It also helps that in this case the victim is more likely to be motivated by self-interest than a specific antagonism towards you.
He probably would…and this all assumes you actually have the right guy. But, if the bomb is going to go off anyway what choice would you have? That’s why pro-torture people use this kind of scenario after all…because it’s so narrow that there IS no other choice.
Pain would be the only thing that might even have a small chance of working. If it didn’t work then you’ve really lost nothing, since everyone in New York is going to die anyway.
-XT
And common sense tells me that if you have only an hour then asking has an even lower probability of working. Again, that’s why pro-torture folks use this scenario. I realize that you can’t see this…hell, I could see that most of the folks in that thread where simply not seeing it. And, frankly, I’m AGAINST torture…so, playing devils advocate there wasn’t exactly a thrilling prospect.
That’s the whole point of me bringing this all up in THIS thread…it’s a subject that simply can’t be rationally debated on this particular board.
It’s the only solution that has even a small chance of working in that time frame. Perhaps 1 in a hundred, or even 1 in a thousand…hell, maybe 1 in ten thousand or one in a million. But, 1 in a million is better than none, which was the point…given the assumptions in the OP no other choice had even the small chance that torture would of getting the information. Most likely no matter what you did, everyone in New York dies…but if you don’t try anything then, as I said in the OP, you best make sure you (the decision maker) is in the blast zone. Because I can promise you that the people would absolutely crucify you after the fact if you did nothing and let New York die.
-XT
Let’s stipulate that you have the right guy, and he knows where the bomb is - fair?
He has three choices:
- Tell you where the bomb is.
- Stay Silent.
- Lie about where the bomb is.
Lets look at the payoffs to the person for each option - presuming again the person wants the bomb to explode.
- Benefits - pain stops: Losses - bomb may be found before exploding
- Benefits - bomb probably goes off: Losses - pain continues
- Benefits - pain stops, bomb even more likely to go off (resources moved from general search to fake location, presumably long distance from real site: Losses - none
It seems to me that the only rational thing for the bomber to do in this situation is to choose 3.
Given that, there is a potential benefit of torture. You take the information he gives you, and discount it. So you have a very small reduction in the number of places to randomly search. But given that the bomber knows that, the benefit disappears…
I don’t see how you have shown even a small chance of it working. In fact, it has a minimal negative effect on the situation, as your time would be better of spent joining the general search than crushing the bomber’s 'nads in a G-clamp.
Why would you think torture would work in this situation? You say it’s a small chance, but since it’s the only thing that might work you should go ahead and take the chance. But it’s not even a small chance. It’s zero chance. You apply the electricity to the terrorist’s nutsack, and he’ll tell you where the bomb is hidden. Except you know for a fact that he’s lying, because he just wants you to stop shocking his nutsack. Now what?
Talking to him and trying to appeal to his humanity would be the only thing that might even have a small chance of working. If it didn’t work then you’ve really lost nothing, since everyone in New York is going to die anyway.
If you’re standing in front of the bomb, and there’s a red wire and a blue wire, and if you clip the right wire the bomb is disabled, and if you clip the wrong wire and the bomb explodes, then there is zero chance that torture will work. You’re better off flipping a coin. When your procedure gives you results statistically indistinguishable from chance, would you say the procedure is effective, or ineffective?
I think we are debating it rationally here.
Why can’t appealing to his humanity not have a chance? Or convince him that showing mercy at this juncture would be an even grander gesture? Or whatever…
We have shown it behooved the terrorist to lie to you. I have cited actual interrogators who have said what you want to do will not work.
If we are going for the 1 in a million chance then I think talking him out of it is your best bet.
lol…I got out of that other debate because I didn’t want to talk to you guys about it. I brought it up here because to me it clearly demonstrates what the OP is talking about…and you guys are re-enforcing this IMHO! 
Because we know that torture DOES work in very specific circumstances. It’s been shown to work. It’s simply not reliable. What we haven’t been shown is any other method (up too and including psychic magnetism or magic pony search techniques) that would have even the remote chance that torture would have of working.
Since you guys seem to want to hijack this thread and restart this same stupid debate again, I’ll ask a simple question that I asked in the other thread…give me some alternatives that would have ANY chance of working. Let’s make them logical…asking nicely is probably NOT going to work. Afaik no truth drugs available (or lie detectors) would work in the silly time frame given in the other OP (1 hour). There is no fucking way, short of magic or alien technology, you could search New York city in an hour to find the bomb. So…what are the alternatives? Putting your fingers in your ears and saying torture doesn’t ever work is simply silly…we know it works sometimes. So…give me an alternative with a higher probability of ‘sometimes’.
Better yet, since you guys seem to want to rehash this again, someone simply reopen the other thread and you guys can talk amongst yourselves about this to your hearts content. I think I will stay out of it, but FWIW perhaps I’ll follow along with appropriate eye rolling and uncontrolled giggling.
-XT
Except, XT, I agree it works in some circumstances. Torture is incredibly effective at what it is designed to do. What I don’t agree with is that the ticking bomb scenario is one of those.
It just doesn’t make logical sense to me. You are criticizing me for being an absolutist for not agreeing with torturing in a situation where is see no logical benefit of torturing! Explain to me how there is even a slight greater chance that the outcome will be better, and I might come round. All I can see at the moment is that the use of torture in this scenario has, at best, a zero change in the chances of finding the bomb. Your “he might tell the truth” doesn’t hold up to “it is utterly illogical for him to tell the truth when a better result can be obtained if he lies.”
OK - I have thought of an amendment to the scenario that might help you. The bomber knows you have searched some places, but not which ones. Therefore, there is a chance if he lies, he will get caught. And presumably then you can up the torture level. But even then, doesn’t his incentive become to lie repeatedly - to throw out different places until he names one you haven’t searched?
Not trying to be difficult here, I just don’t see how in the scenario there is a benefit of torture…
shrug Then you don’t. I can live with that. It’s such a ridiculously unlikely scenario that it’s pointless to even talk about it. I used it simply to illustrate my own thoughts concerning this particular OP. As I said, I think there are other examples that even better illustrate what the OP was getting at…and, frankly, those other examples I gave will probably have OTHER posters coming in to say how I’m completely wrong. 
-XT
Why not ? That’s why WE did it.
Whether it’s “always” negative is irrelevant. People don’t torture just once. What matters is that it’s overwhelmingly negative; that it’s negative effects eclipse any positive value. As I’ve pointed before, the defenders of torture are trying to use a defective definition of useful, where if you can show that’s in been useful at any time in any way you are supposed to “admit” that torture can be good. Which is like insisting that removing fleas from your dog with a flamethrower is a good idea because the fleas ARE dead, and you are just nitpicking by pointing out that the dog is too.
Of course, pirates also tended to be killed on sight. And it’s safe to say that pirates who acted like that were more likely to be killed by people who fought to the death rather than surrender, and less likely to get information from paid informants ( since few people would approach them at all ). Rather like our experience in Iraq.
And they no doubt tortured plenty of people who didn’t have any, and kept on torturing people who gave them the information they demanded; either for fun, or because they weren’t satisfied with what they got
No, people in that thread pointed out all sorts of other options. And it was pointed out that in the real world, in one of the very few real ticking bomb scenarios, a bomb plot in Britain, the terrorists were turned by relatives - which wouldn’t happen if they’d expected those people to be tortured.
And then there’s the little problem that a reputation for torture may be WHY those people were willing to plant the bomb, and may be why someone who could have informed on them chose to stay silent or actively helped.
Actually, it’s at best “pain stops momentarily”. There’s no reason to think that someone evil enough to engage in torture won’t keep on torturing even if they get good information. People who torture are monsters, and they WILL act like monsters. That’s something else the pro-torture people like to ignore; these hypothetical detached, professional torturers who torture for only necessary reasons and then stop when it’s not, DO NOT EXIST.
Name Israeli Gandhi… you know, the one that got them a country via peaceful methods… just to see what’s the term of reference. But, of course, the problem is, there isn’t one. Still, don’t let that small inconvenience take anything away from your high moral ground.
There you have it… the worst argument for having a people subjugated and prevented from obtaining their own country. If only they were a bit like Gandhi because, as we all know, Israelis are just like British for a while now and can’t wait for Gandhi to show up. They keep looking for him, but he is nowhere to be found.
Actually, one of the most ridiculous arguments on SDMB.
The problem is, you are playing outside the boundaries of the scenario. When faced with arguing against a hypothetical, there are two ways of doing it. You can critique the hypothetical itself (as you are doing). That’s perfectly valid, and it is a bloody stupid hypothetical, as I think XT admits. But that doesn’t address his real point here.
A much stronger form of attack is to accept the boundaries of the hypothetical, and show it does not reach the suggested conclusion, even on its own terms. That’s what I tried to do.
XT’s error is he assumes there is one option and one only to get info from the bomber (torture).
He is wrong in that assessment. More, we have shown from expert testimony and simple reasoning that torture would not only not work here but would almost certainly be counterproductive.
Other avenues, such as appealing to the bomber’s humanity, may not have a good expectation of success but still better than torturing the guy.
Yes the hypothetical is flawed. But it is a strnger attack as a rule to accept the flaws, and show it still does not reach the desired result, than to sit back and point out the flaws in the premises.
I don’t agree with the premises of the ticking time bomb situation. I think, if you ask him, XT would agree they are flawed, unrealistic, and artificially limiting. But don’t you agree it is a stronger condemnation of torture that even if there is no alternative chance of gathering the information, logic suggests that torture either does not increase the chances of a good outcome, or in fact reduces those chances?
Absolutely.
Within the confines of the hypothetical I think we have shown torture is about the worst option you could choose (the worst being doing nothing whatsoever as that would be a literal zero chance at finding the bomb).
I can certainly understand the inclination to wanting to torture the guy yet it is pretty clear torture would be counterproductive and likely to lead you astray and waste time rather than lead you to the bomb.
It isn’t necessary to propose unlikely hypoteticals to understand the issue of torture as a possibility in the interrogator’s armamentarium.
The point is that the existence of the realistic possibility of torture puts the subject in fear, even if you don’t actually use it. It is hard to logically understand from the perspective of someone about to be interrogated why interrogators who do not have the power to put you in such fear are in fact more likely to be effective than ones who do.
Naturally no investigator actually interested in the truth could rely on terror or torture alone, but rather in conjunction with all sorts of other forensic techniques - the threat being that any deception will be discovered and punished with physical torment. On average, how could that possibly not result in less deception? Particularly when re-iterated over many rounds.
Again, admitting that there are countervailing concerns (moral high ground etc.) that outweigh any possible benefit. To my mind, to deny that there is any benefit seems to fly in the face of reality.
Yes, I am fully aware the scenario is flawed. If you go back to the thread we are talking about you’ll see that I mention this repeatedly.
Given the time constraints I don’t see any other realistic way to get the information.
As I mentioned before, your ‘expert testimony’ does not specifically deal with this narrow scenario. Since your ‘expert’ wasn’t asked this specific question with these specific parameters, you are simply extrapolating from what he said and trying to make it fit. YOU are extrapolating…unless you have since sent an email to the ‘expert’ and asked him to further refine his statement to deal with the exact parameters of that OP. Even if your ‘expert’ DOES agree with your extrapolation this doesn’t mean this is the definitive answer, as I’m pretty certain that other ‘experts’ could be found to disagree. This isn’t science after all.
Sort of like Democracy is the worst form of government…except for all the others. You’ve also shown that, presented with the same data, we can’t agree on this particular subject. While you believe that torture is the worst option and that others have a chance of working I think torture is a very poor option with a very small chance of working…but that it has the highest probability of any of the options presented as alternatives. To me, with an hour limitation, things like attempting to appeal to the terrorists humanity would be less than useless. Maybe if you had a week for the guy to dwell on it…but then, if you had a week you wouldn’t need to torture the guy either, as you’d have other options with even higher probabilities of success.
Well, I disagree with your conclusion, but I’d say it’s still a condemnation of torture when even if it’s the ONLY option it still gives you a very low probability of success. And this by stacking the deck to such a ridiculous extent that an alien invasion of space bats is more likely.
-XT
Yes, it does. I’m assuming that the victim thinks like he really would, and that the torturers are acting like they really would. Not that they are the Noble Heroes Doing What Is Necessary, and especially not that the torture victim agrees that they are Noble Heroes who’ll stop the torture if told the truth, or even recognize the truth when they hear it.
And besides, the hypothetical in question is fundamentally manipulative and deceptive; it’s tailored specifically as an attempt to justify torture and ignores any larger context. I could use a similar style of argument to “justify” anything at all; “Would you rape a six year old if aliens threatened to destroy Earth if you didn’t ? You won’t ?! Why won’t you admit that child rape is sometimes effective ?!”"
Except that the actual professional interrogators disagree with you. As I said, they considered the people we tortured as ruined for the purposes of interrogation. It results in more deception because they will always be concentrating on avoiding torture above all else. They won’t tell the truth to avoid torture, because it won’t work; they’ll know that we’ll torture them if we hear what we don’t like, or just for the fun of it. That’s what WE did, after all. Again; part of the problem with these arguments is that they assume the existance of torturers who AREN’T monsters. And, for that matter, that the victim they are torturing will AGREE that they aren’t monsters.
Thing is, in the links I’ve seen the distinction is always presented as between using torture alone vs. using all other techniques. This appears a false dichotomy.
Again, there is no need to propose outlandish hypotheticals to make the simple point - that subtracting torture from the armamentarium of an investigator doesn’t thereby make them more effective at investigating. That strikes me as being a very difficult proposition to defend (though again no-one is denying that there are countervailing concerns which mandate that torture not be used however effective).
Not necessarily true. It is possible to argue that a person is more likely to give information ot an interrogator whom he knws will not use torture than one who will use torture. The presence of torture as a possible technique undoubtedly scares the prisoner, that I won’t deny, but I would argue also makes any kind of winning the prisoner over less likely.
It’s been mentioned before, but a person captured who sees the electrodes and the car battery is more likely to think that his country/cause/family/religion/whatever he is fighting for has more to fear from the capturer, who must therefore be resisted, than a person captured and shown to a bed with a warm meal. It might just work that people might think that Osama isn’t telling the truth about the filthy Americans…