That's not a defintion of torture, it's not even a definition of unpleasant or wrong. Using that definition it's torture to engage in consensual sex. At least I wouldn't be comftable going into details about my sex life in front of a bunch of kids.
So self-defense would be torture, eh?
MrFrankZito
Thinker
- Joined
- May 14, 2005
- Messages
- 226
I would not support torture for any person in any conceivable circumstance. I am unequivocally, completely opposed to the entire notion. In the same vein, I am unequivocally, completely opposed to the entire notion of the death penalty. I would not even sentence bin Laden or Hussein to the death penalty.
Hello, MrFrankZito.
I would say "Welcome", except you've actually been here longer than I have. But, welcome to the discussion.This is the kind of discussion I was trying to get going. Strip it down to just the core of the issue itself (putting aside any chances of an innocent person being put through any pain at all), and see where people stand.
So I am curious, why are you opposed to it? And does your opposition to torture come from the same root as your opposition to the death penalty?
I started this thread simply because I was curious about the position you describe. So often, people speak against torture in terms of saying "It doesn't get reliable information", "You might be torturing an innocent person", etc. I wanted to do away with those sort of possibilities, and see if any opposition to torture remains. So this is an interesting discussion to me.
I can't see how someone can evaluate the morality of most actions (there are exceptions, as there are for just about everything) without considering the "why".
"I locked him in a cage for the rest of his life."
"Why?"
"I felt like it. He didn't do anything wrong. But I got off on it."
"YOU MONSTER!!!"
Compared to...
"I locked him in a cage for the rest of his life."
"Why?"
"I'm a judge, and he had been convicted of 17 murders. I gave him 17 life sentences."
"Whew! I'm glad that guy's off the streets! Good job!"
Obvious difference, isn't it?
Earthborn
Terrestrial Intelligence
You didn't do away with the "unreliable information" problem.
I disagree. In a case where you are absolutely 100% certain about having the correct person, and there is very specific information you are looking for, torture is very effective. It is the "Tell us whatever you know" scenarios that the issue you describe comes up.
If we condone torture surely we become terrorists too - that is people prepared to inspire terror to further their cause. We are then no better than the bad guys.
On a practical point how could you be certain your prisoner was the right man unless you caught him with the bomb in his hand?
If Al Queda knew we would use torture they would issue cyanide pills, just as SOE operatives carried in WW2
On a practical point how could you be certain your prisoner was the right man unless you caught him with the bomb in his hand?
If Al Queda knew we would use torture they would issue cyanide pills, just as SOE operatives carried in WW2
DoubtingStephen
Queer Propagandist
- Joined
- Dec 6, 2005
- Messages
- 1,545
Best answer to a silly question.
Whether we believe in a social contract that says "Don't kill me and I won't kill you" or in an ethical code that exists independently of the social contract, most people seem to agree that some things are inherently wrong and should not be done. For example, most people agree that it is wrong to kill your neighbors children, or your own for that matter.
Torture is an inherently wrong thing to do, and it should not be done.
Some may recall that one of the reasons given for invading Iraq was the well documented fact that Saddam was responsible for the torture of prisoners. Nobody said, when this was being reported in the American press, that the persons being tortured by Saddam did not deserve to be tortured. It was assumed that each person being tortured should not be tortured. Alberto Gonzales was not consulted as an expert on torture, it was just condemned.
It also would not be good to ignore an imminent threat to the lives of thousands of people. As Earthborn suggests, every effort should be made to get information from the miscreant in this wildly unlikely scenario.
I've always disagreed with that logic. I often use the example of locking somone in a cage. Look a few posts higher, and you'll see my response to fishbob. Different situations and different people call for different actions. What is an immoral action to one person in one situation might not necessarily be an immoral action to a different person in a different situation.
Is it not torture to take and innocent person, and (knowing they are innocent) lock them in prison for the rest of his life? He has done nothing wrong, and his captors admit they know he has done nothing wrong. They are doing it just because they think it is fun to watch this innocent person suffer in jail for the rest of his life. It is entertainment for them.
Now...make that person a 17-time murderer, and his captors part of a legal system of a democracy, and preceed the jailing with a fair trial and a conviction, and take away the entertainment that the captors are getting (it is a job now, not fun)...is it torture anymore?
Tony
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Mar 5, 2003
- Messages
- 15,410
Translation: Because I agree with it and because we're the "good guys", it's ok for us to torture.
No, not becase "we're the good guys", but because "he's the bad guy". As my jail example states.
Do you think every single person in the world should be treated perfectly equally? Regardless of what they do? I'm sure you don't.
The only disagreement you and I have is where the line is drawn. That's all.
DoubtingStephen
Queer Propagandist
- Joined
- Dec 6, 2005
- Messages
- 1,545
That sounds more like false imprisonment than torture.
No, now it is reduced to imprisonment. That is not torture. They are completely different things. I think it is just for a society to restrict the activities of a psychopathic person. To fail to do so would be to ignore one of the most basic reasons why people form societies - to provide for mutual protection.
Really? Wow. I can't imagine a WORSE torture than a false life sentence, with no chance whatsoever of ever being released. I would be insane (well...more than I am now
) in a matter of days.ETA...so, you don't think intentional false imprisonment can be considered a form of torture? If it isn't, then what is it?
The locking a person in a cage analogy does not stand in my opinion. Case 1 suggests unlawful detention, and all civilised societies disagree with this starting with habeus corpus in 700 years ago. Case 2 suggests a protection of the public from a convicted miscreant, plus an element of punishment - but not torture.
Morals certainly differ from person to person, but that does not mean we must accept other moral standards as equally valid - otherwise I will decide to follow ancient Roman morals and keep slaves.
I do not believe you can change your morals to fit circumstances ever. If you do you become the bad guy every time.
Morals certainly differ from person to person, but that does not mean we must accept other moral standards as equally valid - otherwise I will decide to follow ancient Roman morals and keep slaves.
I do not believe you can change your morals to fit circumstances ever. If you do you become the bad guy every time.
Hello, Howie. Welcome.
BTW...I'm not trying to be deliberately obtuse. I'm not trying to annoy anybody. I just think that breaking the issue down into its specific components, and determining why we think the way we do, is very interesting.
I agree that case 1 is unlawful imprisonment. But would you consider it to be a form of torture?
Earthborn
Terrestrial Intelligence
And you know this how exactly?
Anyway... I might agree with you that torture is effective at making someone want to give you the correct information. But because it hurts the very medium on which the information is written, it is also very effective at making that person unable to tell you that information. Even unable to understand what you are asking of him.
When lives are at stake, you don't treat the person with the information well because of some sort of moral obligation. You do it in order to protect the information. You can forget about the welfare of the terrorist, you can even forget about him being a human. Just think of it as treating the life saving information well, the terrorist is just the thing that happens to be what that information is stored on.
Don't put the diskette in the microwave. Handle it with care.
Hi Freakshow - if I knew how to do the smiley thing I'd send one!
You are quite right to be obtuse - the devil is always in the detail.
Yes - imprisonment is torture. I would dread it. But it does not disfigure permanently (except maybe psychologically) and it is not hideously painful. Given human adaptability it can be endured and used to advantage e.g. Nelson Mandela. Torture destroys people, that is why it is indefensible.
You are quite right to be obtuse - the devil is always in the detail.
Yes - imprisonment is torture. I would dread it. But it does not disfigure permanently (except maybe psychologically) and it is not hideously painful. Given human adaptability it can be endured and used to advantage e.g. Nelson Mandela. Torture destroys people, that is why it is indefensible.
Well, some people will be obtuse just to irritating and to get a kick out of annoying people.
I do it in this case simply because I think it is a very interesting conversation. It is often interesting to change from saying "Its just right" or "Its just wrong" to actually examining all the small parts and trying to determine why we think/feel the way we do.I think some forms of torture could be done without disfiguring someone permanently, or by keeping it to a minimum. And maybe even with long-term psychological damage no worse than being falsely imprisoned for a long length of time.
I'll tell you what I see as the difference between torturing a guilty person, and locking the guilty person in jail. In other words: why a jail term isn't considered torture, even though it could be extremely unpleasant.
The jail term does not exist for the single sole purpose of inflicting pain. It may inflict a degree of physical and psychological discomfort, but those are "side effects", and not necessarily the sole, or even primary, reason for the action.
Does that make sense?