# Isn't it bizarre to be against torture if we aren't against collateral damage **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [November 23, 2004, 8:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/isnt-it-bizarre-to-be-against-torture-if-we-arent-against-collateral-damage/276253 "2004-11-23T08:30:31Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 5
**Author:** ![marky33](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e495f1/32.png) [@marky33](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/marky33)\ **Post date:** [November 29, 2004, 10:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/isnt-it-bizarre-to-be-against-torture-if-we-arent-against-collateral-damage/276253/81 "2004-11-29T10:00:17Z")
> [@blowero](#): > > I disagree. Collateral damage is _not_ a means to an end. Yes it is. > [@blowero](#): > > And excessive collateral damage is disallowed as well. Who decides how much is excessive? As a concept, either CD is exceptable or it isn’t. A fictional, yet possible, situation: Your troops are attacking the village hideout of a known terrorist group, one of whom you have captured. You can either carry out a full-blown attack on the whole village, likely killing, for the sake of argument, 20 innocent villagers while searching for the exact house in which they are hiding or you can put a bit of pressure on your captive, pinpoint the house and prevent 20 deaths. In this scenario, are 20 CD deaths excessive? ---
**Author:** ![tagos](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/bbe5ce/32.png) [@tagos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tagos)\ **Post date:** [November 29, 2004, 11:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/isnt-it-bizarre-to-be-against-torture-if-we-arent-against-collateral-damage/276253/82 "2004-11-29T11:56:52Z")
> [@grienspace](#): > > ‘Callous disregard’ you say ? > > How is that different from the life-altering destruction/punishment of the innocent lives of the family of a murderer condemned to death which no one seems to give a shit about. Well, one obvious difference is one lot are blown to bloody pieces and the other not. :rolleyes: ---
**Author:** ![blowero](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/41988e/32.png) [@blowero](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/blowero)\ **Post date:** [November 29, 2004, 9:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/isnt-it-bizarre-to-be-against-torture-if-we-arent-against-collateral-damage/276253/83 "2004-11-29T21:06:58Z")
> [@marky33](#): > > Yes it is. No, it’s not. > [@](#): > > Who decides how much is excessive? As a concept, either CD is exceptable or it isn’t. > A fictional, yet possible, situation: Your troops are attacking the village hideout of a known terrorist group, one of whom you have captured. You can either carry out a full-blown attack on the whole village, likely killing, for the sake of argument, 20 innocent villagers while searching for the exact house in which they are hiding or you can put a bit of pressure on your captive, pinpoint the house and prevent 20 deaths. > In this scenario, are 20 CD deaths excessive? But the captive isn’t any more likely to give you the correct information if you torture him than he is if you _don’t_ torture him. The most likely outcome is that he will lie and give you the _wrong_ location, and you will target the wrong house. ---
**Author:** ![blowero](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/41988e/32.png) [@blowero](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/blowero)\ **Post date:** [November 29, 2004, 9:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/isnt-it-bizarre-to-be-against-torture-if-we-arent-against-collateral-damage/276253/84 "2004-11-29T21:14:42Z")
> [@Apos](#): > > Of course it is. While it isn’t something that we like, it’s something that’s an inevtiable part of many sorts of military operations. I don’t think you are understanding what “means to an end” means. Maybe you should look it up. > [@](#): > > The whole point of moral comparison is to figure out what differences are relevant and which are not between two situations. It doesn’t matter that torture and CD aren’t directly, exactly analagous. What matters is that the fact that we wish wasn’t a part of accomplishing our goals just isn’t a relevant difference. But you are doggedly refusing to consider whether the goal _can_ be accomplished in your little equation. If I could risk one life and _have a good chance_ of saving 1,000, I might consider it. But if I risked one life but still had a _poor chance_ of saving 1,000, I probably wouldn’t. > [@](#): > > Good to know that you think it’s impossible. We’d better not think about it then! Actually, I believe I am “thinking about it” more than you. You are only considering it in a hypothetical action-hero movie kind of way, whereas I am considering it in the real world. ---
**Author:** ![Apos](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/838e76/32.png) [@Apos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Apos)\ **Post date:** [November 29, 2004, 9:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/isnt-it-bizarre-to-be-against-torture-if-we-arent-against-collateral-damage/276253/85 "2004-11-29T21:54:28Z")
> [@](#): > > I don’t think you are understanding what “means to an end” means. Of course I do. I just don’t happen to think that the fact that some predictable consequence of an action is unhappy or can (even rightly!) be blamed on “insurgents for forcing our hand” is morally relevant to our consideration of the method. The death of civilians is a KNOWN and PREDICTABLE part of the means to our desired end. That makes it fair games when we are considering whether the end justifies the means we have chosen. > [@](#): > > But you are doggedly refusing to consider whether the goal can be accomplished in your little equation. No, I’m saying that we can take that into account just as we can in situations where we already consider whether CD is too high to be worth it. > [@](#): > > If I could risk one life and have a good chance of saving 1,000, I might consider it. But if I risked one life but still had a poor chance of saving 1,000, I probably wouldn’t. Okay, now you seem to be doing some sort of moral calculus. The question is: why proceed this way in regards to CD, and not in torture? And while I doubt you personally supported it, we are talking in a broader context here. A majority of people in the U.S. are willing to justify the incineration of entire cities full of civilians in order to achieve what they believed were better ends. Isn’t it a little bizarre that these same people would object to transitory physical or psychological pain in order to save lives? Where is the sense of proportion here? > [@](#): > > Actually, I believe I am “thinking about it” more than you. You are only considering it in a hypothetical action-hero movie kind of way, whereas I am considering it in the real world. …and saying that it never comes up. Very well, but then, if it will never come up, why think about it? But if it might, wouldn’t it be worthwhile to serious examine our moral judgements regarding its potential use? I’m not thinking about it an action-hero kind of way, and you are becoming pointlessly abusive. I don’t see what’s so unrealistic about the situation. If not for government secrecy in regards to the particular people captured and the sorts of information they might have had, we’d probably have several real-world and very timely situations to discuss. Americans apparently think that the need for torture is so urgent that they are shipping people overseas to be tortured. Mossad has tortured insurgents in the past, and while they won’t cop to it long enough to mount a serious defense, I would guess there are several exmaples in which they could claim to have saved lives by doing so. I don’t think it helps even absolute opponents of torture to just outright deny that there are ever situations in which it could be beneficial or save lives. ---
**Author:** ![Apos](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/838e76/32.png) [@Apos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Apos)\ **Post date:** [November 29, 2004, 10:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/isnt-it-bizarre-to-be-against-torture-if-we-arent-against-collateral-damage/276253/86 "2004-11-29T22:11:23Z")
> [@blowero](#): > > But the captive isn’t any more likely to give you the correct information if you torture him than he is if you _don’t_ torture him. The most likely outcome is that he will lie and give you the _wrong_ location, and you will target the wrong house. Just in the interests of clarifying your position, would it make any difference to if there were ways to ensure accurate information? What if there was a drug you could give him that would allow you to pretty easily get the truth from him, at the cost of some pretty serious physical pain afterwards and maybe even some lasting medical problems? Would that make the situation more permissible? What if you just threatened to torture or kill him even more, or do worse to his family, if his information proved to be false? Seems to me that, while barbaric, he’d be a lot more willing to give accurate information at that point. ---
**Author:** ![blowero](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/41988e/32.png) [@blowero](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/blowero)\ **Post date:** [November 30, 2004, 8:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/isnt-it-bizarre-to-be-against-torture-if-we-arent-against-collateral-damage/276253/87 "2004-11-30T08:47:24Z")
> [@Apos](#): > > Of course I do. I just don’t happen to think that the fact that some predictable consequence of an action is unhappy or can (even rightly!) be blamed on “insurgents for forcing our hand” is morally relevant to our consideration of the method. The death of civilians is a KNOWN and PREDICTABLE part of the means to our desired end. That makes it fair games when we are considering whether the end justifies the means we have chosen. O.K., I understand the point you are trying to make, but you are STILL misunderstanding what “means to an end” means. You are free to argue that unintended consequences carry the _same moral weight_ as intended actions, but you cannot argue that they are the same by definition. > [@](#): > > No, I’m saying that we can take that into account just as we can in situations where we already consider whether CD is too high to be worth it. So why aren’t you taking it into account, then? > [@](#): > > Okay, now you seem to be doing some sort of moral calculus. The question is: why proceed this way in regards to CD, and not in torture? I understand your point, Apos. I guess I’m a realist - I don’t believe in pre-determining moral absolutes to be applied in a formulaic way. In the real world, torture is not an effective tool. I see no point in arguing hypotheticals that have no real-world application. > [@](#): > > And while I doubt you personally supported it, we are talking in a broader context here. A majority of people in the U.S. are willing to justify the incineration of entire cities full of civilians in order to achieve what they believed were better ends. Isn’t it a little bizarre that these same people would object to transitory physical or psychological pain in order to save lives? Where is the sense of proportion here? I’ll agree that it would be inconsistent to sanction “incineration of entire cities full of civilians” while condemning torture. However, we weren’t discussing that particular case; we were discussing the more general case of _any_ collateral damage. I’ll say it again - I can imagine a case where _some_ collateral damage might be unavoidable, but I _can’t_ imagine a case where torture would be unavoidable. > [@](#): > > …and saying that it never comes up. Very well, but then, if it will never come up, why think about it? But if it might, wouldn’t it be worthwhile to serious examine our moral judgements regarding its potential use? No, because to even give the idea consideration is to suggest that we might do it. I object to such “contingency planning” because it tends to falsly legitimize something that is not legitimate. I object to it in the same way I object to the Bush Administration’s consideration of possibly using tactical nukes. You can _say_ you’re just “examining it’s potential use”, but the moment you even _consider_ the idea, you’re already on the road to actually doing it. > [@](#): > > I’m not thinking about it an action-hero kind of way, and you are becoming pointlessly abusive. Was I really “abusive”? I didn’t think I was being abusive. My apologies if you read it that way. > [@](#): > > Americans apparently think that the need for torture is so urgent that they are shipping people overseas to be tortured. This is a very poor argument indeed. The fact that people _want_ to torture other people, and that they might go to great lengths to do so, does not mean it’s an effective way to gain information. If anything, it only proves that some people are sadistic. > [@](#): > > I don’t think it helps even absolute opponents of torture to just outright deny that there are ever situations in which it could be beneficial or save lives. You still haven’t shown any evidence to the contrary, so I’ll have to disagree with you on that. ---
**Author:** ![Apos](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/838e76/32.png) [@Apos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Apos)\ **Post date:** [November 30, 2004, 9:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/isnt-it-bizarre-to-be-against-torture-if-we-arent-against-collateral-damage/276253/88 "2004-11-30T09:19:59Z")
> [@blowero](#): > > O.K., I understand the point you are trying to make, but you are STILL misunderstanding what “means to an end” means. You are free to argue that unintended consequences carry the _same moral weight_ as intended actions, but you cannot argue that they are the same by definition. I’m pointing out that while they are not “intended” in a goody-goody-two-shoes sense, because they are predictable outcomes, they are basically intended. They are part of the “means.” There is just no way around it. > [@](#): > > So why aren’t you taking it into account, then? I’m not sure what you mean. I am happy to take them into account. > [@](#): > > I understand your point, Apos. I guess I’m a realist - I don’t believe in pre-determining moral absolutes to be applied in a formulaic way. But it is precisely that that I am support: moral realism over incoherent gut feelings. > [@](#): > > In the real world, torture is not an effective tool. I don’t think we really have enough evidence or experience to conclude this. It is certainly a COMFORTING belief, to be sure, but it’s not at all clear that torture, when used in the correct situations cannot be a useful tool in our arsenal. > [@](#): > > I see no point in arguing hypotheticals that have no real-world application. That they have no application is, so far, your opinion. > [@](#): > > I’ll agree that it would be inconsistent to sanction “incineration of entire cities full of civilians” while condemning torture. However, we weren’t discussing that particular case; we were discussing the more general case of _any_ collateral damage. I’ll say it again - I can imagine a case where _some_ collateral damage might be unavoidable, but I _can’t_ imagine a case where torture would be unavoidable. I don’t understand this claim. ALL CD is avoidable: we just often don’t like the cost (i.e. passing up important military targets and objectives). There are situations in which the goal is too compelling to pass up despite considerable CD. But that doesn’t make them “unavoidable.” We may even feel that we have a moral imperative to undergo the military action, along with the CD. We, morally, cannot pass it up, and perhaps in that sense it IS unavoidable. But the same could be said of torture when lives are on the line. > [@](#): > > No, because to even give the idea consideration is to suggest that we might do it. I object to such “contingency planning” because it tends to falsly legitimize something that is not legitimate. Begging the question: we are considering whether it IS legitimate. And you don’t want to give it consideration… because that would give it legitimacy. > [@](#): > > I object to it in the same way I object to the Bush Administration’s consideration of possibly using tactical nukes. You can _say_ you’re just “examining it’s potential use”, but the moment you even _consider_ the idea, you’re already on the road to actually doing it. Ok. So why are you here considering it? > [@](#): > > This is a very poor argument indeed. The fact that people _want_ to torture other people, and that they might go to great lengths to do so, does not mean it’s an effective way to gain information. If anything, it only proves that some people are sadistic. I wish that I could simply dismiss the people doing this as sadistic or evil: them and Mossad. But at the same time, these people aren’t stupid. They aren’t doing it just because they want to. And they aren’t ignorant of all the claims saying that torture is ineffective. But apparently they don’t think the discussion ends there. Now, you can dismiss them. Or you can figure out why they are apparently using torture anyway, and whether what they are doing is evil or justified. ---
**Author:** ![marky33](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e495f1/32.png) [@marky33](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/marky33)\ **Post date:** [November 30, 2004, 9:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/isnt-it-bizarre-to-be-against-torture-if-we-arent-against-collateral-damage/276253/89 "2004-11-30T09:55:46Z")
> [@blowero](#): > > But the captive isn’t any more likely to give you the correct information if you torture him than he is if you _don’t_ torture him. But what if it _was_ effective in extracting the truth? This about sleep deprivation from Menachem Begin, the Israeli prime minister from 1977-83, who was tortured by the KGB: “He promised them - if they signed - uninterrupted sleep! And, having signed, **there was nothing in the world that could move them to risk again such nights and such days**.” [Bolding mine] Cite: [http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/3376951.stm](http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/3376951.stm) ---
**Author:** ![Evil\_Captor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/f17d59/32.png) [@Evil\_Captor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Evil_Captor)\ **Post date:** [November 30, 2004, 2:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/isnt-it-bizarre-to-be-against-torture-if-we-arent-against-collateral-damage/276253/90 "2004-11-30T14:24:31Z")
> [@Apos](#): > > I wish that I could simply dismiss the people doing this as sadistic or evil: them and Mossad. But at the same time, these people aren’t stupid. They aren’t doing it just because they want to. And they aren’t ignorant of all the claims saying that torture is ineffective. But apparently they don’t think the discussion ends there. Now, you can dismiss them. Or you can figure out why they are apparently using torture anyway, and whether what they are doing is evil or justified. C’mon, Apos. [Amnesty International](http://www.amnesty.org/) has amassed ton after depressing ton of proof that most torture isn’t justified. If you could magically dump all torture that wasn’t in pursuit of critical, life-saving knowledge, that would probably be 99.9 percent of what’s out there. You CAN safely dismiss almost all torture as evil and unjustified. Hey, the Red Cross now says that they’re torturing prisoners at Gitmo. Boy, I’ll bet they’re getting ALL SORTS of hot leads after, what … three years? Once you open the door to torture, it becomes just another bureaucratic procedure. ---
**Author:** ![drgnrdr07](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/71e660/32.png) [@drgnrdr07](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/drgnrdr07)\ **Post date:** [November 30, 2004, 3:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/isnt-it-bizarre-to-be-against-torture-if-we-arent-against-collateral-damage/276253/91 "2004-11-30T15:25:56Z")
For those of you against ANY CD… let me post a situation and you can tell me the course of action. I am a mass murder(on par with 9/11) that is absolutely insane and plans on going out with a bang. I am on the run and decide that I will go into a school with my AK and make another big death scene as my last stand. Not only that, but I would like to traumatize all of the American people. I move the few hundred children into their auditorium and hold them hostage. I attach a bomb to myself ,with a short radius(20 ft, lethal), that is set to go off when I expire or when I choose. The auditorium is packed so if the bomb goes off it will result in the death of 50 - 100 children but many more would not be effected. Now, lets say that I execute a child every 5 minutes until they all die. What should be done? 1. Let all of the children die and then capture me? 2. Send a sniper to kill me resulting in 50 dead children but 550 living ones(minus a dead me, of course)? 3. Try to apprehend me(which will surely result in me setting the bomb off killing at least 50 children + me) Do you accept some CD or do you let me slowly kill off all of the children? If you accept CD in this instance why isn’t it appropriate when you are speaking of terrorists trying to destroy the infrastructure of Iraq(well… we destroyed most of it, but they are stopping the rebuilding process) and instill fear in the local populace? ---
**Author:** ![marky33](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e495f1/32.png) [@marky33](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/marky33)\ **Post date:** [November 30, 2004, 4:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/isnt-it-bizarre-to-be-against-torture-if-we-arent-against-collateral-damage/276253/92 "2004-11-30T16:51:55Z")
> [@Evil Captor](#): > > If you could magically dump all torture that wasn’t in pursuit of critical, life-saving knowledge, that would probably be 99.9 percent of what’s out there. Can we assume that you accept there is a justification for 0.1 per cent of all torture, then? And **drgnrdr07** , nobody is arguing “against” collateral damage. The debate is that, if we accept certain levels of CD, why do we not accept certain levels of torture, if the aims are of equal worth. ---
**Author:** ![blowero](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/41988e/32.png) [@blowero](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/blowero)\ **Post date:** [November 30, 2004, 7:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/isnt-it-bizarre-to-be-against-torture-if-we-arent-against-collateral-damage/276253/93 "2004-11-30T19:15:05Z")
> [@marky33](#): > > But what if it _was_ effective in extracting the truth? > This about sleep deprivation from Menachem Begin, the Israeli prime minister from 1977-83, who was tortured by the KGB: “He promised them - if they signed - uninterrupted sleep! And, having signed, **there was nothing in the world that could move them to risk again such nights and such days**.” > [Bolding mine] > > Cite: [http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/3376951.stm](http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/3376951.stm) And what crucial, life-saving truth was extracted through this practice? > [@](#): > > "I came across prisoners who signed what they were ordered to sign, only to get what the interrogator promised them. I never said torture was ineffective as a means of coercion, only that it’s ineffective as a means of extracting information. ---
**Author:** ![Evil\_Captor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/f17d59/32.png) [@Evil\_Captor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Evil_Captor)\ **Post date:** [November 30, 2004, 7:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/isnt-it-bizarre-to-be-against-torture-if-we-arent-against-collateral-damage/276253/94 "2004-11-30T19:26:18Z")
> [@marky33](#): > > Can we assume that you accept there is a justification for 0.1 per cent of all torture, then? > > And **drgnrdr07** , nobody is arguing “against” collateral damage. The debate is that, if we accept certain levels of CD, why do we not accept certain levels of torture, if the aims are of equal worth. Sure, except that the percentages are probably more like .01 percent or .001 percent. The problem with torture is that it’s very hard to keep it confined to the few hard cases who have the info we need. Almost inevitably, the practice spills out and becomes widespread. Abu Ghraib is a classic example of this. ---
**Author:** ![blowero](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/41988e/32.png) [@blowero](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/blowero)\ **Post date:** [November 30, 2004, 8:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/isnt-it-bizarre-to-be-against-torture-if-we-arent-against-collateral-damage/276253/95 "2004-11-30T20:01:51Z")
> [@Apos](#): > > I’m pointing out that while they are not “intended” in a goody-goody-two-shoes sense, because they are predictable outcomes, they are basically intended. They are part of the “means.” There is just no way around it. I still don’t think it’s the same thing. I don’t know what you mean by “goody two-shoes”, but IMO, knowing for a fact that innocents will be killed, and doing something that you believe _might_ result in innocent deaths is not the same. I’m not saying one is wrong and one is right, just that they aren’t of necessity the same. Since you like hypotheticals, how about this one? Imagine you are driving your car. You swerve to avoid a pedestrian, but in the process, accidentally hit _another_ pedestrian, killing him. Now, you were _aware_ of the fact that swerving recklessly is a dangerous thing to do. Since you _knew_ that your actions might cause death, was your decision to swerve morally justified? Now, take another hypothetical situation. You’re again driving your car, and you see a maniac at the side of the road, holding a gun to a woman’s head. He points to a child on the other side of the street and says, “If you don’t run your car over that kid, I’ll shoot my wife.” In this case, you know _for a fact_ that you will be attempting to kill an innocent person, but that you could save another life in the process. Are the two situations the same? By your reasoning, they are, since in both cases you know that innocents might be killed. But I say they are different, because in the first case, your _intention_ was not to kill. > [@](#): > > But it is precisely that that I am support: moral realism over incoherent gut feelings. But that’s all you have provided - gut feelings. You _feel_ that maybe, torture could do some good, somehow. Yet you refuse to provide any real-world examples of how this would occur. > [@](#): > > I don’t think we really have enough evidence or experience to conclude this. It is certainly a COMFORTING belief, to be sure, but it’s not at all clear that torture, when used in the correct situations cannot be a useful tool in our arsenal. > > That they have no application is, so far, your opinion. You’re the one claiming it’s a “useful tool in our arsenal”. Therefore, the onus is on you to demonstrate that. The evidence _against_ the effectiveness of torture is staggering, and I thank Evil Captor for already providing some. No, clearly, the claim that torture is a “useful tool” is the extraordinary claim here - the claim that needs to be backed up. > [@](#): > > I don’t understand this claim. ALL CD is avoidable: we just often don’t like the cost (i.e. passing up important military targets and objectives). There are situations in which the goal is too compelling to pass up despite considerable CD. But that doesn’t make them “unavoidable.” If it’s avoidable, then I believe it’s wrong. But as I’ve said several times, I can imagine situations where it might be unavoidable. For example, do you think we could have won WWII without dropping any bombs? Forget whether civilians are intentionally targeted or not - when you drop a bomb, there’s a good chance that at least _some_ innocent people might die. So by the moral criterea you have laid out, dropping _any_ bombs, ever, is tantamount to deliberately killing civilians. Now I would argue that a lot of the bombing we did might have been unecessary; but could we have won if we had dropped _zero_ bombs? I really don’t think so. Was there a compelling interest in preserving our way of life in WWII? Yes, I think there was. Did the war hinge on our torturing any individual? No, I don’t think it did. > [@](#): > > Begging the question: we are considering whether it IS legitimate. And you don’t want to give it consideration… because that would give it legitimacy. No, it’s not begging the question. I challenged you to come up with a real-world situation in which a necessary objective could only be obtained through torture, and you failed to do so. _Then_, you said: > [@](#): > > But if it might, wouldn’t it be worthwhile to serious examine our moral judgements regarding its potential use? I don’t think it is efficacious to examine the implications of taking a certain course of action, when it hasn’t been demonstrated that that course of action would do any good. The discussion must _include_ an examination of whether torture could possibly do any good. If you just examine it in a vacuum, _assuming_ that it’s good without any evidence, then you only tend to lend legitimacy to that which is not legitimate. I mean, I could ask, “What if torture made gold bars shoot out of my butt?” There’s no point in asking that question, because it’s not gonna happen. > [@](#): > > I wish that I could simply dismiss the people doing this as sadistic or evil: them and Mossad. But at the same time, these people aren’t stupid. Intelligence and sadism are not mutually exclusive. > [@](#): > > They aren’t doing it just because they want to. Oh, I rather think they _are_. Perhaps you missed the ear-to-ear grins on the faces of the guards in the Abu Ghraib photos. > [@](#): > > And they aren’t ignorant of all the claims saying that torture is ineffective. But apparently they don’t think the discussion ends there. Now, you can dismiss them. Or you can figure out why they are apparently using torture anyway, and whether what they are doing is evil or justified. So you want to debate whether people do evil things? And you want to take the position that they never do? :dubious: ---
**Author:** ![marky33](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e495f1/32.png) [@marky33](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/marky33)\ **Post date:** [December 1, 2004, 8:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/isnt-it-bizarre-to-be-against-torture-if-we-arent-against-collateral-damage/276253/96 "2004-12-01T08:56:15Z")
> [@blowero](#): > > I never said torture was ineffective as a means of coercion, only that it’s ineffective as a means of extracting information. Coercion into giving up information perhaps? You appear to have neglected the bolded part of the quote “… there was nothing in the world that could move them to risk again such nights and such days”. It is not difficult to reason from this that a victim would be unwilling to risk more of the same by being found out as untruthful. Hence, the torture would be effective in extracting useful, perhaps life-saving information. Just to recap, I am in no way condoning torture, but I don’t doubt that in certain instances it has had its advantages in information gathering - even if those instances have been a tiny percentages of the total instances of torture. We trust our governments to wage war with incredibly lethal weaponry in population centres yet we do not trust them to use their judgment as to when a little pressure in a one-on-one situation is the morally correct thing to do. I still see that as odd. ---
**Author:** ![drgnrdr07](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/71e660/32.png) [@drgnrdr07](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/drgnrdr07)\ **Post date:** [December 1, 2004, 1:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/isnt-it-bizarre-to-be-against-torture-if-we-arent-against-collateral-damage/276253/97 "2004-12-01T13:42:55Z")
> [@marky33](#): > > Coercion into giving up information perhaps? > > You appear to have neglected the bolded part of the quote “… there was nothing in the world that could move them to risk again such nights and such days”. > It is not difficult to reason from this that a victim would be unwilling to risk more of the same by being found out as untruthful. Hence, the torture would be effective in extracting useful, perhaps life-saving information. > > Just to recap, I am in no way condoning torture, but I don’t doubt that in certain instances it has had its advantages in information gathering - even if those instances have been a tiny percentages of the total instances of torture. > > We trust our governments to wage war with incredibly lethal weaponry in population centres yet we do not trust them to use their judgment as to when a little pressure in a one-on-one situation is the morally correct thing to do. > I still see that as odd. What if they didn’t know any information and you administered this type of torture? Do you just say sorry and give them a 20$ gift certificate to Tony Roma’s? You keep making the point that it was something that they would avoid at all costs from doing again so how do you pay someone back for putting them through that kind of experience for no reason? ---
**Author:** ![drgnrdr07](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/71e660/32.png) [@drgnrdr07](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/drgnrdr07)\ **Post date:** [December 1, 2004, 1:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/isnt-it-bizarre-to-be-against-torture-if-we-arent-against-collateral-damage/276253/98 "2004-12-01T13:54:05Z")
Lets put it another way… What if your (hypothetical) wife, son, and daughter were having a nice lunch at McDonalds. Later on that night while you were all together watching TV the FBI knocks on your door and says they would like to interrogate your family because at lunch they happened to be sitting next to a high level Al-Queda operative and might have overheard some information. A few days later your wife and children come home and when you ask them what happened they burst into tears and can’t even compose themselves. After you finally calm them down they explain to you that they were tortured by sleep deprivation because the Feds thought that they had information they weren’t telling. Would you condone your family being tortured because of a “chance” they might have overheard something? ---
**Author:** ![marky33](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e495f1/32.png) [@marky33](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/marky33)\ **Post date:** [December 2, 2004, 8:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/isnt-it-bizarre-to-be-against-torture-if-we-arent-against-collateral-damage/276253/99 "2004-12-02T08:59:50Z")
> [@drgnrdr07](#): > > Would you condone your family being tortured because of a “chance” they might have overheard something? Would you condone your family being blown to pieces because they happened to live next door to a known terrorist? No and no, I would suggest. Given endless examples of theoretical mistakes doesn’t really advance the discussion any as mistakes can be made by an attacking army just as they can by a would-be torturer. ---
**Author:** ![blowero](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/41988e/32.png) [@blowero](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/blowero)\ **Post date:** [December 2, 2004, 9:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/isnt-it-bizarre-to-be-against-torture-if-we-arent-against-collateral-damage/276253/100 "2004-12-02T09:29:20Z")
> [@marky33](#): > > Coercion into giving up information perhaps? You forget that lying is a relatively simple thing to do. The victim may indeed give up information, but it’s not very likely to be the _correct_ information. And that’s assuming you’re even torturing the right guy. > [@](#): > > You appear to have neglected the bolded part of the quote “… there was nothing in the world that could move them to risk again such nights and such days”. I don’t see why you say that. I don’t believe I have neglected anything. > [@](#): > > It is not difficult to reason from this that a victim would be unwilling to risk more of the same by being found out as untruthful. Hence, the torture would be effective in extracting useful, perhaps life-saving information. If that’s the case, show us some evidence. There ought to be a plethora of cases of really excellent information that was netted through torture. Show us. > [@](#): > > Just to recap, I am in no way condoning torture, but I don’t doubt that in certain instances it has had its advantages in information gathering - even if those instances have been a tiny percentages of the total instances of torture. This is all hypothetical. _When_ has any good come from torture? It just doesn’t happen that way in the real world. > [@](#): > > We trust our governments to wage war with incredibly lethal weaponry in population centres yet we do not trust them to use their judgment as to when a little pressure in a one-on-one situation is the morally correct thing to do. > I still see that as odd. Maybe _you_ completely trust our government; I certainly do not. Saying I can _imagine_ a situation where some collateral damage might be necessary and unavoidable is a far, far cry from saying I implicitly trust the government. Let me ask you guys this: Would you draw the line _anywhere_? Would you rape a prisoner’s 10-year old daughter in order to get him to offer information? Would you kill his whole family in cold blood? His whole village? Would that really be the moral equivalent of, say, civilians being accidentally killed in a bomb blast directed at attacking enemy troops? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/isnt-it-bizarre-to-be-against-torture-if-we-arent-against-collateral-damage/276253.md?page=4) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/isnt-it-bizarre-to-be-against-torture-if-we-arent-against-collateral-damage/276253.md?page=6)