This board has played host to several debates on torture. Typically, the OP presents a situation and asks “Would you torture in this scenario?” Respondents fall on a spectrum. Some answer resoundingly “Yes!” Others grudgingly give their assent, couching it in caveats such as “Only if there was no other way…” Others again state unequivocally “No!” And there are yet more posters in between these generalised positions.
I am interested only in exploring the perspectives of those who have gone on record here as saying that torture is never, ever acceptable. It is my contention that the question of torture can be phrased in terms which would awaken the Grand Inquisitor in all of us. It is also my contention that those who refuse, even hypothetically, to commit torture in the face of ticking nuclear time bombs and armies of homicidal spree killers suffer from a moral defect. They are, objectively, less moral than the rest of us because they are unable or unwilling to weigh the costs of one isolated incidence of torture against its benefits.
Let’s put this in more concrete terms. Consider the following scenario.
You have in your custody a man. This man is a genius among geniuses, possessed of an intellect beyond comprehension. Unfortunately for us, he is also utterly evil. He has, for his own amusement, created a highly infectious virus with a 95% mortality rate. He has weaponised this virus. A quantity sufficient to kill 95% of the people on this planet has been attached to a specially designed explosive device. Here is what you know about the device:[ul]
[li] Unless found and defused, it will explode at 12:00am EST on March 1st 2008.[/li][li] If it does explode, the virus will become airborne. This is the point of no return. If the virus becomes airborne it will spread quickly throughout the population, killing 95% of those it infects.[/ul][/li]
You know these things because the man has told you freely. You have this man in custody because, after planting the device, he turned himself in. He wants to take credit for the Armageddon he plans to unleash.
The virus is so effective that it doesn’t really matter where the explosive device is located. Once the device goes off, it will be impossible to stop the spread of the virus throughout the population.
The only way to get the location of the explosive device is to elicit that information from your captive. He does not want to give it up, and is prepared to undergo quite a bit of serious pain to protect his secret.
Do you, in this situation, torture the captive?
Before answering this question, please read the following list of caveats and constraints which apply to this scenario.[ul]
[li] The virus has no cure. None at all.[/li][li] The virus kills painfully. Death takes about a week.[/li][li] The virus is so sophisticated that it would take the greatest medical minds on the planet, operating in concert with every penny of the global economy devoted to their efforts, several years to invent a cure or vaccine. [/li][li] The captive is entirely 100% responsible for this situation. He worked entirely alone, confided in no-one, paid for all his equipment in cash under various aliases all over the world and, when the purchase of any necessary equipment opened him up to the slightest possible risk of detection, he built the equipment himself. This man, like Keyzer Soze, has no people who can betray him.[/li][li] The captive cannot be bribed, bullied, or browbeaten. He has no friends, family, or material allegiances. He has no conscience and doesn’t want one. You cannot blackmail him. You cannot trick him. Standard interrogation techniques (Good cop/bad cop etc…) have already been tried and have failed.[/li][li] There is absolutely no doubt whatsoever about the guilt of the captive. Whatever proof you require, you have it. There is more doubt about Heliocentrism than there is about the absolute and unequivocal guilt of your captive.[/li][li] The captive never, ever lies. Ever. He simply does not do it. He responds to all questions quickly and directly, and never with anything less than the absolute and unvarnished truth. When asked about the location of the device he simply replies “I refuse to tell you”. [/li][li] Each of these conditions and constraints is inflexible and, for the purposes of this thread, cannot be contradicted, ignored, or even questioned. They are as certain as the most immutable laws of the universe. [/ul][/li]
Now please read my response to some foreseeable questions. Think of this bit as a torture FAQ.
Q) Why have you started this thread. There is another on the front page discussing this topic. You can read it here
A) *That is true. Unfortunately, that other thread quickly degenerated into a total fucking mess as nitpickers focussed on irrelevancies, drive-by posters took the piss, and certain posters who have previously gone on record as saying they would be opposed to torture under any conceivable circumstances performed contortions worthy of the Cirque De Soleil in order to avoid answering what is, at heart, a simple ‘Yes’ or ‘No’ question.
I started this thread as a ‘do-over’ of the one linked above. I wanted to set out the hypothetical so that there was no danger of ambiguity and I wanted to direct my question specifically to those posters who have gone on record as saying they would never, ever torture. Those posters include (but are not limited to) Cervaise, Der Trihs, and Baldwin. I wanted to address these posters (and all who concur with them) because I think their beliefs concerning torture are unethical while they would argue that their beliefs concerning torture are ethical. I would like them to consider my hypothetical, I would like them to answer and, if they state that they would still not torture the captive, I would like to explore the reasoning which leads them to that decision.*
Q) Why so many caveats?
A) Because they were all raised in the linked thread above started by The Controvert. Incidentally, this thread was borne out of my frustration over the amount of caveats posters were raising in The Controvert’s thread. I felt that they were tapdancing around the obvious ‘Yes’ or ‘No’ question at the heart of his OP and choosing to avoid the responsibility of answering by nitpicking at irrelevancies such as the difficulty of ascertaining the captive’s guilt. Obviously, in the real world, the captive’s guilt is a foremost concern. However, in simple thought experiments like The Controvert’s or my own, their guilt is not a concern. They are guilty because we say they are and they’re our hypotheticals so either suck it up and play along or don’t bother answering.
Q) Your hypothetical is unrealistic.
A) *You don’t say. I don’t care that it’s unrealistic. I’ve never come across that thought experiment that wasn’t unrealistic. The important thing about this hypothetical is not its verisimilitude, it’s the fact that its boundaries are clearly delineated. The question is simple and the terms of the question are unambiguous. *
Q) Your hypothetical doesn’t prove anything about the efficacy or morality of torture in the real world.
A) Absolutely. It’s not meant to. It is only meant as a tool to explore the perspective of those posters who have gone on record as saying that they would oppose torture no matter what the scenario.
I think that covers just about everything. To summarise, your options are:
A) Torture, and save hundreds of millions of lives.
B) Make the decision not to torture, and by doing so consign hundreds of millions of people to certain death.
I sincerely look forward to reading some responses.