Torture- Never, or sometimes?

[Valandil]

Lief - I think that's a good point about what torture might do to the ones who carry it out. I think that speaks well to the ethical situation.

Those who seek to do a 'greater good' by torturing the bad guys (to attempt to stop even worse bad guys), in doing so, become the worst kind of 'bad guys' themselves.

[Earniel]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

These are technical reasons for not using torture, rather than ethical. [...]The lie telling point is, again, technical.

Perhaps. I know you wanted to discuss this from the ethical point of view, but I think this does have a bearing on the ethical side of the discussion as well. Since the technical reasons already condemn torturing as an unnecessary method of interrogation, I think this also makes torture even less ethically acceptable.

(And personally I think that narrowing this down to solely an ethical discussion, makes one lose sight of the full scope of the torture-issue.)

[Lief Erikson]

Perhaps. All right then, I'll broaden the subject to include the practical aspects of torture. But I'm not yet able to debate with anyone about that .

Originally Posted by Valandil

Those who seek to do a 'greater good' by torturing the bad guys (to attempt to stop even worse bad guys), in doing so, become the worst kind of 'bad guys' themselves.

This can happen. It can happen in war, as well. Soldiers in combat situations sometimes can be transformed into living monsters. We all agree that this is far from a constant, however. Soldiers who go into battle aren't always transformed into living monsters. Many times they are not. Torture is also blasting an opponent to smitherines in order to protect your own people. So I fail to see exactly where the difference lies.

[The Gaffer]

I think that the "technical" issue of whether it gives you reliable information is absolutely relevant.

Presumably no-one would argue that torture is OK in and of itself. So, there has to be an end to justify the means. Which means that the only possible argument in support of torture is a technical one. Which in turn means that if we defeat that argument, there can be no basis for torture, unless it is for some other purpose, such as fun, punishment or to send some sort of message to the tortured person's allies.

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

It is evident from many of his words that Jesus believed he was God, the same God as was present throughout the Old Testament. God as seen in the Old Testament undoubtedly believed that war could at times be necessary. Jesus' close followers believed that war could at times be just. They believed that Jesus himself would return from heaven to lead a violent war against the Antichrist and the sinful people of the Earth (see Revelation). That we have should seek peace does not mean that we are to never fight.

i'll skip ghandi to keep things shorter, but...

it seems to me that as far as the bible goes, any kind of ethical justifications for killing (and one would assume this would include both war and torture) were in the province of god himself

the commandment does not say "thou shalt not kill, except in cases of self defense"... and rightly so, since almost any action can be justified as self-defense... terrorists do this, claiming that they do what they do to preserve their society, and that it is the only method they have available when faced with an enemy they can not possibly defeat by traditional methods

what jesus' followers believed is not necessarily what jesus believed... nor is revelation a basis for mankind's justifications... it is clearly a singular event, and one where god/jesus, not mankind, makes the ethical judgements

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

I'm arguing that it might be ethically justified as an act of war, and am waiting for a response.

when you look at quotes like:

You have heard that it was said, "You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy."

But I say to you, love your enemies, bless those who curse you, do good to those who hate you, and pray for those who spitefully use you and persecute you, that you may be sons of your Father in heaven; for He makes His sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the just and on the unjust. For if you love those who love you, what reward have you? Do not even the tax collectors do the same? And if you greet your brethren only, what do you do more than others? Do not even the tax collectors do so? Therefore you shall be perfect, just as your Father in heaven is perfect.

i think you are hard-pressed to say that even war is justified from the point of view of jesus... and if war is not justified, neither is an act of torture framed within it

if you draw your morality from thomas aquinas, you might think differently... but he was not jesus, and his ideas not necessarily all compatible with those of the bible

[Insidious Rex]

Did someone say Pliny the Younger??

[Pytt]

Who's that?

[Insidious Rex]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

Soldiers who go into battle aren't always transformed into living monsters. Many times they are not. Torture is also blasting an opponent to smitherines in order to protect your own people. So I fail to see exactly where the difference lies.

Theres a HUGE difference between giving soldiers on both sides guns and telling them kill the enemy soldier before he kills you and strapping a helpless person to a chair and sticking needles in their eyes. You dont see that? As horrific as the first scenario is at least its man on man with an outcome in possible doubt. In the second scenario there is no combat. There is no self defense. There is just purposeful unnecessary abuse by one party in total power over another.

[Rían]

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

the commandment does not say "thou shalt not kill, except in cases of self defense"...

Again, as Rad (our resident Israeli) pointed out, the word is "kill" as in murder-kill. As you read through the Law in the Bible, there are many descriptions and exceptions, such as self-defense.

[Rían]

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

Theres a HUGE difference between giving soldiers on both sides guns and telling them kill the enemy soldier before he kills you and strapping a helpless person to a chair and sticking needles in their eyes. You dont see that? As horrific as the first scenario is at least its man on man with an outcome in possible doubt. In the second scenario there is no combat. There is no self defense. There is just purposeful unnecessary abuse by one party in total power over another.

Yes, I think the whole stripping of power and dignity thing is horrific.

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

Again, as Rad (our resident Israeli) pointed out, the word is "kill" as in murder-kill. As you read through the Law in the Bible, there are many descriptions and exceptions, such as self-defense.

i'd be curious to see some specific examples, especially is jesus' case

[Rían]

the "Law" refers to the O.T. (Old Testament).

In Jesus's opinion (in the New Testament) even calling someone a fool is murder (Matt. chpt. 5)

One of the most important purposes of the O.T. Law is to show us that we cannot keep it on our own steam. We have broken it willfully, and thus deserve any consequence we get.

Jesus NEVER spoke against the Law; in fact, he claimed to FULFILL it exactly, and even do MORE than it required. And he fulfilled it in our place, which was allowed by the LawGiver (God), and paid the consequences of our failure for anyone that chooses to accept it.

I didn't mean to preach; it's just that your question had several ramifications that needed to be addressed in order to give a complete answer. In summary - OT law made it very clear that it's killing-for-gain type thing (commonly called murder) that is wrong. Jesus made it very clear that the Law was right and good, and He fulfilled it completely (in fact, Jesus GAVE the Law, as He is God incarnate). He NEVER contradicted OT Law. He superceded it in cases, like the calling someone a fool case, or the "if you look at a woman with lust it's the same as adultery" case.

Anyway, again I didn't mean to preach, but your question seemed to call for that detail, IMO.

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

Anyway, again I didn't mean to preach, but your question seemed to call for that detail, IMO.

no problem... but what you've said sounds more like personal interpretation than "making things very clear"

how do you explain quotes like the "love your enemy" one i posted a few posts up?

it seems to me that if jesus felt it was okay to kill in self-defense he would have came right out and said it, or at least given some kind of parable where it was implied... it's not exactly a minor detail

in fact, if you look at his teachings, there are numerous instances where he preached against responding with violence... even when his followers lives were at stake

on top of this, many christians believe that there is no such thing as "justifiable violence", and they point to jesus' words on multiple matters involving violence as proof of this... are they missing something?

[Butterbeer]

Torture- Never, or sometimes?

inspired by Spock, the legend ... i propose to begin a new tradition (for me anyway) of short succinct answers ...

so here goes BB's get shorty #1...

Torture- Never, or sometimes?
never first, sometimes, second ... but only if routes 5594, 5595, AND 5596 are no use...

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

Theres a HUGE difference between giving soldiers on both sides guns and telling them kill the enemy soldier before he kills you and strapping a helpless person to a chair and sticking needles in their eyes. You dont see that? As horrific as the first scenario is at least its man on man with an outcome in possible doubt. In the second scenario there is no combat. There is no self defense. There is just purposeful unnecessary abuse by one party in total power over another.

The situations aren't so straight-forward as you make out. First of all, I will mention that war is not a matter of having a pair of equally equipped soldiers fighting one another. It is frequently a matter of destroying civilians. Sherman's March and the firebombing of Japan in World War 2 would be good examples of this. Sometimes this sort of killing is simply necessary, because the civilians (or many of them) are also involved in the war effort. They are paying taxes to support the military machine you're fighting against. They are feeding and clothing your enemies, and essentially putting the enemy in the field of battle. They are often just as much enemies as the opposing soldier is. They simply are not holding the gun. So these also are situations, in war, where the outcome is not in doubt. In spite of this, such actions can be self defense. If Sherman had not marched through the South, many agree that the war would have been far more protracted and bloody. This is quite simply because in war, there are enemies who are not holding guns, and they also must be dealt with- perhaps killed, perhaps their property destroyed. Often, the only way to defeat an opposing country is to destroy its ability to churn out more armies.

Now about torture. What I said about war is related though, you will see. With torture, you are again destroying an unarmed enemy, just as you are when you firebomb Japan. When you firebomb Japan, you are destroying civilians in self-defense, because if you don't, they will aid their war effort in destroying you. In torturing an enemy, you are again seeking to save lives on your side of the war through a hideous method. Firebombing Japan is certainly a hideous method of winning the war, I'm sure we'd all agree. Torture is likewise a hideous method of seeking to save lives. So there is certainly a link between self-defense, or saving lives, and torture, just as there is in war.

Even in war, in situations where one soldier is shooting at another, you are using the hideous method (tearing an attacker to pieces with whatever weaponry you're using) to save lives.

The situations war and torture can be linked, or at least so it appears to me.

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

no problem... but what you've said sounds more like personal interpretation than "making things very clear"

Everything she said is scriptural. I've read it . Do you want citations?

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

how do you explain quotes like the "love your enemy" one i posted a few posts up?

And how do you explain passages like the one where Jesus attacks the impious people in the temple? They were buying and selling in the temple, and Jesus attacked them with a whip he fashioned of cords.

I'll briefly tell you my explanation, which is more of an interpretation than the scriptures RÃ*an preached are , but which I think makes sense.

Jesus wanted people to do good to those hurt them as individuals, and he wanted people to turn the other cheek to their enemies as individuals. Perhaps this sometimes can apply to communities as well. However, many of the scriptures are referring to how people should behave as individuals. If I am abused, I should turn the other cheek. If I see someone else being abused, however, I should take action on behalf of the other person. It is wrong for me to stand by and ignore injustice.

That is the general code of behavior I seek to live by.

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

it seems to me that if jesus felt it was okay to kill in self-defense he would have came right out and said it, or at least given some kind of parable where it was implied... it's not exactly a minor detail

There are many issues Jesus didn't refer to in the recorded Gospels, but these are pretty much summed up in the fact that he never says anything against any part of the Law, but rather says, "I am the fulfillment of the Law," and also, "it is easier for heaven and earth to disappear than for the smallest stroke of the pen written in the Law to disappear." I may be mixing up the word "disappear" with "broken" or "pass away". That last word was something to that effect.

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

in fact, if you look at his teachings, there are numerous instances where he preached against responding with violence... even when his followers lives were at stake

He spoke against murder. He never spoke against war. God in the OT spoke against murder, but also not against war. In Ecclesiasties, there is a useful passage I might refer to, which says that there is a time and place for everything, including, "a time for peace and a time for war." There are times when going to war is not moral. There are times when refraining from going to war is immoral. There are times when turning the other cheek is moral, and there are times when turning the other cheek is immoral. Jesus is supposed to have freed us from the legalism of the Law, enabling us to follow the Holy Spirit, as he instructs us about the scripture.

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

on top of this, many christians believe that there is no such thing as "justifiable violence", and they point to jesus' words on multiple matters involving violence as proof of this... are they missing something?

They are missing the book of Revelation. They are missing the account of Jesus in the Temple, which is written in the Gospels. They are the Law of Moses that Jesus claimed to be the fulfillment of. They are missing the fact that when God knew something to be right in the scripture, he acted on his knowledge, and he expected his followers to act with him, even in matters of violence. In the Law of Moses, God clearly advocated that the death penalty be used in various circumstances in court systems- human systems permitted by God.

[Rían]

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

no problem... but what you've said sounds more like personal interpretation than "making things very clear"

how do you explain quotes like the "love your enemy" one i posted a few posts up?

it seems to me that if jesus felt it was okay to kill in self-defense he would have came right out and said it, or at least given some kind of parable where it was implied... it's not exactly a minor detail

in fact, if you look at his teachings, there are numerous instances where he preached against responding with violence... even when his followers lives were at stake

on top of this, many christians believe that there is no such thing as "justifiable violence", and they point to jesus' words on multiple matters involving violence as proof of this... are they missing something?

Are you aware of when Jesus made a whip and chased out the moneylenders from the temple area, knocking over their tables?

I"m leaving to go out of town tomorrow morning and am busy getting ready now - I'm afraid a longer reply will have to wait. What I said is not a matter of interpretation, I can give references to all of it.

[Rían]

oh, funny, Lief - I just saw your post and you said the same thing I did!

(NOTE to self - discuss when back - interpretation of actions re motive; taking gun example; goals of visit; eternity; comfort.)

[Butterbeer]

well, going back a bit to the opening ...

"permitted by whom?"

"governments"


Lief ... if if is left up to governments, why do we bother to discuss it?

Surely, this is a personal individual discussion?

Else, we have it tabled (as if we could) at the UN or G8 or whatever secretly really important round (or square) table and have done with it, as we'll never know what is spoken or decided and why ...

but, as you know from elsewhere it concerns me that Christians can counteance the evils against the gospel, as for example Torture represents,

a) at all

but B) in the name of god or morality based on his teachings ...

is it not from your perspesctive ultimately for God to decide and judge?

and not knowing that for sure ... should we not take the devil's path and in any way endorse torture?

any means to an end ultimately denies the teachings of christ and supports the 'i can do what i wish' morality of the devil ...

what's your view on this?

best all BB

[Curubethion]

If it's left up to governments, all the more reason to discuss it, so that those of us who live in a free government can protest and get it changed...

[Butterbeer]

well quite ...

thanks Big C for putting it so well ...