The reality remains that in the first real case the authorities could had gotten the wrong man or the torture was not really used, in the second case the child was very likely already dead, bastard perpetrator for sure was only avoiding then higher charges if the body was found.
The smilie was there because the problem is that indeed the hypothetical you continue to press is less likely to be plausible. In all of the cases you mention that could be used to justify torture the parents (or in the unreasonable scenario you are going for, the poster) never will have the chance to be as “moral” or immoral as your dilemma is set. It is the authorities the ones that will make that decision and once again in virtually all real cases the authorities are using torture to maintain power.
Such a book exists – although the lead author’s first name is Seumas – but it isn’t cited in the bibliography of the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy article on torture. The only work by Blackler cited there is a book titled Ethical Issues in Policing, co-authored with Miller and published the year before Police Ethics. The same story might very well appear in two different books by the same authors and dealing with the same general subject, but since the reliability of this story is in question then it does matter where it really came from and not just where it was repeated.
What, exactly, did Blackler witness? In your link he does not claim to have been involved in the interrogation or beating of the car thief. He apparently didn’t get the story from court documents either, as he says the beating was omitted from the police officers’ official statements. If Blackler heard this story from someone else then the issue isn’t just whether we consider Blackler to be credible, but whether his unnamed source is credible. We don’t even know whether Blackler’s source had firsthand knowledge of the case or was retelling someone else’s story.
Given that you exaggerated the details of this story when recounting it to us, despite having access to a written account and no strong motivation to bend the truth, it seems likely enough to me that the story Blackler heard had already been exaggerated.
It’s got nothing to do with my supposed ‘conscience’.
Really? Not torturing is what you consider the most immoral stance?
What egotism? I don’t choose not to torture because it’s better for me.
Heh. That’s about how I feel about torture advocates.
Strawman. This has got bugger all to do with me sleeping at night.
If I could read minds I wouldn’t need to torture, now would I?
Yep.
One always has a choice.
:rolleyes: Even if it meant saving a cute kitten.
Yes, I still wouldn’t torture him.
What situation, exactly? The one where a thousand nukes are going off just on this guy’s say-so? I guess I’d warn people about the nukes.
My wife is well aware of how I feel about torture. She never met my tortured-by-the-Apartheid-government grandad, but I’ve spoken to her about it. She’s also aware I won’t kill to save her and don’t want her to kill to save me, either.
I’ve never raised the subject with my infant daughters because I’m not a sick fuck.
MrDibble - How about we just drop this? I honestly have no words for how bizarre, immoral and alien I find your perspective on this to be, and you can probably say the same for me. Since we’ve nowhere near enough common ground to have any kind productive conversation, how about we just agree to disagree?
That doesn’t change the fact that people like me make your central thesis in the OP worthless. There are people who will never, ever torture another human being. This means your whole argument is flawed. That you don’t like it, or can’t wrap your brain around it, is immaterial.
On the other hand, I *don’t *find your perspective alien at all. It is, unfortunately, all too common. People look for excuses for immoral behaviour all the time. You won’t be the first.
Before I lived in Toronto, I would have flipped the switch. Then I had to drive in Toronto, home of the trolley, where being stuck behind those slow, dangerous, 19th-century-technology PsOS is torture all by itself.
I wouldn’t flip the switch. I’d drink a toast to myself for getting rid of five assholes responsible for keeping those fucking things going.
Not really. The only reason I bothered making that whole point about ticking time bombs in the first place is that experience elsewhere on the net has taught me that if you attempt any defence of torture, no matter how tentative, some people will inevitably get all sanctimonious about it and call you an asshole. Experience has also taught me that those same people will, when pushed, often admit that they would torture somebody if the stakes were high enough. I only wrote that stuff to encourage such people to check themselves before copping an attitude in this thread. You could delete that entire section and doesn’t really affect my argument at all. You are literally the first person I’ve ever encountered who would rather watch the whole world burn than prevent it by torturing the man about to light the match. It’s weird, frankly.
My argument, in a single sentence, is that since bombing is always worse than torture, if you can prevent a bombing by torturing someone you should do it. This does, however, assume that time is limited and that you’ve already tried all other, more reliable methods at your disposal to no avail.
But maybe it’s my fault. Maybe I’m not really getting a handle on where you’re coming from. I think if you answered these two questions it would help me a lot:
If you had a time machine, would you go back and kill Hitler if you knew it would prevent the holocaust?
If you had a time machine, would you go back and water board Hitler if you knew it would prevent the holocaust?
Okay. If you’re not prepared to accept the word of Blackler and/or his sources that’s fair enough. I’m prepared to accept it, firstly because I see no reason to doubt Blackler as a source, and secondly because I can’t see how it would be in the interest of Blacker’s own source to exaggerate the events of that day, given that the police’s actions were unambiguously illegal.
But since it looks like we can only agree to disagree, let’w forget that case and focus on the second. The German case, wherein the captive admitted everything under the mere threat of torture, is very well documented. That case alone is enough to disprove the blanket claim that torture never works.
Not Mr. Dibble but I know history and teach it sometimes and I dabble in science fiction,
Not likely to stop the holocaust IMHO, antisemitism appeared before Hitler had come around and other up and coming leaders in Germany had already ideas to get rid of the Jews.
See reply 1 and add to that that it would require Hitler to be removed from Germany (with a time machine that is easy) but unfortunately many other henchmen were also ready to take Hitler’s place; water boarding him would be useless.
It negates part 1 of your concluding 2 statements.
You having limited life experience is not my problem.
This is not a given, I’m afraid. And so your argument is dead before it begins.
Prove to me that death is always worse than torture, then you can go on to whether that makes torture OK
The actions of the police were only illegal if they actually occurred. I’m not convinced the story isn’t entirely fictional. But if something resembling this case really happened, Blackler’s source might have exaggerated it in the same way you did to make the police seem morally if not legally justified in beating a suspect. Maybe in reality they didn’t have so much reason to believe that they had the right guy, or they didn’t try so many other interrogation tactics before resorting to violence, or they didn’t really have so little time to act before a child died.
Well, first of all, I don’t see that anyone has made such a claim. You assert in your OP that other people say this, but if you provided any evidence of this then I must have skimmed over it. I suspect it’s just a strawman, though.
Second, a case where the suspect wasn’t actually tortured is not compelling evidence of the effectiveness of torture. If anything I’d say it’s better evidence that torture is unnecessary, as the suspect cracked without being tortured* and the information the police were after wasn’t as valuable or time-sensitive as they thought it was. The boy was already dead. While recovering the body may have helped give the victim’s family some degree of closure, it does not seem accurate to me to describe this as a case where illegal interrogation techniques “worked” when this did not in fact lead to the desired outcome. The child’s life was not saved, and while this isn’t totally clear from the NY Times article it seems like conventional interrogation techniques likely failed because it was too late to save him. The kidnapper was presumably refusing to talk because he knew the boy was dead and believed it was in his own best interest not to admit to murder on top of kidnapping.
*Or at least without being physically tortured, as the threats he received were arguably psychological torture.
Seems to me like your arguments do not support your premise at all.
Boiled down, your arguments are:
It is possible to think of a scenario where torture is the right choice.
Logically sound statement, but this is also true of beheading a journalist, so you don’t score many points there.
It is not true that torture never works.
Also a factual statement: you demonstrated that there are at least two (one?) cases where torture worked. However, I’ve never heard anyone say that torture never works, just that it doesn’t work in general. Killing random people would also eventually prevent a murder.
Dropping a 2,000 lbs bomb on a populated area is worse than waterboarding a single person, once.
Correct again, but, uh, damning with faint praise doesn’t begin to cover it.
All your arguments are logically sound – although those are some abysmal standards, seriously – but they at best prove that there are worse things than torture, not that “Our Moral Intuitions Regarding Torture Make No Sense”.
First of all you would have to define “our moral intuitions”. Is it what people instinctively feel is right or wrong? Who is “we” exactly? As you can tell from this thread, people have different moral intuitions regarding torture.
Personally, I instinctively think that torture is wrong, not that it’s the worst, so my moral intuitions haven’t been proven wrong by your arguments.
And (this is the most important point), even if you were right and our moral intuitions regarding torture are wrong, how does it logically follow that we should torture people? Even if you had proven one stance wrong, it doesn’t mean that your stance is right – you still have to make its case. So far, your arguments are quite unpersuasive in that regard.
An argument isn’t logically sound unless it’s valid AND all its premises are true. I’d say the arguments presented in the OP rest on premises that are at best unproven. For instance, he claims that “*no-one *is entirely opposed to torture as a matter of philosophical principle”. Yet we have at least one poster here who says he is in fact entirely opposed to torture, and I doubt he’s the only person in the world with this belief.
It also doesn’t logically follow that an individual’s willingness to perform an action means that this action is morally justified. That someone might in an extreme enough situation agree to torture another person is not sufficient proof that this is the right thing to do.
I will add that using my analogy with the lottery, just because one wins once it does not justify that one could then go to the talking circuit and become even more rich by talking to others about this great system that one will sell to them, a system that according to the salesman will make others wealthy by using the lottery just as he did.
It does not work that way. **Virtually everyone else will continue to lose. **
Their humanity too, once we get back to talk about torture.
I’m sure there are people who would argue that, but it’s not sufficient to give a single example of torture working. You actually have to show that the net result of using it is positive.
How is this an example of torture working? No lives were saved. Because the guy confessed and saved them some police work? That’s a pretty low standard.
And here’s the important question you’re missing. How many people will confess to things they didn’t do when threatened with torture or actually tortured?
This is a variation of the “ticking time bomb” hypothetical. If you knew the suspect could tell you how to stop the bomb and you knew torture would get it out of him, would you do it?
This hypothetical is fantasy, because you never “know.” You only think you know, just like bad guys throughout history have thought they knew torture would be useful.
This hypothetical is always posed by the bad guys, and often by people of no moral character to speak of, i.e., potential bad guys who haven’t yet committed evil, but might or are thinking about it. If one looks through history one sees this again and again. Whether these people are knowingly seeking to deceive and subvert moral people, or scared out of their rational (and moral) minds , or just depraved and indifferent to suffering, they always seem to come around to posing this question eventually.
I suppose it’s also posed by people who aren’t psychopaths or potential murderers. Statistically, I mean. I mean, we see it frequently enough that they can’t ALL be psychopaths or potential/future murderers, right?
I find that conclusion dubious comfort.
Answer it? It’s not meant to be answered. The people posing it already know what they want to do. They’re just trying to alter the thinking of the people to whom they’re posing the “ticking time bomb” scenario.
If the NZ police beat the piss out of someone, especially a Samoan (I’m Samoan/Maori myself and the community is big, but not that big) then I’m pretty sure I would have heard of it. And those cops would be in jail. I’ve had a look but I can’t find anything on this alleged story anywhere.
…my apologies, I found the cite, and I call bullshit. It isn’t even clear if this happened in New Zealand. Blacker, as a former New South Wales (which isn’t in New Zealand by the way) police officer would have been derelict in his duties for not reporting these alleged beatings. So it seems more likely he is repeating an anecdote he has heard about a police force in another country. If you can provide more details that would be appreciated: but I see no reason to treat this story as anything more than a story.
