEET!

This thread has remained fairly rational despite the hot topic.
It will stay that way.
There will be no more digs about any poster “not having to think” and there will be no attacks on other posters for their lack of morals or their scrupulous morality.

Stick to the topic and leave comments about your opponent(s) out of this thread.

[ /Moderating ]

305

[QUOTE=Little Nemo]
I agree with you on this. Torture is wrong and illegal and anyone who does it should face the consequences.

On your pedophilia rant, on the other hand, I have to feel I won that round. The fact that you apparently felt you couldn’t adequately defend your position on torture and needed to start talking about an entirely different subject seems like an admission of defeat to me. Say hi to the family and tell them I’m looking forward to our Thanksgiving get-together.
[/QUOTE]
:smack: That was pure coincidence, I swear. There was no other intended significance. It was entirely random.

306

You just happened to randomly pick “Nemo” as the name for a hypothetical person? It’s not a real common name.

307

[QUOTE=Little Nemo]
You just happened to randomly pick “Nemo” as the name for a hypothetical person? It’s not a real common name.
[/QUOTE]
I know. I was reaching for something that would sound funny. Probably I subconsciously had it in mind from responding to you earlier in the day, but I had no recollection of it at that point. I was thinking of the name in the sense of a transparent pseudonym, as Verne used it. Honestly, it never even registered with me until now that, opps, there’s also a poster who uses that name. Good thing I only used it in association with child molestation. :smack: :smack: :smack: . I’m very sorry.

308

[QUOTE=Cemetery Savior]
I’ll assume you mean “not hurting people”.
[/QUOTE]

“Not hurting people is bad”? I think I’ll stick with what I actually said.

[QUOTE=Cemetery Savior]
I
If you aver that you have rationalized the thought experiment and at least allowed for debate within the subject’s framework, I’ll have to agree to disagree. I don’t see anywhere on the thread where you’ve allowed for any opinion that didn’t agree with yours. Not much of a debate.

[/QUOTE]

The debate is, or should be IMO, on whether the stance on torture is consistent with one’s own moral framework. I think hurting people is bad, as defining feature of my morality, therefore torture is incompatible with my moral framework. I can only argue from my own morality - we are talking about the real world here.

If you have a relativist or pragmatist morality, I can see arguing for torture - phrases like the greater good lead to that conclusion. I just don’t agree those moralities are sound from a logical perspective.

I think that those particular moral frameworks rest on illogical foundations. I happen to know that Two wrongs make a right is a logical fallacy. If “Hurting people is bad” is a premise, there’s no way you can arrive at “torture is OK(=good)” without invalidating it, sine “torture” =“hurting people”.

See, I’ve thought it out before.

Tom, I hope that counts as sticking to the topic? I tried to keep it as focused as possible.

309

Okay, it could happen.

But leaving aside the name issue, I still disagree with the rest of that post. Torture is not child molestation. So any arguments against child molestation do not magically transfer over against torture. It’s a strawman argument - argue against what I actually said not against a pretend position I never took.

(This post is in response to Terrifel’s post not MrDibble’s.)

310

[QUOTE=Little Nemo]
Torture is not child molestation. So any arguments against child molestation do not magically transfer over against torture.
[/QUOTE]
They do when the argument for torture is that you can do evil for a greater good. The difference is, our society has become vile enough that torture is considered arguable, while it still holds child molestation officially anathema. For now.

311

And here’s my response to MrDibble.

The thing is I feel people are responsible for their inactions as well as their actions. Deciding not to do something is still a decision.

If “hurting people is bad” is the premise, then the primary duty is to avoid taking any action which would hurt somebody. But shouldn’t you also consider taking actions which would prevent other people from getting hurt? If you see somebody petting a dog that you know bites and you say nothing, then you didn’t directly cause the other person’s injury but you still could have prevented it from happening and didn’t. Your culpability isn’t as great as if you had bitten the person yourslef but I think most people would agree there was some degree of culpability in your silence.

So then the argument goes to what happens when you have to hurt one person to prevent a large group of people from being hurt? If you hurt the first person, you’re culpable for what you did. But if you don’t hurt the first person, you’re culpable to a lesser degree for the hurt to the other people that you did not act to prevent. And that lesser degree can be magnified by the number of people who were hurt and the amount of hurt they received to the point where your inaction caused more suffering than your action would have.

Breaking somebody’s finger is wrong. Letting somebody die is wrong. If you’re in a situation where you have to decide whether or not to break somebodys finger in order to save somebody’s life, you have to decide whether your action or your inaction will commit the greater wrong.

312

[QUOTE=Little Nemo]
And here’s my response to MrDibble.
The thing is I feel people are responsible for their inactions as well as their actions. Deciding not to do something is still a decision.

If “hurting people is bad” is the premise, then the primary duty is to avoid taking any action which would hurt somebody. But shouldn’t you also consider taking actions which would prevent other people from getting hurt? If you see somebody petting a dog that you know bites and you say nothing, then you didn’t directly cause the other person’s injury but you still could have prevented it from happening and didn’t. Your culpability isn’t as great as if you had bitten the person yourslef but I think most people would agree there was some degree of culpability in your silence.
[/QUOTE]

I’m with you so far…

[QUOTE=Little Nemo]

So then the argument goes to what happens when you have to hurt one person to prevent a large group of people from being hurt?
[/QUOTE]

…and this is where you lose me. “Have to hurt one person” is begging the question. A logical fallacy.

[QUOTE=Little Nemo]

Breaking somebody’s finger is wrong. Letting somebody die is wrong. If you’re in a situation where you have to decide whether or not to break somebodys finger in order to save somebody’s life, you have to decide whether your action or your inaction will commit the greater wrong.
[/QUOTE]

Afain, begging the question. I would argue that there is no situation where you have to break someone’s finger as the only alternative.

313

[QUOTE=MrDibble]
Afain, begging the question. I would argue that there is no situation where you have to break someone’s finger as the only alternative.
[/QUOTE]

I think he is referring to the stand-by philosophical proposition:

  Your at the controls of a railroad track switch. The bridge is out on one track and a train with 100 people aboard is coming. On the track that you would switch the train to, your deaf son is standing. Do you switch the track sacrificing your son for the assumable greater good of the 100? You have a duty to your son and a duty to your job and mankind. Either choice could be considered the right thing to do  depending on what you view as your greatest duty.

Inaction kills 100 while action kills 1. Either way someone is going to die. Trying to translate this to the torture issue is difficult however because you are taking a finite case and applying it to a variably infinite case. There are too many variables for torture to be labeled as a good. It is never guaranteed to save a life or impact the greater good while it will always harm the individual being tortured.

All seemingly reasonable reasons for torture have been hypothetical whereas the cases for it being wrong have been real life experiences or examples listed. Where are the examples of torture being effective in saving lives?

314

Yeah, I know, I’m trying to avoid silly hypotheticals.

315

[QUOTE=Ravenman]
Cem: Since you don’t have a problem with abuse of “known terrorists,” I’m very curious what you think of this story. The most relevant part quoted below: So here’s a completely innocent person who just happened to share the same name as a known terrorist. He says he was beaten. For all we know, maybe they were trying to figure out where the ticking time bomb was. Now he has no recourse through our courts.

What are your thoughts on this case? Any comments on the moral implications of abusing an innocent man who was believed to be a terrorist?
[/QUOTE]

I think that abusing/torturing/interrogating a person who is found to be innocent is terrible. If we want to discuss due diligence in determining who is the proper detainee, then that’s OK with me. My thought is that, in an extreme circumstance, the people responsible for determining who is a “known terrorist” have to be accountable (I never said they shouldn’t be). There has to be a pretty firm definition of what constitutes “known”.

I would think the moral implications are obvious. It’s a terrible situation.

-Cem

316

[QUOTE=tomndebb]
TWEEET!

This thread has remained fairly rational despite the hot topic.
It will stay that way.
There will be no more digs about any poster “not having to think” and there will be no attacks on other posters for their lack of morals or their scrupulous morality.

Stick to the topic and leave comments about your opponent(s) out of this thread.

[ /Moderating ]
[/QUOTE]

To be fair, I think I floated this accusation in a slightly different form first.

-Cem

317

[QUOTE=MrDibble]
The debate is, or should be IMO, on whether the stance on torture is consistent with one’s own moral framework. I think hurting people is bad, as defining feature of my morality, therefore torture is incompatible with my moral framework. I can only argue from my own morality - we are talking about the real world here..
[/QUOTE]

If we’re talking pure morality, and absent any extenuating circumstances from the discussion, then we’re not too far apart, MrDibble. I agree that hurting people with bad intent (as opposed to when I hit someone with a tennis ball) is “bad”. My opinion on where we differ is what happens when we apply those extenuating circumstances (warfare, in my thoughts). You draw the line so your morals stay fixed (my words) throughout. I allow for the fact that something outside of societal mores may have to happen.

[QUOTE=MrDibble]
If you have a relativist or pragmatist morality, I can see arguing for torture - phrases like the greater good lead to that conclusion. I just don’t agree those moralities are sound from a logical perspective..
[/QUOTE]

It’s odd that you’re claiming logical consistency, as I’m doing so as well.

[QUOTE=MrDibble]
I think that those particular moral frameworks rest on illogical foundations. I happen to know that Two wrongs make a right is a logical fallacy. If “Hurting people is bad” is a premise, there’s no way you can arrive at “torture is OK(=good)” without invalidating it, sine “torture” =“hurting people”..
[/QUOTE]

When you have an argument, and you keep to a fixed premise in the face of a variable forensic situation, it’s not logically consistent in my book. I also don’t agree with the flip “two wrongs…right” statement, but that’s a topic for another thread, I’ll guess.

-Cem

318

[QUOTE=Cemetery Savior]
I think that abusing/torturing/interrogating a person who is found to be innocent is terrible. If we want to discuss due diligence in determining who is the proper detainee, then that’s OK with me. My thought is that, in an extreme circumstance, the people responsible for determining who is a “known terrorist” have to be accountable (I never said they shouldn’t be). There has to be a pretty firm definition of what constitutes “known”.

I would think the moral implications are obvious. It’s a terrible situation.

-Cem
[/QUOTE]

And there’s the problem. My standard for due diligence in determining who should be tortured is high enough that in a real life scenario it cannot be met. In any real life scenario, people who are given the power to torture are never held accountable unless there is a regime change and a new government. In a real life scenario people given the power of torture and summary execution are able to make embarressing situtations go away by making people disappear. And in a real life scenario, the way we determine whether someone is a “known” terrorist is to hold a trial.

319

[QUOTE=Cemetery Savior]
If we’re talking pure morality, and absent any extenuating circumstances from the discussion, then we’re not too far apart, MrDibble. I agree that hurting people with bad intent (as opposed to when I hit someone with a tennis ball) is “bad”. My opinion on where we differ is what happens when we apply those extenuating circumstances (warfare, in my thoughts).
[/QUOTE]

You are assuming as a given that war is an acceptable extenuating circumstance. This is again a case of begging the question

[QUOTE=Cemetery Savior]
You draw the line so your morals stay fixed (my words) throughout. I allow for the fact that something outside of societal mores may have to happen.
[/QUOTE]

Surely if it outside the mores, it is immoral? The fact that it is acceptable to you doesn’t change the morality of the action itself. This is what I mean by the failure of relativist approaches. Or is it also acceptable for the terrorists (who are also in this war) to torture your troops? If not, why not?

[QUOTE=Cemetery Savior]

It’s odd that you’re claiming logical consistency, as I’m doing so as well.
[/QUOTE]

Nothing odd about it - this is GD, not the Pit, after all. What matters is who can best prove/defend their viewpoint. It is sometimes useful to allow the other side’s premises as a given in hypothetical situations (I had a nice debate with kanicbird about demonology along those lines recently), but I don’t think it’s a good idea when discussing real-world situations - and torture is unfortunately real in a way that demons just aren’t (for most of us).

[QUOTE=Cemetery Savior]

When you have an argument, and you keep to a fixed premise in the face of a variable forensic situation, it’s not logically consistent in my book.
[/QUOTE]

I disagree - if you continually change your premises, nothing you do can be said to be traditionally logical as I would understand it. The key is to graft the premises such that they are generic enough to deal with any situation.

I find “It is bad to hurt other people” to be such a premise. That’s it’s simplified form, of course - by “hurt” I mean something complex, that allows for nuances like surgery, S&M and (this is an important modifier –>) immediate self-defence.

[QUOTE=Cemetery Savior]
I also don’t agree with the flip “two wrongs…right” statement, but that’s a topic for another thread, I’ll guess.

[/QUOTE]

What better thread? It cuts to the heart of the whole argument this thread is about. And there’s nothing flip about it. It’s a well-known logical fallacy - you are saying it is OK to visit an acknowledged evil on someone because they did (or will do) something evil. It’s a variant of the good old tu quoque - call it the “Him Too!” or "He started It!"fallacy.

320

[QUOTE=Me]
The key is to **graft **the premises
[/QUOTE]
Possibly I meant “draft the premises” :slap: