# The Ethics of Torture. **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [April 1, 2012, 6:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-ethics-of-torture/617498 "2012-04-01T18:13:14Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Craz3d117](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/c4cdca/32.png) [@Craz3d117](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Craz3d117)\ **Post date:** [April 2, 2012, 2:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-ethics-of-torture/617498/21 "2012-04-02T02:48:23Z")
> [@Der\_Trihs](#): > > Actually it IS relevant, since you have the choice of electing people who support torture or not. America chose to re-elect Bush, and therefore has branded itself as a pro-torture nation. And by doing so identified itself as collectively and willfully evil. Yes, because the America is such a singular, homogeneous society. :rolleyes: ---
**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:** [April 2, 2012, 2:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-ethics-of-torture/617498/22 "2012-04-02T02:57:19Z")
> [@Craz3d117](#): > > Yes, because the America is such a singular, homogeneous society. :rolleyes: I never said it was. However the people have spoken, and they spoke out in favor of torture. And the only reason for the “you can’t judge a group unless everyone in is perfectly unified and exactly the same” standard is to immunize that group from all criticism, since no group is ever like that. If that’s the standard we are to use, then we can’t criticism Nazi Germany or the Soviet Union or Khmer Rouge Cambodia because they weren’t a “singular, homogeneous society”. But of course, you’d never apply that standard to _them_; just to us. ---
**Author:** ![MaxTheVool](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/9fc29f/32.png) [@MaxTheVool](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MaxTheVool)\ **Post date:** [April 2, 2012, 2:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-ethics-of-torture/617498/23 "2012-04-02T02:59:01Z")
> [@Der\_Trihs](#): > > Actually it IS relevant, since you have the choice of electing people who support torture or not. America chose to re-elect Bush, and therefore has branded itself as a pro-torture nation. And by doing so identified itself as collectively and willfully evil. As is often the case I think you’re overstating things. But, fundamentally, I agree with you, in that we express our opinions through who we elect. And, given a choice between a candidate who wants to legalize torture and one who doesn’t, I’d vote for the one who didn’t. Was that somehow not clear from my previous post? ---
**Author:** ![scJazz2](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a6a055/32.png) [@scJazz2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/scJazz2)\ **Post date:** [April 2, 2012, 3:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-ethics-of-torture/617498/24 "2012-04-02T03:02:05Z")
Something that has been alluded to a few times in this thread already… Whether torture is ethically justifiable at any point is not really the ethical question we should be asking. The question should be… Is it ethically justifiable to ask/order a person to torture another person? In the evolution of a serial killer the torturer is behaving just 1 final step from the serial killer having skipped torturing animals. They may think themselves justified, serial killers often do. Still, is that really where we want to go? To push someone else to go? Oh and volunteers do not count for stunningly obvious reasons 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![Boyo\_Jim](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/87869e/32.png) [@Boyo\_Jim](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Boyo_Jim)\ **Post date:** [April 2, 2012, 3:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-ethics-of-torture/617498/25 "2012-04-02T03:22:32Z")
> [@scJazz2](#): > > Something that has been alluded to a few times in this thread already… > > Whether torture is ethically justifiable at any point is not really the ethical question we should be asking. The question should be… > > Is it ethically justifiable to ask/order a person to torture another person? > > In the evolution of a serial killer the torturer is behaving just 1 final step from the serial killer having skipped torturing animals. They may think themselves justified, serial killers often do. Still, is that really where we want to go? To push someone else to go? > > Oh and volunteers do not count for stunningly obvious reasons 🙂 I You can ask the same question directly to investigators asked or ordered to perform the torture. Should they refuse? According to what we all thought was pretty well settled international law (and I still do think it), the answer to your question and mine is ‘yes’. It is a crime to issue such an order, and it is a crime to carry out such an order. In a purely ethical sense, I don’t see why anyone in the chain of command from the ordering authority down to the torturers are any different from each other. I would even extent that to those who know and in some way support the process, such as guards who bring the prisoner to and from a holding cell to a torture chamber. ---
**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:** [April 2, 2012, 6:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-ethics-of-torture/617498/26 "2012-04-02T06:34:22Z")
> [@Stelios](#): > > \*"My argument for the limited use of coercive interrogation (“torture” by another name) is essentially this: if you think it is ever justifiable to drop bombs in an attempt to kill a man like Osama bin Laden _BZZZZT_ and that’s where he lost me. I _don’t_ think it _is_ justifiable to drop bombs in an attempt to kill a man like Osama bin Laden , so the remainder of the argument is unneeded. ---
**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:** [April 2, 2012, 6:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-ethics-of-torture/617498/27 "2012-04-02T06:37:08Z")
> [@CoolHandCox](#): > > Dropping bombs is legal. Torture is not legal. What’s legality got to do with ethics? ---
**Author:** ![scJazz2](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a6a055/32.png) [@scJazz2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/scJazz2)\ **Post date:** [April 2, 2012, 6:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-ethics-of-torture/617498/28 "2012-04-02T06:44:04Z")
> [@MrDibble](#): > > What’s legality got to do with ethics? People always consider them equal. bah! Speeding is illegal but not unethical in most circumstances. Bestiality is illegal but possibly not unethical or maybe it is but the Vegetarians are still hashing it out with the omnivores over the whole meat is murder ethics and somehow someone tossed this one into the ring and they are beating it to death presently. Smoking pot is illegal but not unethical. There some examples for the legal vs ethical challenged. ---
**Author:** ![Craz3d117](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/c4cdca/32.png) [@Craz3d117](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Craz3d117)\ **Post date:** [April 2, 2012, 6:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-ethics-of-torture/617498/29 "2012-04-02T06:46:04Z")
> [@Der\_Trihs](#): > > I never said it was. However the people have spoken, and they spoke out in favor of torture. > > And the only reason for the “you can’t judge a group unless everyone in is perfectly unified and exactly the same” standard is to immunize that group from all criticism, since no group is ever like that. If that’s the standard we are to use, then we can’t criticism Nazi Germany or the Soviet Union or Khmer Rouge Cambodia because they weren’t a “singular, homogeneous society”. But of course, you’d never apply that standard to _them_; just to us. I certainly would not compare the citizens of Nazi-era Germany to the Nazis, no. To assume a group of people agree with an issue because they do not actively oppose it is impractical. The majority of people have better things to worry about than politics and ethics. To say Americans are vile and evil because they all don’t directly oppose the use of torture in some circumstances is silly. The fact of that matter is that most people don’t even think about it. We don’t require any credentials to vote for our officials, and we certainly don’t require a well thought out opinion. You can vote for a president because you like his shoes for all we care. Whether this is right or wrong is the topic of a different debate. ---
**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:** [April 2, 2012, 2:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-ethics-of-torture/617498/30 "2012-04-02T14:30:23Z")
> [@MrDibble](#): > > What’s legality got to do with ethics? Good question. I guess I read the article as saying torture can be right or wrong depending on the circumstances; or also, the same wrong as dropping bombs, which can be legal. I’m defining ethics as rights or wrongs and things like torture that are illegal, are deemed wrong. So, since torture is illegal, society has deemed it wrong/unethical. In that same line of thinking, I don’t think things that are legal are automatically not wrong. ---
**Author:** ![Sailboat](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/sailboat/32/461_2.png) [@Sailboat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sailboat)\ **Post date:** [April 2, 2012, 2:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-ethics-of-torture/617498/31 "2012-04-02T14:54:15Z")
> [@Stelios](#): > > He goes on to say: > > _“And yet, most people tacitly accept the practice of modern warfare, while considering it taboo to even speak about the possibility of practicing torture.”_ “Most people tacitly accept” a hell of a lot that’s wrong with the world. That doesn’t make it right. Even now you could say “most people tacitly accept” the Catholic Church sex abuse, because as revelation after revelation comes out, year after year, “most people” don’t physically dismantle the churches and imprison the hierarchy…they just sort of let it continue, complain about it, and hope it will somehow end. Furthermore, there’s a long history of vigorous debate about the morality of strategic bombing and “collateral damage.” It turns out that LOTS of people do not accept the practice, “tacitly” or otherwise. Choosing _aerial bombing_ as “something there’s an ethical consensus on” to make his point shows either willful ignorance or a willingness to stretch the truth pretty far in trying to make his point. ---
**Author:** ![ITR\_champion](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/c67d28/32.png) [@ITR\_champion](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ITR_champion)\ **Post date:** [April 2, 2012, 8:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-ethics-of-torture/617498/32 "2012-04-02T20:40:33Z")
> [@Sam harris](#): > > And yet, most people tacitly accept the practice of modern warfare, while considering it taboo to even speak about the possibility of practicing torture. Obviously this is utterly untrue, just like everything I’ve ever heard Harris say or write. > [@Stelios](#): > > So, have a look at Harris’s article, and tell me what you think? Does Harris make a persuasive case? Are his arguments strong enough to change your opinion of the use of torture in certain situations? Completely unpersuasive. He readily admits that all he’s arguing for is that it would be ethical to use torture in an “idealized” case that would never actually exist. Like others in this thread, I despise that sort of reasoning, because I’ve only ever seen it used by immoral people who want to use torture in other cases. It’s worth noting the argument against torture that Harris doesn’t address: it’s in our national interest to have a reputation for treating prisoners with human rights. For centuries we benefited from having an excellent reputation in that regard, and the Bush Administration squandered that reputation for no reason at all. > [@Dissonance](#): > > I’d not heard of him before, but Sam Harris has got to be one of the most morally bankrupt people on the planet. Agreed. I can read a book by Richard Dawkins without screaming, but Harris is basically a left-wing, atheist Michelle Malkin who goes around saying the loopiest things just to see if he can provoke a reaction. ---
**Author:** ![erislover](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/71e660/32.png) [@erislover](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/erislover)\ **Post date:** [April 3, 2012, 12:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-ethics-of-torture/617498/33 "2012-04-03T00:47:14Z")
> [@Craz3d117](#): > > I wouldn’t say it’s ethical to do otherwise unethical acts under certain circumstances, but rather that it is necessary to do unethical acts under certain circumstances. This seems to me to raise a distinction without a difference. ---
**Author:** ![MaxTheVool](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/9fc29f/32.png) [@MaxTheVool](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MaxTheVool)\ **Post date:** [April 3, 2012, 1:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-ethics-of-torture/617498/34 "2012-04-03T01:34:07Z")
> [@erislover](#): > > This seems to me to raise a distinction without a difference. Here are some things that are unethical: lying, killing, stealing. Yet I think we would all agree there are certain situations in which it is ethical to lie, ethical to kill and ethical to steal. So is there some categorical, qualitative, distinction between lying, killing and stealing, on the one hand, and, torture on the other hand, where they are generally unethical, but sometimes can be ethical, while it is generally unethical, but NEVER can be ethical? ---
**Author:** ![erislover](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/71e660/32.png) [@erislover](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/erislover)\ **Post date:** [April 3, 2012, 1:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-ethics-of-torture/617498/35 "2012-04-03T01:48:27Z")
Here are three propositions: 1. lying is unethical 2. lying is unethical, but sometimes necessary 3. except in cases which would constitute a more severe ethical breach, lying is unethical Which of these is a clear principle? To me, (3) seems quite clear, even if it doesn’t lay out a full hierarchy of conduct. If I am to use ethics to help understand the choices I face, what use is (2) over (1), really? If I am not to use ethics to help understand the choices I face because something just are unethical, what use is the adjective? ---
**Author:** ![MaxTheVool](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/9fc29f/32.png) [@MaxTheVool](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MaxTheVool)\ **Post date:** [April 3, 2012, 1:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-ethics-of-torture/617498/36 "2012-04-03T01:54:34Z")
> [@erislover](#): > > Here are three propositions: > > 1. lying is unethical > 2. lying is unethical, but sometimes necessary > 3. except in cases which would constitute a more severe ethical breach, lying is unethical > > Which of these is a clear principle? To me, (3) seems quite clear, even if it doesn’t lay out a full hierarchy of conduct. If I am to use ethics to help understand the choices I face, what use is (2) over (1), really? If I am not to use ethics to help understand the choices I face because something just are unethical, what use is the adjective? Umm, I’m not quite sure what you’re asking. I generally agree with all three of these statements, with some quibbling over the wording of all three of them. ---
**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:** [April 3, 2012, 2:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-ethics-of-torture/617498/37 "2012-04-03T02:00:06Z")
So unethical things are only unethical when done unethically. When is torture done ethically? It seems to me that constructing an ethical torture scenario is easier said than it would play out in real life. You have to phrase the scenario where the torturer absolutely\* knows\* more information than he’d honestly know (e.g. that a ticking time bomb actually exists and it would go off and kill X people). There would always be some doubt. And yet he would still have to torture in light of the doubt. To me, that’s not good enough. And I’m a person that thinks torturing can elicit useful data. If you add everything up, you’re going to be more right than wrong if you don’t ever torture. You’ll be more ethical in the long run. Thus, torturing should always be unethical. The very act of allowing it in certain situations is unethical because you can’t guarantee it’s always the right situation. Is torturing 9 innocent people, and 1 who does actually know where the ticking time bomb is, ethical? That’s the question. My answer is no. ---
**Author:** ![erislover](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/71e660/32.png) [@erislover](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/erislover)\ **Post date:** [April 3, 2012, 2:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-ethics-of-torture/617498/38 "2012-04-03T02:00:33Z")
**MaxTheVool** : An adjective, ‘ethical’, whose main purpose is to circumscribe permissible actions, and its opposite, ‘unethical’, whose main purpose is to cast aside impermissible actions, is quite a useful distinction. An adjective, ‘unethical’, whose main purpose is to case aside impermissible actions, but which can itself be cast aside, is not a very useful adjective. ---
**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:** [April 3, 2012, 2:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-ethics-of-torture/617498/39 "2012-04-03T02:20:02Z")
> [@MaxTheVool](#): > > Here are some things that are unethical: lying, killing, stealing. Yet I think we would all agree there are certain situations in which it is ethical to lie, ethical to kill and ethical to steal. > > So is there some categorical, qualitative, distinction between lying, killing and stealing, on the one hand, and, torture on the other hand, where they are generally unethical, but sometimes can be ethical, while it is generally unethical, but NEVER can be ethical? Torture is worse than all of them. Again, you might as well be looking for situations where raping a six year old is justified; torture is _at least_ that bad. If someone is willing to torture, then they are a monster and an enemy of humanity who should be hunted down and killed or imprisoned for life, regardless of why they did it. And if they aren’t willing to face those kind of consequences, then whatever-it-was wasn’t a severe enough situation for torture to be remotely “justified” in the first place. ---
**Author:** ![Boyo\_Jim](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/87869e/32.png) [@Boyo\_Jim](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Boyo_Jim)\ **Post date:** [April 3, 2012, 2:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-ethics-of-torture/617498/40 "2012-04-03T02:37:57Z")
I don’t think torturing someone is worse than killing someone. Of the others mentioned, torturing is the worst. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-ethics-of-torture/617498.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-ethics-of-torture/617498.md?page=3)