# Resolved: Unequivocal Opposition To Torture Is Logically Inconsistent. **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [May 19, 2009, 9:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/resolved-unequivocal-opposition-to-torture-is-logically-inconsistent/497014 "2009-05-19T21:51:48Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![begbert2](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/begbert2/32/3357_2.png) [@begbert2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/begbert2)\ **Post date:** [May 20, 2009, 12:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/resolved-unequivocal-opposition-to-torture-is-logically-inconsistent/497014/21 "2009-05-20T00:03:34Z")
> [@Weston](#): > > B) I agree torture is always bad. My point is that an unequivocal opposition to torture in all cases is inconsistent with the permissive attitude we commonly hold toward other violent acts which are arguably always _worse_. The issue, for we moral relativists (you know - anybody who is ever willing to wage war ever under any circumstances _ever_), is that it’s not _just_ about whether something is always bad. The equation also factors in if it’s effective and in what ways, gains and costs; and what the alternatives are. If you want to use torture to extract information, it is inneffective, has many bad side effects, no good ones, and has many better alternatives. It’s like a case study for what you shouldn’t do, _practically_ speaking. So clearly, its practical utility cannot override moral considerations. ---
**Author:** ![Weston](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/8797f3/32.png) [@Weston](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Weston)\ **Post date:** [May 20, 2009, 12:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/resolved-unequivocal-opposition-to-torture-is-logically-inconsistent/497014/22 "2009-05-20T00:07:17Z")
> [@Captain Carrot](#): > > Your point and arguments in favor of it are demonstrably flawed. For one thing, collateral damage and deliberate damage are not the same thing. As I’ve argued to other posters, I believe that collateral damage, if not necessarily _deliberate_ (as in being the _point_ of any one bombing mission), is certainly not accidental either. After all, when we decide to launch a missile we _know_ with a very large degree of certainty that civilian casualties will ensue. Given this, I don’t think the distinction you’re making is very meaningful. Moreover, I doubt those maimed and slaughtered by our bombs care how about how much we want to avoid hurting them. ---
**Author:** ![Neofio](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/82dd89/32.png) [@Neofio](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Neofio)\ **Post date:** [May 20, 2009, 12:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/resolved-unequivocal-opposition-to-torture-is-logically-inconsistent/497014/23 "2009-05-20T00:11:39Z")
> [@Weston](#): > > A) I’m not right-wing. > B) I agree torture is always bad. My point is that an unequivocal opposition to torture in all cases is inconsistent with the permissive attitude we commonly hold toward other violent acts which are arguably always _worse_. No, there’s no similarity. Your basic premise is that torture, as a last, morally questionable resort, is no more morally right than aerial bombing. If we do aerial bombing, then we can do torture. It doesn’t wash. Aerial bombing, as currently done, while indeed affecting innocents, is calculated to affect the least civilian casualties in the action as possible. If bombing \*had \*to be done, it did not \*target \*civilians for the express purpose of killing them. Basically, your entire argument is hinged on the sentiment that “aerial bombing” as it’s done now, is the absolute _worst atrocity we can actually do_. It is not. We can say, nuke Iraq. But we don’t, because our judgment leads us to the _least morally abhorrent action_, which, while still causing large amounts of suffering, is much more preferable than the alternative (nuking Iraq). Similarly, we have _other, less morally abhorrent alternatives to torture_. Ones which are actually effective, more so than torture, in fact. Given this reality, torture is not only immoral and barbaric, its also rather stupid. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [May 20, 2009, 12:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/resolved-unequivocal-opposition-to-torture-is-logically-inconsistent/497014/24 "2009-05-20T00:11:41Z")
> [@Chronos](#): > > Y’know, it really pisses me off when right-wingers accuse liberals of moral relativism, when people seriously make arguments like this. Torture is bad. Torture is in fact always and absolutely bad. Unequivocal opposition to something which is absolutely bad is unequivocally good. It’s really quite simple. Notice also how they avoid dealing with the fact that torture also taints the gathering of intelligence efforts, and it is used mostly by the authorities to offer their supporters justifications for an immoral path being taken. Like the Shock and Awe in Iraq. In the attempt to find justifications for an immoral path we are then following the example of places like Libya. [http://news.scotsman.com/libya/Medics-tortured-Gaddafi-son-admits.3315207.jp](http://news.scotsman.com/libya/Medics-tortured-Gaddafi-son-admits.3315207.jp) > [@](#): > > FOREIGN medics freed from a Libyan jail were tortured into confessing they deliberately infected hundreds of Libyan children with HIV, a son of Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi said in remarks broadcast yesterday. > > The five Bulgarian nurses and a Palestinian doctor were freed on 24 July after a deal between Tripoli and the European Union, having spent eight years in jail. > > The lawyer of the Palestinian doctor had said his client was tortured into confessing and that he planned to complain to a UN human rights panel. > > Col Gaddafi’s son confirmed the allegation of torture in an interview with Qatar-based Al Jazeera television. ---
**Author:** ![Neofio](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/82dd89/32.png) [@Neofio](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Neofio)\ **Post date:** [May 20, 2009, 12:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/resolved-unequivocal-opposition-to-torture-is-logically-inconsistent/497014/25 "2009-05-20T00:15:14Z")
> [@Weston](#): > > As I’ve argued to other posters, I believe that collateral damage, if not necessarily _deliberate_ (as in being the _point_ of any one bombing mission), is certainly not accidental either. After all, when we decide to launch a missile we _know_ with a very large degree of certainty that civilian casualties will ensue. Given this, I don’t think the distinction you’re making is very meaningful. Moreover, I doubt those maimed and slaughtered by our bombs care how about how much we want to avoid hurting them. After a consideration of our alternatives, and a deliberation that said missile is the action that, while still causing suffering, _causes the least amount of it_ among our alternatives. We have to blow up said building anyway. It doesn’t mean we have to glass Baghdad. Similar to torture, we can obtain information in more effective methods. The alternatives are there, readily accessible. So we still have to nuke Baghdad, then? ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [May 20, 2009, 12:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/resolved-unequivocal-opposition-to-torture-is-logically-inconsistent/497014/26 "2009-05-20T00:20:38Z")
Besides the other arguments given, people who torture are evil and deserve to be killed. It doesn’t matter how effective it is, because by torturing you demonstrate that you and those who support you are monsters, and the people trying to kill you are in the right to do so. > [@Weston](#): > > We may torture, but we don’t torture little children. We’ve been accused of it; and given how often we’ve turned out to be guilty of atrocities I see no reason to consider those accusations implausible. And by your own logic doing so would be perfectly moral anyway. ---
**Author:** ![CoolHandCox](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/coolhandcox/32/16233_2.png) [@CoolHandCox](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CoolHandCox)\ **Post date:** [May 20, 2009, 12:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/resolved-unequivocal-opposition-to-torture-is-logically-inconsistent/497014/27 "2009-05-20T00:25:55Z")
> [@Neofio](#): > > Similar to torture, we can obtain information in more effective methods. The alternatives are there, readily accessible. So we still have to nuke Baghdad, then? What would those other methods be? I’m curious. I would assume the interrogation methods would escalate and we’d have gone through all the methods the Army Field Manual suggests. Unless you don’t mean obtain the same information via this person. At which point you’d be correct. Except in this war almost all the info is kept word-a-mouth (on purpose). I would think the other methods (imaging, electronic surveillance, ect.) would be used to try and confirm or deny the information obtained during interrogation. ---
**Author:** ![Captain\_Carrot](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/f0a364/32.png) [@Captain\_Carrot](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Captain_Carrot)\ **Post date:** [May 20, 2009, 12:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/resolved-unequivocal-opposition-to-torture-is-logically-inconsistent/497014/28 "2009-05-20T00:50:31Z")
> [@CoolHandCox](#): > > What would those other methods be? There’s this fascinating tactic called talking to someone. ---
**Author:** ![CoolHandCox](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/coolhandcox/32/16233_2.png) [@CoolHandCox](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CoolHandCox)\ **Post date:** [May 20, 2009, 12:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/resolved-unequivocal-opposition-to-torture-is-logically-inconsistent/497014/29 "2009-05-20T00:52:06Z")
> [@Captain\_Carrot](#): > > There’s this fascinating tactic called talking to someone. “_I would assume the interrogation methods would escalate and we’d have gone through all the methods the Army Field Manual suggests_.” There’s this fascinating tactic called reading. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [May 20, 2009, 12:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/resolved-unequivocal-opposition-to-torture-is-logically-inconsistent/497014/30 "2009-05-20T00:53:51Z")
Even if were marginally illogical, so be it. Would rather be a first-rate human than a second-rate Vulcan. ---
**Author:** ![Captain\_Carrot](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/f0a364/32.png) [@Captain\_Carrot](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Captain_Carrot)\ **Post date:** [May 20, 2009, 12:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/resolved-unequivocal-opposition-to-torture-is-logically-inconsistent/497014/31 "2009-05-20T00:58:44Z")
> [@CoolHandCox](#): > > “_I would assume the interrogation methods would escalate and we’d have gone through all the methods the Army Field Manual suggests_.” Except that I think in some cases we really haven’t done that, just talked a bit and then gone straight to waterboarding and stress positions. ---
**Author:** ![Zoe](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/a4c791/32.png) [@Zoe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zoe)\ **Post date:** [May 20, 2009, 1:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/resolved-unequivocal-opposition-to-torture-is-logically-inconsistent/497014/32 "2009-05-20T01:01:15Z")
> [@](#): > > **Weston** : Were Gandhi alive today, I would be inclined to ask him what he felt an international community of pacifists should have done once it had grown “aroused”? Committed mass suicide as well? (Warning, photograph of self immolation is included in the link.) It doesn’t have to be done in mass. Even one by one,[self-immolation](http://www.angelfire.com/nb/protest/viet.html) has become famous as a way of protesting injustice. This was done during the Vietnam War and continues to happen now. Also, some pacifists have offered themselves as human shields to keep soldiers from shooting at the enemy. > [@](#): > > **Weston** : No, there is no question that absolutist pacifism would ultimately leave those who practise it at the mercy of the world’s thugs. There are ways of defending one’s self without attacking the attacker. > [@](#): > > … the American people rapidly reached a general consensus that a certain amount of collateral damage was a regrettable, but unavoidable consequence of our justifiable decision to destroy Al-Qaeda & the Taliban. By and large, this consensus holds true today. Perhaps there was a rapid concensus on war with the Taliban. But most Americans were probably fairly ignorant of this group until 9-11. But I haven’t seen a poll showing rapid consensus on “collateral damage” of either group, especially not Al-Qaeda when the “collateral damge” is Iraqis. And certainly such consensus would not hold true today! > [@](#): > > By every available metric, torture is more moral and at least just as effective than the practise of dropping a bomb during the course of a military campaign. There is no morality scale that allows torture. If you think that there is, then you have never suffered much pain. There are things worse than death. > [@](#): > > Actually, the legal and philosophical definition of a Just War doesn’t mention torture at all. Nor is it ruled out as a legitimate practise. I’m going back to read your link now. I should have done so before responding. But I think that torture is ruled out by the Geneva Conventions that we signed. Also, ever philosopher has a right to render her own defition of a “just war.” I usually consider it an oxymoron. Although our thinking disagrees, thanks for the fun of a more organized and formal debate. ---
**Author:** ![Neofio](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/82dd89/32.png) [@Neofio](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Neofio)\ **Post date:** [May 20, 2009, 1:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/resolved-unequivocal-opposition-to-torture-is-logically-inconsistent/497014/33 "2009-05-20T01:13:09Z")
> [@CoolHandCox](#): > > What would those other methods be? I’m curious. The methods would be what actual trained [interrogation professionals](http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/11/28/AR2008112802242_pf.html) say are most effective, which are not torture. > [@](#): > > I would assume the interrogation methods would escalate and we’d have gone through all the methods the Army Field Manual suggests. Then we proceed with what the professionals say are the most effective methods. Doing otherwise would be like going to the electrician to fix your TV, them saying its going to be difficult, and instead, forgoing their advice and bashing it with a rock. > [@](#): > > Unless you don’t mean obtain the same information via this person. At which point you’d be correct. Except in this war almost all the info is kept word-a-mouth (on purpose). I would think the other methods (imaging, electronic surveillance, ect.) would be used to try and confirm or deny the information obtained during interrogation. And? I fail to see what this statement has to do with choosing an existing, more effective option, rather than a counterproductive, and therefore stupid one. ---
**Author:** ![CoolHandCox](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/coolhandcox/32/16233_2.png) [@CoolHandCox](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CoolHandCox)\ **Post date:** [May 20, 2009, 1:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/resolved-unequivocal-opposition-to-torture-is-logically-inconsistent/497014/34 "2009-05-20T01:48:54Z")
> [@Neofio](#): > > The methods would be what actual trained [interrogation professionals](http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/11/28/AR2008112802242_pf.html) say are most effective, which are not torture. Thanks for the reply. The link was a good read. The method employed by this person is in the Army Field manual (ie, basically, showing rapport and kindness to elicit information). He just didn’t use any of the “mean” methods. (mean doesn’t equal torture, it’s just not a “friendly” method). He did have a broader message though (which helped authenticate his interrogation method), getting to know your enemy and/or people you occupy (instead of the cartoon version you’re used too). People respond to this. We should have more training in humanizing the people the military lives amongst. > [@](#): > > And? I fail to see what this statement has to do with choosing an existing, more effective option, rather than a counterproductive, and therefore stupid one. I don’t know of any other interrogation methods outside of the Army Field manual for interrogating combatants/non-combatant citizens. The link seems to corroborate that. I would still be interested in other methods not contained in there. ---
**Author:** ![Captain\_Carrot](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/f0a364/32.png) [@Captain\_Carrot](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Captain_Carrot)\ **Post date:** [May 20, 2009, 1:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/resolved-unequivocal-opposition-to-torture-is-logically-inconsistent/497014/35 "2009-05-20T01:51:36Z")
> [@CoolHandCox](#): > > I don’t know of any other interrogation methods outside of the Army Field manual for interrogating combatants/non-combatant citizens. The link seems to corroborate that. I would still be interested in other methods not contained in there. My guess is that they’re not in there for a reason. ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [May 20, 2009, 7:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/resolved-unequivocal-opposition-to-torture-is-logically-inconsistent/497014/36 "2009-05-20T07:19:11Z")
> [@Weston](#): > > As I said to **Ravenman** , how accidental can Collateral damage be if we can count on it? It’s an undesirable consequence, but far from accidental. Besides, I doubt the innocent men, women, and children eviscerated by shrapnel from our bombs really care whether or not we meant to hurt them. A baseball player gets a hit only one time in 3, at best. We can count on it - but it doesn’t excuse him missing on purpose. > [@](#): > > During that same battle, however, an enemy might be wounded by a sniper with just as much premeditation as that displayed by a torturer. Yet we would regard the sniper in a very different light to the torturer. It is my contention that an objection to torture on the grounds that it is pre-meditated would necessarily require concomitant objections to numerous commonly accepted warfare practises. By not opposing all of them, one betrays an inconsistency in one’s own position. I already covered that. The enemy is no doubt trying to kill the sniper and his friends. The sniper has no other options. If the enemy is alone, and being covered by several snipers, then shooting him is a far different matter. The enemy is then no threat (like the torture victim) and should be safe. ---
**Author:** ![MrDibble](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mrdibble/32/114_2.png) [@MrDibble](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MrDibble)\ **Post date:** [May 20, 2009, 8:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/resolved-unequivocal-opposition-to-torture-is-logically-inconsistent/497014/37 "2009-05-20T08:05:25Z")
> [@Weston](#): > > **Premise 1:** The pacifism of Gandhi, while useful in limited situations and requiring considerable bravery, is not a universally applicable response to all acts of aggression. Consider Gandhi’s plan to counter the anti-Semetic barbarism of the Nazis: He contended that the Jews should have committed mass suicide because this would have "Aroused the world and the people of Germany to Hitler’s violence.” Were Gandhi alive today, I would be inclined to ask him what he felt an international community of pacifists should have done once it had grown “aroused”? Committed mass suicide as well? Not suicide. Passive resistance. > [@](#): > > No, there is no question that absolutist pacifism would ultimately leave those who practise it at the mercy of the world’s thugs. If that’s how it has to be. > [@](#): > > In certain situations, it is necessary to wage defensive war. Not necessary. Just easier. > [@](#): > > **Premise 2:** The war against Al-Qaeda & the Taliban immediately following 9/11 was just such a war. While I am not in favour of any war, I do not judge this particular one too harshly as initially put forward. Of course, the execution… > [@](#): > > **Premise 3:** The waging of wars necessarily involves collateral damage. …but effort needs to be made to minimise this. I contend that not enough effort is made in modern warfare. When the civilian casualty rate is not significantly less than the military, you can no longer claim to be doing anything meaningful to minimise collateral damage. Use bullets, not bombs. > [@](#): > > **Conclusion:** If we are willing to indiscriminately kill innocents to find Osama Bin Laden, we also ought to be willing to tolerate the torture of those whose guilt may be undetermined but who we have good reason to believe may know Bin Laden’s location. Stop there: none, or very little, of the slaughter of innocents had anything to do with trying to “find Osama Bin Laden”. That renders your conclusion invalid and all the rest of your justification is just as illogical. ---
**Author:** ![Blake](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/a9a28c/32.png) [@Blake](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Blake)\ **Post date:** [May 20, 2009, 9:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/resolved-unequivocal-opposition-to-torture-is-logically-inconsistent/497014/38 "2009-05-20T09:03:32Z")
I can point out what is, IMO, the most massive flaw in your argument with just one quote: > [@Weston](#): > > **Premise 3:** The waging of wars necessarily involves collateral damage. … a certain amount of collateral damage was a regrettable, but unavoidable consequence of our justifiable decision to destroy Al-Qaeda & the Taliban. It wasn’t just regrettable and unavoidable. It was _unintentional_. You have totally failed to take this into account and that invalidates your entire argument. Never mind the practical objections to torture (which are significant and enough in their won right to invalidate the argument). Most objections to torture are ethical. And you cannot argue against an ethical position without acknowledging intent. Your whole argument attempts to prove all acts as being ethically equal regardless of intent. That is utter bollocks. Cases in point: > [@](#): > > Some people feel an instinctive revulsion to torture that they simply cannot summon when hearing that a score of innocents were obliterated in a bombing raid. This is understandable, but it is ultimately nothing more than a failure of imagination. Utter bollocks. If someone does something unintentionally because it is unavoidable to achieve an end, whether he knows the risks or not, that is vastly different to if he does it intentionally. You own a computer, right? It cost you upwards of $500 dollars. If you had donated that $500 to a charity you could have saved 50 children from dying of dysentery. And unless you have been living under a rock for the last 20 years you knew at the time that you could save a human life for $10. But you didn’t. You bought a computer. By your logic that makes you as much a monster as someone whose job is to actually infect children with dysentery. The purchasing of a computer necessarily involves human death from dysentry. … a certain amount of deaths was a regrettable, but unavoidable consequence of our justifiable decision to purchase computer. **Conclusion:** If you are willing to indiscriminately allow innocents to die of infection to purchase computer, you also ought to be willing to tolerate the deliberate infection of those whose infection you know will gain you the money to buy a computer. In other words, if we are willing to accept deaths form infection in pursuit of a particular computer it is logically inconsistent to object to selective deliberate infection of that same objective as the former is far worse than the latter. Do you actually believe that bullshit? Yet it is an almost direct rewrite of your own thesis. When discussing ethics intent is at least as important as outcome and usually moreso. Many horrible things happen as an unintended consequence of all our actions. It isn’t the outcome that defines us as ethical or otherwise. It is the intent. > [@](#): > > The second reasonable objection is that torture is more objectionable than collateral damage because it is more pre-meditated and more visceral. Almost. You almost acknowledged intent. But you didn’t. It’s not about premeditation. You premeditated purchasing your computer. That doesn’t make the act evil. The objection is on the grounds that it is intentional, however unavoidable it was. Premeditated or not if you set out drive person down in your car that is far, far worse than if you hit them accidentally. If a company sells a defective car that kills someone by accident don’t you think that is slightly less unethical than if the deliberately manufactured a car intended o kill people? > [@](#): > > Tell a man his uncle flew a bombing mission over Germany WWII and he’d likely feel some measure of pride. Tell him he raped and strangled his wife and daughter and he’d surely feel a very different emotion. This, in spite of the fact that his uncle doubtlessly killed many more people during his mission, and that they surely would have died in equally horrible ways. You can’t really believe this, surely? If I tell that your child that raped and strangled their guinea pig you’d surely feel a very different emotion to if I told you that they put t in plastic bag to keep it safe in the rain and it suffocated. Right? Because they both died in equally horrible ways But by your “logic” the two acts are exactly the same. Intent means nothing, only outcomes. And your child is a sadistic and mentally disturbed individual both ways according to you. So if your child accidentally kills a pet you will take them to a psychiatrist? Bollocks. You would acknowledge that while the outcomes are identical and the deaths are equally painful what matters is the intent, not the outcome. That in one case the child is disturbed and needs serious psychiatric help and that in the other it was an unintentional event for which the child holds minimal responsibility and which certainly doesn’t make them a bad person. > [@](#): > > Again, the bottom line remains the same: If you oppose torture on the grounds that it is too brutal, you should also oppose the practise of waging defensive war. If you can live with the idea of collateral damage in the course of waging war, you should also be able to live with torture carried out in the course of that same war. And if you oppose the idea of injecting children with dysentery on the grounds that it is too brutal, you should also oppose the practise of buying computers . If you can live with the idea of causing preventable deaths in the course of buying computer, you should also be able to live with torture carried out in order to buy the same computer. Right? Bollocks once again. Intent is not irrelevant to an ethical standpoint. A government can not eliminate all evil in the waging of a war, but it can eliminate all deliberately evil acts. > [@](#): > > Where should we draw the line? It seems to me that if we are unwilling to torture certain criminals in our custody, we should be unwilling to wage war at all. And if you are unwilling to inject children with dysentery in order to buy a computer you should be unwilling to buy a computer at all. I can only hope that you posted this thread as an intellectual exercise, not a something that you actually thought about and believe. It’s one massive fallacy of composition. Just because two acts share a common outcome does not mean they share a common moral burden. ---
**Author:** ![Blake](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/a9a28c/32.png) [@Blake](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Blake)\ **Post date:** [May 20, 2009, 9:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/resolved-unequivocal-opposition-to-torture-is-logically-inconsistent/497014/39 "2009-05-20T09:06:26Z")
I can point out what is, IMO, the most massive flaw in your argument with just one quote: > [@Weston](#): > > **Premise 3:** The waging of wars necessarily involves collateral damage. … a certain amount of collateral damage was a regrettable, but unavoidable consequence of our justifiable decision to destroy Al-Qaeda & the Taliban. It wasn’t just regrettable and unavoidable. It was _unintentional_. You have totally failed to take this into account and that invalidates your entire argument. Never mind the practical objections to torture (which are significant and enough in their won right to invalidate the argument). Most objections to torture are ethical. And you cannot argue against an ethical position without acknowledging intent. Your whole argument attempts to prove all acts as being ethically equal regardless of intent. That is utter bollocks. Cases in point: > [@](#): > > Some people feel an instinctive revulsion to torture that they simply cannot summon when hearing that a score of innocents were obliterated in a bombing raid. This is understandable, but it is ultimately nothing more than a failure of imagination. Utter bollocks. If someone does something unintentionally because it is unavoidable to achieve an end, whether he knows the risks or not, that is vastly different to if he does it intentionally. You own a computer, right? It cost you upwards of $500 dollars. If you had donated that $500 to a charity you could have saved 50 children from dying of dysentery. And unless you have been living under a rock for the last 20 years you knew at the time that you could save a human life for $10. But you didn’t. You bought a computer. By your logic that makes you as much a monster as someone whose job is to actually infect children with dysentery. The purchasing of a computer necessarily involves human death from dysentry. … a certain amount of deaths was a regrettable, but unavoidable consequence of our justifiable decision to purchase computer. **Conclusion:** If you are willing to indiscriminately allow innocents to die of infection to purchase computer, you also ought to be willing to tolerate the deliberate infection of those whose guilt may be undetermined but who you know will gain you the money to buy a computer. In other words, if we are willing to accept deaths form infection in pursuit of a particular computer it is logically inconsistent to object to selective deliberate infection of that same objective as the former is far worse than the latter. Do you actually believe that bullshit? Yet it is an almost direct rewrite of your own thesis. When discussing ethics intent is at least as important as outcome and usually moreso. Many horrible things happen as an unintended consequence of all our actions. It isn’t the outcome that defines us as ethical or otherwise. It is the intent. > [@](#): > > The second reasonable objection is that torture is more objectionable than collateral damage because it is more pre-meditated and more visceral. Almost. You almost acknowledged intent. But you didn’t. It’s not about premeditation. You premeditated purchasing your computer. That doesn’t make the consequences evil. The objection is on the grounds that it is intentional, however unavoidable it was. Premeditated or not if you set out drive person down in your car that is far, far worse than if you hit them accidentally. If a company sells a defective car that kills someone by accident don’t you think that is slightly less unethical than if the deliberately manufactured a car intended o kill people? > [@](#): > > Tell a man his uncle flew a bombing mission over Germany WWII and he’d likely feel some measure of pride. Tell him he raped and strangled his wife and daughter and he’d surely feel a very different emotion. This, in spite of the fact that his uncle doubtlessly killed many more people during his mission, and that they surely would have died in equally horrible ways. You can’t really believe this, surely? If I tell that your child that raped and strangled their guinea pig you’d surely feel a very different emotion to if I told you that they put t in plastic bag to keep it safe in the rain and it suffocated. Right? Because they both died in equally horrible ways But by your “logic” the two acts are exactly the same. Intent means nothing, only outcomes. And your child is a sadistic and mentally disturbed individual both ways according to you. So if your child accidentally kills a pet you will take them to a psychiatrist? Bollocks. You would acknowledge that while the outcomes are identical and the deaths are equally painful what matters is the intent, not the outcome. That in one case the child is disturbed and needs serious psychiatric help and that in the other it was an unintentional event for which the child holds minimal responsibility and which certainly doesn’t make them a bad person. > [@](#): > > Again, the bottom line remains the same: If you oppose torture on the grounds that it is too brutal, you should also oppose the practise of waging defensive war. If you can live with the idea of collateral damage in the course of waging war, you should also be able to live with torture carried out in the course of that same war. And if you oppose the idea of injecting children with dysentery on the grounds that it is too brutal, you should also oppose the practise of buying computers . If you can live with the idea of causing preventable deaths in the course of buying computer, you should also be able to live with torture carried out in order to buy the same computer. Right? Bollocks once again. Intent is not irrelevant to an ethical standpoint. A government can not eliminate all evil in the waging of a war, but it can eliminate all deliberately evil acts. > [@](#): > > Where should we draw the line? It seems to me that if we are unwilling to torture certain criminals in our custody, we should be unwilling to wage war at all. And if you are unwilling to inject children with dysentery in order to buy a computer you should be unwilling to buy a computer at all. I can only hope that you posted this thread as an intellectual exercise, not a something that you actually thought about and believe. It’s one massive fallacy of composition. Just because two acts share a common outcome does not mean they share a common moral burden. ---
**Author:** ![NoJustice](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/ecb155/32.png) [@NoJustice](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/NoJustice)\ **Post date:** [May 20, 2009, 11:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/resolved-unequivocal-opposition-to-torture-is-logically-inconsistent/497014/40 "2009-05-20T11:48:02Z")
**Premise 1** : Godwin. but heck… just for the fun of it… **Premise 2** : I see no evidence the war against Al-Qaeda & the Taliban is necessary. If the world ignored them, the terrorists would run out of suicide bombers long before the rest of the world ran out of buildings to blow up or innocent people to kill. The only danger terrorism poses to any country, is the possibility of people abandoning their principals out of fear. A majority opinion is not the same as evidence. **Premise 3** : In no way related to the question of torture. **conclusion** : **x = bad** , and, **y \< x** therefore; **y = ok** Sorry you fail at logic. This is all the more sad since my only argument with your original statement “_that an unequivocal opposition to torture is logically untenable for all but the most committed pacifists_” is that you are assuming a person must be committed to pacifism, even though that doesn’t necessarily follow from the fact it is the only logical choice. Not being committed to acting according to one logical conclusion doesn’t make all other stances logically untenable. But I suspect that was just poor phrasing on your part. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/resolved-unequivocal-opposition-to-torture-is-logically-inconsistent/497014.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/resolved-unequivocal-opposition-to-torture-is-logically-inconsistent/497014.md?page=3)