# 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:** 3
**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, 2:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-ethics-of-torture/617498/41 "2012-04-03T02:51:27Z")
> [@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? I’m not sure if there is any difference at all between 2 and 3. I’m also not sure that a necessary lie is in fact unethical. IOW, none of these statements is unequivocally correct. ---
**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, 3:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-ethics-of-torture/617498/42 "2012-04-03T03:04:30Z")
> [@Boyo\_Jim](#): > > I’m not sure if there is any difference at all between 2 and 3. I’m also not sure that a necessary lie is in fact unethical. IOW, none of these statements is unequivocally correct. I am sure that a necessary lie is ethical. In the context of ethics, “necessary” seems to be a compulsion to act, and ethical actions just are those actions one should do. “Necessary but unethical” and “ethical” is just a distinction without a difference. ---
**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, 3:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-ethics-of-torture/617498/43 "2012-04-03T03:13:58Z")
> [@](#): > > …“necessary” seems to be a compulsion to act… A compulsion from within? Or some exterior threat to act under some form of threat? Because I can think of circumstances where it might be ethical to lie in either case. ---
**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, 3:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-ethics-of-torture/617498/44 "2012-04-03T03:14:50Z")
However the word necessary is used. I would not claim to restrict it further for these purposes. ---
**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, 3:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-ethics-of-torture/617498/45 "2012-04-03T03:20:38Z")
> [@Boyo\_Jim](#): > > A compulsion from within? Or some exterior threat to act under some form of threat? > > Because I can think of circumstances where it might be ethical to lie in either case. Never mind about responding to this. I was confused and mis-read your response. ---
**Author:** ![BigT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bigt/32/12044_2.png) [@BigT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BigT)\ **Post date:** [April 3, 2012, 9:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-ethics-of-torture/617498/46 "2012-04-03T09:35:32Z")
> [@Boyo\_Jim](#): > > I don’t think torturing someone is worse than killing someone. Of the others mentioned, torturing is the worst. Torture causes more pain and is much less often justified (if it is ever justified at all.) What you are saying makes every soldier who has killed someone and every person who has ever killed someone in self-defense worse than someone who has tortured someone. And yet we as a society let the killers off free, but punish the torturer. I honestly can’t understand why anyone would think torture is not worse than killing. I mean, people who are tortured severely enough actually wish that you would kill them. ---
**Author:** ![Latro](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/a87d85/32.png) [@Latro](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Latro)\ **Post date:** [April 3, 2012, 10:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-ethics-of-torture/617498/47 "2012-04-03T10:00:37Z")
Sometimes I wonder at how you Yanks handle language. It is not ethical to torture. Simple as that. It is not ethical to lie and it is not ethical to molest little children. Simple. But sometimes you may feel that necessity will trump ethics. That doesn’t mean your actions have become ethical, simply that you found other things more important. This question if something is ethical is just weaseling. Fact is that by becoming torturers you have become monsters in the face of the rest of the civilised world. As far as you already were, because of starting an illegal war of agression. from the OP, bolding mine; > [@Stelios](#): > > I think this is a very good point. We have a marked tendency to consider the ethics of torture in isolation, without taking into account the context in which acts of torture are performed. This context, at least **when it comes to Western Governments** , is, it seems, always the bloody context of a “Hot” war, against terrorist insurgents. More weaseling. No, the other civilised Western Governments STILL DO NOT TORTURE, _you_ do. Sorry that this doesn’t jive with your vision as the shining city on the hill, but you have long lost this image. ---
**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, 2:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-ethics-of-torture/617498/48 "2012-04-03T14:32:07Z")
> [@BigT](#): > > Torture causes more pain and is much less often justified (if it is ever justified at all.) What you are saying makes every soldier who has killed someone and every person who has ever killed someone in self-defense worse than someone who has tortured someone. And yet we as a society let the killers off free, but punish the torturer. > > I honestly can’t understand why anyone would think torture is not worse than killing. I mean, people who are tortured severely enough actually wish that you would kill them. I should have been clearer. My intent was to say, “Killing a person is worse than torturing _that same person_”, because the person survives. And if you prefer to insert the term ‘murdering’ instead of ‘killing’, go nuts with that. I honestly can’t understand why anyone would think an experience that one survives is better than an experience that ends with death. You can always choose death later, and choosing death for yourself is infinitely better than having someone else choose it for you. ---
**Author:** ![AK84](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/85e7bf/32.png) [@AK84](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/AK84)\ **Post date:** [April 3, 2012, 3:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-ethics-of-torture/617498/49 "2012-04-03T15:54:56Z")
> [@Latro](#): > > No, the other civilised Western Governments STILL DO NOT TORTURE, _you_ do. > > Sorry that this doesn’t jive with your vision as the shining city on the hill, but you have long lost this image. There is no other Government in the world (western or evil, civilized or barbarian) where officials justify torture and where tier are actually debates on the desirability of torture. Other nations torture no doubt, but they at least have the decency to pretend they do not. ---
**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, 5:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-ethics-of-torture/617498/50 "2012-04-03T17:16:31Z")
> [@erislover](#): > > **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. Except that ethics isn’t just black and white. It would be lovely to live in a world where we could make a list of things that you never could do ever no matter what, and then whenever you were faced with a dilemma you could just check your list and hey, presto, you would know what to do, problem solved. But we don’t. I think my initial point stands… killing, lying and stealing are all things that are unethical. Yet for each, there are certain situations in which it’s generally agreed that they can be reasonably engaged in. Why would torture be any different? The key question, and one I don’t have a good answer for, is whether torture-is-acceptable situations are super-duper-rare, or super-duper-comically-rare-so-rare-as-to-only-exist-in-bizarre-hypotheticals. ---
**Author:** ![curioushat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/b9e5f3/32.png) [@curioushat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/curioushat)\ **Post date:** [April 3, 2012, 5:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-ethics-of-torture/617498/51 "2012-04-03T17:22:32Z")
> [@MaxTheVool](#): > > Except that ethics isn’t just black and white. It would be lovely to live in a world where we could make a list of things that you never could do ever no matter what, and then whenever you were faced with a dilemma you could just check your list and hey, presto, you would know what to do, problem solved. But we don’t. > I think my initial point stands… killing, lying and stealing are all things that are unethical. Yet for each, there are certain situations in which it’s generally agreed that they can be reasonably engaged in. Why would torture be any different? The key question, and one I don’t have a good answer for, is whether torture-is-acceptable situations are super-duper-rare, or super-duper-comically-rare-so-rare-as-to-only-exist-in-bizarre-hypotheticals. super-duper-comically-rare-so-rare-as-to-only-exist-in-bizarre-hypotheticals. It’s probably the most agreed on principle that you don’t kill people for no reason/torture people for no reason. ---
**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, 7:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-ethics-of-torture/617498/52 "2012-04-03T19:51:52Z")
> [@MaxTheVool](#): > > I think my initial point stands… killing, lying and stealing are all things that are unethical. Yet for each, there are certain situations in which it’s generally agreed that they can be reasonably engaged in. None of those are innately unethical. Lying to misdirect a death squad away from their victims is perfectly ethical. Killing someone in self defense or who wants to be spared the agony of a terminal disease is perfectly ethical. Stealing to survive is perfectly ethical, if that’s the only option you have; survival trumps property rights. Torture is something that monsters do. The fact that they are _willing to do it_ makes them a monster. Torture is more analogous to rape than it is to lying or theft. ---
**Author:** ![Craz3d117](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/c4cdca/32.png) [@Craz3d117](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Craz3d117)\ **Post date:** [April 3, 2012, 8:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-ethics-of-torture/617498/53 "2012-04-03T20:30:04Z")
> [@Der\_Trihs](#): > > None of those are innately unethical. Lying to misdirect a death squad away from their victims is perfectly ethical. Killing someone in self defense or who wants to be spared the agony of a terminal disease is perfectly ethical. Stealing to survive is perfectly ethical, if that’s the only option you have; survival trumps property rights. > > Torture is something that monsters do. The fact that they are _willing to do it_ makes them a monster. Torture is more analogous to rape than it is to lying or theft. So lying, killing and stealing can be utilized to save lives, but torture for use of gaining information could not possibly? Never has and never will? Could you explain yourself? It seems pretty obvious to me but perhaps a practical example is needed: An enemy combatant is captured after a battle, they notice that this is a man they have been surveying for quite a while and they suspect him, with good evidence that he is a bomb maker and it is likely he has spread multiple IEDs throughout the area. He is interrogated and asked where they are. He denies to divulge any information. They waterboard him. He tells where the IEDs are, and are disarmed ASAP. The enemy combatant lives and allied lives where saved. This is not a “ticking time bomb” crazy one off scenario, but a scenario that could, would, and surely has happened during war. Surely the credibility of the information is not guaranteed to be accurate, and that is why the practice was extremely short lived by the U.S. Even taking that into consideration though, more good can come of it than bad, such as the case with lying, killing and stealing. ---
**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, 8:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-ethics-of-torture/617498/54 "2012-04-03T20:56:52Z")
> [@Craz3d117](#): > > An enemy combatant is captured after a battle, they notice that this is a man they have been surveying for quite a while and they suspect him, with good evidence that he is a bomb maker and it is likely he has spread multiple IEDs throughout the area. He is interrogated and asked where they are. He denies to divulge any information. They waterboard him. He tells where the IEDs are, and are disarmed ASAP. The enemy combatant lives and allied lives where saved. First, by torturing him they deserve death; it’s a bad thing if they don’t get blown up. Second, since they are torturers they _are_ monsters and won’t care if he’s actually a bomber or tells them the truth; they’ll torture him anyway, and probably murder him afterward. And they’ll go on to torture others. And third torture tends to give bad information, and ruins the victim for further interrogation. ---
**Author:** ![Whack-a-Mole](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/whack-a-mole/32/141_2.png) [@Whack-a-Mole](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Whack-a-Mole)\ **Post date:** [April 3, 2012, 9:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-ethics-of-torture/617498/55 "2012-04-03T21:08:00Z")
> [@Craz3d117](#): > > An enemy combatant is captured after a battle, they notice that this is a man they have been surveying for quite a while and they suspect him, with good evidence that he is a bomb maker and it is likely he has spread multiple IEDs throughout the area. He is interrogated and asked where they are. He denies to divulge any information. They waterboard him. He tells where the IEDs are, and are disarmed ASAP. The enemy combatant lives and allied lives where saved. Torture does not work that way except in the movies. When you get your information on how torture works from watching “24” you get an entirely incorrect view. How do I know? From testimony by guys who have been in the position you speak of. > [@](#): > > But does torture work? The question has been asked many times since Sept. 11, 2001. I’m repeating it, however, because the Gonzales hearings inspired more articles about our lax methods (“Too Nice for Our Own Good” was one headline), because similar comments may follow this week’s trial of Spec. Charles Graner, the alleged Abu Ghraib ringleader, and because I still cannot find a positive answer. I’ve heard it said that the Syrians and the Egyptians “really know how to get these things done.” I’ve heard the Israelis mentioned, without proof. I’ve heard Algeria mentioned, too, but Darius Rejali, an academic who recently trolled through French archives, found no clear examples of how torture helped the French in Algeria – and they lost that war anyway. “Liberals,” argued an article in the liberal online magazine Slate a few months ago, “have a tendency to accept, all too eagerly, the argument that torture is ineffective.” But it’s also true that “realists,” whether liberal or conservative, have a tendency to accept, all too eagerly, fictitious accounts of effective torture carried out by someone else. > > By contrast, it is easy to find experienced U.S. officers who argue precisely the opposite. Meet, for example, retired Air Force Col. John Rothrock, who, as a young captain, headed a combat interrogation team in Vietnam. More than once he was faced with a ticking time-bomb scenario: a captured Vietcong guerrilla who knew of plans to kill Americans. What was done in such cases was “not nice,” he says. “But we did not physically abuse them.” Rothrock used psychology, the shock of capture and of the unexpected. Once, he let a prisoner see a wounded comrade die. Yet – as he remembers saying to the “desperate and honorable officers” who wanted him to move faster – “if I take a Bunsen burner to the guy’s genitals, he’s going to tell you just about anything,” which would be pointless. Rothrock, who is no squishy liberal, says that he doesn’t know “any professional intelligence officers of my generation who would think this is a good idea.” > > SOURCE: [http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A2302-2005Jan11.html](http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A2302-2005Jan11.html) ---
**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, 9:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-ethics-of-torture/617498/56 "2012-04-03T21:20:58Z")
> [@MaxTheVool](#): > > Except that ethics isn’t just black and white. It would be lovely to live in a world where we could make a list of things that you never could do ever no matter what, and then whenever you were faced with a dilemma you could just check your list and hey, presto, you would know what to do, problem solved. But we don’t. You misunderstand. Determining what is ethical is not black and white. As a moral subjectivist, I would argue that quite strongly you are correct. But the words “ethical” and “unethical” do not suddenly become ambiguous for it. How we determine something is ethical could be a complicated process, but if it is resolved, we don’t then have the additional burden of deciding which word to use. > [@](#): > > I think my initial point stands… killing, lying and stealing are all things that are unethical. Yet for each, there are certain situations in which it’s generally agreed that they can be reasonably engaged in. And I think my point stands: this is a distinction without a difference. 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![hdc\_bst](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/9f8e36/32.png) [@hdc\_bst](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/hdc_bst)\ **Post date:** [April 3, 2012, 9:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-ethics-of-torture/617498/57 "2012-04-03T21:23:15Z")
> [@Craz3d117](#): > > So lying, killing and stealing can be utilized to save lives, but torture for use of gaining information could not possibly? Never has and never will? Could you explain yourself? It seems pretty obvious to me but perhaps a practical example is needed: > > An enemy combatant is captured after a battle, they notice that this is a man they have been surveying for quite a while and they suspect him, with good evidence that he is a bomb maker and it is likely he has spread multiple IEDs throughout the area. He is interrogated and asked where they are. He denies to divulge any information. They waterboard him. He tells where the IEDs are, and are disarmed ASAP. The enemy combatant lives and allied lives where saved. > > This is not a “ticking time bomb” crazy one off scenario, but a scenario that could, would, and surely has happened during war. Surely the credibility of the information is not guaranteed to be accurate, and that is why the practice was extremely short lived by the U.S. Even taking that into consideration though, more good can come of it than bad, such as the case with lying, killing and stealing. What you’re missing is that as soon as you remove the ‘ticking time bomb’ craziness, there are alternatives to torture. You see, there’s this other technique called ‘interrogation.’ There is no reason to believe that information gained through physical duress is more accurate than information gained through psychological manipulation. And it has the plus of not being abhorrent. The only benefits from ‘torture’ are: 1. it’s easy to conduct 2. it feeds the pathological sadism of those who conduct it Constructing scenarios that actually justify torture is as easy as constructing scenarios that justify killing your enemies’ children and making suits from their skin. ---
**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, 9:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-ethics-of-torture/617498/58 "2012-04-03T21:42:14Z")
> [@hdc\_bst](#): > > The only benefits from ‘torture’ are: > > 1. it’s easy to conduct > 2. it feeds the pathological sadism of those who conduct it It’s also good for spreading terror and for eliciting false confessions, which is why dictatorships are fond of it. And why _America_ has been so fond of it off and on through the decades. ---
**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, 10:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-ethics-of-torture/617498/59 "2012-04-03T22:44:14Z")
> [@Craz3d117](#): > > So lying, killing and stealing can be utilized to save lives, but torture for use of gaining information could not possibly? Never has and never will? Oh, and another point; this thread is about the ethics of torture, not about whether or not it works. It’s unethical regardless of whether or not it works. ---
**Author:** ![thirdname](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/d07c76/32.png) [@thirdname](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/thirdname)\ **Post date:** [April 3, 2012, 11:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-ethics-of-torture/617498/60 "2012-04-03T23:42:48Z")
> [@Der\_Trihs](#): > > Oh, and another point; this thread is about the ethics of torture, not about whether or not it works. It’s unethical regardless of whether or not it works. Why? Why is it worse than shooting someone, or dropping a bomb or napalm on people in order to save lives? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-ethics-of-torture/617498.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-ethics-of-torture/617498.md?page=4)