Torture- Never, or sometimes?

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by 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...

Our governments are made up of elected individuals. Thus, the decision on whether torture is allowed or not comes back to the people of the country. Governments would do the torturing because the people believe that the law is good. It is obvious, as you point out, that we would be involved in the process of whether such a law were rejected or accepted.

Originally Posted by Butterbeer

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

For sure, God will judge everyone in the Last Days. However, he wishes for us to do his will here on Earth as well. This sometimes includes violence. For example, in the Old Testament the Lord set up a court system involving witnesses and judgment. These court systems also were permitted by God to use the death penalty in some cases. It's obvious that as humans were wielding the system, some mistakes inevitably were made. Nonetheless, God allowed humans to use their judgment, seeking to do his will, according to certain laws he ordered in the Old Testament days of Israel.

Originally Posted by Butterbeer

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

I do not intend to endorse the use of torture until the evidence that it is morally valid outweighs to me the evidence that it is not. Usually for me, on ethical issues, I wait until I have heard a word from the Lord on the matter. The Lord speaks in many ways, but I definitely never leave him out of my thought processes on such matters as this. Prayer (which involves hearing from him directly as well as speaking to him) is essential when coming to conclusions on issues of such importance.[/sermon]

Originally Posted by Butterbeer

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?

My view is that you are incorrect. The "means to an end" of spanking your child so that he or she does not grow up into a selfish brat is commonly accepted. People who refuse to spank their children still will often lecture their child, another "means to an end," which is less effective (I bear witness; I've only known one person who was never spanked, and she has some issues still in her adult life that I think some good early on spankings would have helped with), is still annoying to the child. The "means to an end" of putting up traffic tickets to prevent speeding and deaths is a likewise frustrating experience for those who have feel the hard end of the law. The "means to an end" of imprisonment for crimes is a hard experience too for offenders. The "means to an end" of life imprisonment or the death penalty are another step up, in my view. Might the "means to an end" of torturing to stop terrorism be acceptable?

It's an issue of drawing the line. Some "means to an end" everyone accepts, so the argument that "the ends never justify the means", is quite obviously invalid. However, it is quite obvious also that sometimes the ends do not justify the means. For example, if I hung my child up by his toes as punishment for sneaking candies, that would very likely solve the issue. It is doubtful that he will ever steal candies again. However, it is a clearly invalid means to an end. Where to draw the line is an interesting question, and the answer is not clear to me.

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

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

It was a good point .

[Insidious Rex]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

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.

Ok nevermind for a moment that firebombing civilians certainly isn’t a widely praised tactic either… Theres still a big difference in that we are killing them not torturing them cruelly then possibly killing them. There in lies the difference! And its pointless because it doesn’t provide good intel and it only turns the enemy more against you and rallies people who would otherwise be on the fence to the side of the enemy. It doesn’t WORK.

Something that I don’t think has been really defined here is what exactly you mean when you say “torture�. When most people think of torture they think of horrible unspeakable sadistic rituals involving hot irons or racks or sticking things in certain places or nipping off certain body parts etc. Just gastly stuff. But some people consider sleep deprivation torture. Or being forced to appear naked in front of women torture. Or holding a gun to ones head torture. So just what is it you had in mind exactly?

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.

Again, the difference is its basically a “fair game� under those conditions (although it’s a twisted usage of that term considering that heavy ballistics are often involved). Torture isn’t a fair game. Second, when I “tear an attacker to pieces� one could say Im giving them a merciful death. When I pull someones finger nails out and cut off their tongue Im hurting them purposefully and cruelly. In effect, Im purposefully keeping them alive because I want them to feel pain… Third, killing an army can save lives in the long run (civilian lives). Torturing someone invariably gives you no good information to save lives with and makes things worse for you in the long run

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

Ok nevermind for a moment that firebombing civilians certainly isn’t a widely praised tactic either… Theres still a big difference in that we are killing them not torturing them cruelly then possibly killing them. There in lies the difference!

I doubt that the radiation victims of Nagasaki or Hiroshima would consider it a very significant difference.

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

And its pointless because it doesn’t provide good intel and it only turns the enemy more against you and rallies people who would otherwise be on the fence to the side of the enemy. It doesn’t WORK.

You'll have to find some other devil's advocate to discuss that with you. I just don't know enough yet.

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

Something that I don’t think has been really defined here is what exactly you mean when you say “torture�. When most people think of torture they think of horrible unspeakable sadistic rituals involving hot irons or racks or sticking things in certain places or nipping off certain body parts etc. Just gastly stuff. But some people consider sleep deprivation torture. Or being forced to appear naked in front of women torture. Or holding a gun to ones head torture. So just what is it you had in mind exactly?

For the sake of argument, let's say I'm the unspeakable sadist.

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

Again, the difference is its basically a “fair game� under those conditions (although it’s a twisted usage of that term considering that heavy ballistics are often involved). Torture isn’t a fair game.

I think I already responded to your thoughts about "fair game". I, frankly, consider the "fair game" idea to be rather absurd. Saddam Hussein's soldiers were taken apart in the early phases of our war in Iraq with insanely few casualties on our side, because of our advanced technology. Should we have limited our technology use in order to give them a fair chance? Should we never bomb enemy supply convoys? Should we stop using aircraft altogether against enemy ground forces unless they have anti-aircraft guns? I think the idea that we should let our enemy be "fair game" is absolutely absurd. It belongs in Hollywood movies' hero against villain conclusions, not in the real world.

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

Second, when I “tear an attacker to pieces� one could say Im giving them a merciful death. When I pull someones finger nails out and cut off their tongue Im hurting them purposefully and cruelly. In effect, Im purposefully keeping them alive because I want them to feel pain…

The amputation victims from the Civil War might be disagreeing with you about now. The burn victims from bombing runs who survive, mutilated, might likewise have a rather different perspective on war.

The point of torture is not always to keep people alive to make them feel pain. That is many times absolutely not the purpose in it. Sometimes it is done strictly for the purpose of saving lives, by making an example of enemies to intimidate opponents, thus weakening their war effort, or to gain information that will preserve the lives of your own people.

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

Third, killing an army can save lives in the long run (civilian lives). Torturing someone invariably gives you no good information to save lives with and makes things worse for you in the long run

Okay, that's another technical point. I'm sure it's arguable, but I don't really want to attack these arguments at this point, however. I'm not equipped to do so.

When considering the death penalty, I first went into the issue of whether or not it was ethical and then afterward into whether or not it was practical. The ethics mean the most to me. A policy usually has to pass both tests, however, to be valid to me.

I'm beginning to suspect that there cannot be a moral objection from an atheist/agnostic perspective. Perhaps the only possible objections from that standpoint must be technical.

RÃ*an, what are your thoughts on the issue of torture?

[Lief Erikson]

Bump (probably unnecessary).

[The Gaffer]

FYI, the definition of torture under international law:

the term "torture" means any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity. It does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in or incidental to lawful sanctions.

[Lief Erikson]

That sounds to me like a fine definition.

[Linaewen]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

I'm beginning to suspect that there cannot be a moral objection from an atheist/agnostic perspective. Perhaps the only possible objections from that standpoint must be technical.

Well, what about all those protests (on the first page) that torture is: barbaric, uncivilised, disgusting, unconscionable, inhumane etc? If I'm not mistaken, these are moral objections, and many are from atheists/agnostics.

[Earniel]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

I'm beginning to suspect that there cannot be a moral objection from an atheist/agnostic perspective. Perhaps the only possible objections from that standpoint must be technical.

I disagree. But I think most of us in this discussion consider the moral objection to be a given and therefore don't bring it into the discussion. Hence we automatically move over to the 'technical' objections since they're more variable to situations and opinions, and therefore more discussable.

[Valandil]

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?

I'll stick my neck out just a little - to Rian and Lief ironically - only to say that yes, matters of war and such ARE disputed topics within Christianity - and have been for a long time. However - getting into THAT would take us off on a whole other topic. I think there can be a strong case for Christian Pacifism - although I don't totally agree with it, just like Rian and Lief seem to not agree with it. There are many Christians who do though, and unlike in come other disagreements within the realm of Christianity, there's a lot of scriptural support for it.

Like I said though, it would basically turn into a hi-jack of this thread.

Lief - I'm glad you willingly broadened this discussion from ONLY ethical to BOTH ethical and practical. I think to different people, there could be a varying amount of connection between the two.

Here's a question to toss out: If torture DID generally provide information (or other results) which was/were useful and/or helpful - would it THEN be OK?

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by Valandil

I'll stick my neck out just a little - to Rian and Lief ironically - only to say that yes, matters of war and such ARE disputed topics within Christianity - and have been for a long time. However - getting into THAT would take us off on a whole other topic. I think there can be a strong case for Christian Pacifism - although I don't totally agree with it, just like Rian and Lief seem to not agree with it. There are many Christians who do though, and unlike in come other disagreements within the realm of Christianity, there's a lot of scriptural support for it.

Like I said though, it would basically turn into a hi-jack of this thread.

thanks Val, my point exactly... it's not cut and dry... i'm well aware of the money-lenders tale, and while you can call it violence, jesus did not kill them, he only chased them from the temple... and the situation, protecting the house of god, is a far cry from justifications based on much more "earthly" concerns

but for this one i'll agree... it would take things quite off-topic, though maybe and interesting one to address another time if i'm feeling more ambitious

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

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.

i think the crux of the matter is what you define as "necessary"... sherman's march was a tactic used to defeat the south, but just because it was successful does not mean that it was the best tactic... when we speak of "violence to avoid greater violence", it is usually from the pov of the lives on your side... saving union soldier's lives, or saving american lives... not necessary saving lives in terms of both sides

and if you look at the bigger picture of the civil war, which was not about slavery, but about keeping us together as a single country... one could very easily argue that it was simply not worth it... was it "necessary" to keep us as one nation? was it worth 600,000 lives?

this may be an easy question from a nationalistic standpoint, but it is a tough question from a purely moral standpoint... the people of the south were not "evil", and the slavery issue would eventually have taken care of itself, as it did in the rest of the free world... can one say without a shadow of a doubt that two separate countries living along side each other to this very day would have necessarily been a worse outcome if it spared 600,000 lives?

we even see this moral dilemma today when we conduct war via bombing... a technique that is much safer in terms of preserving the lives of american servicemen, but much more costly when it comes to civilian lives lost on the opposing side

and when you speak of "enemies not holding guns", you have to remember that their motivations may simply be self-preservation of their way of life, their families and their own lives... in situations like the southern rebellion during the civil war or germany/japan during ww2, the average civilian had very little choice over whether or not to go to war... they were forced into the situation by a relatively small group of individuals and responded the only way they could... self-defense

i highly suggest you read this entire article on Hiroshima... it gives a very interesting perspective on the idea of "necessary"

the bottom line, if you choose not to read it, is that there were many diplomatic possibilities that may have avoided the "necessity" of dropping the two atomic bombs

which, in turn, goes back to torture... the "technicalities" are the most important aspects... does it work? is it the best course of action? and, even if it does work, does it set a precedent or create a situation that is ultimately even more dangerous than the one we were trying to avoid in the first place by employing torture?

[Insidious Rex]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

I doubt that the radiation victims of Nagasaki or Hiroshima would consider it a very significant difference.

Do you think they dropped the bomb in hopes of torturing people? Or killing? This was a device of death that atomized skin and flesh and bone in miliseconds. And as youll recall they still didnt have a great grasp on the secondary effects of radiation long term. They were still drinking "plutonium water" in the 50s to show how harmless it was...

For the sake of argument, let's say I'm the unspeakable sadist.

Ha ha! Lief the unspeakable sadist. It has a nice ring to it.

I think I already responded to your thoughts about "fair game". I, frankly, consider the "fair game" idea to be rather absurd. Saddam Hussein's soldiers were taken apart in the early phases of our war in Iraq with insanely few casualties on our side, because of our advanced technology. Should we have limited our technology use in order to give them a fair chance? Should we never bomb enemy supply convoys? Should we stop using aircraft altogether against enemy ground forces unless they have anti-aircraft guns? I think the idea that we should let our enemy be "fair game" is absolutely absurd. It belongs in Hollywood movies' hero against villain conclusions, not in the real world.

Youre not understanding what I mean by “fair game�. I put it in quotes for a reason. Combatants purposefully seeking to capture or kill the other or take out his resources by violent means is “fair game� to me. Even if its high tech M-16 wielding marines versus natives with spears its still technically fair game. Because they are BOTH on the field of battle willing to fight and/or committed to opposing the other by means of arms. When you capture someone they are no longer in this position. So binding them so they are helpless and unarmed and then doing violent things to them is cruel and not at all an act of war.

Which brings up yet another good reason NOT to torture. Because of the precedent it sets. If you are the most powerful force on earth and you resort to cruelly torturing your prisoners then you are giving others the impetus and the right to torture your captured soldiers or innocents. If we are to speak about following the rules of war and promoting democracy and fairness and decency toward our fellow humans then we do ourselves a great disservice by turning around and doing exactly what we condemn others for doing. After all isn’t that part of the argument the administration used against Sadam Hussain? That he cruelly tortured his own citizens so he needed to be brought to justice for this? And what means do we use to do that? Why torture of course. Now does that make any sense to you whatsoever? If you want to be known as the pillar of “morality� and a shining example to other “lesser civilized� folks then you cant have it both ways.

The point of torture is not always to keep people alive to make them feel pain. That is many times absolutely not the purpose in it. Sometimes it is done strictly for the purpose of saving lives, by making an example of enemies to intimidate opponents, thus weakening their war effort, or to gain information that will preserve the lives of your own people.

And that certainly doesn’t work. It only riles people up. It only makes many many more fundamentalists willing to suicide bomb against you. It only pushes those in the middle more toward sympathizing with the fanatics. And does that really help you in the long run?

When considering the death penalty, I first went into the issue of whether or not it was ethical and then afterward into whether or not it was practical. The ethics mean the most to me. A policy usually has to pass both tests, however, to be valid to me.

Well ethics and morals are loaded terms that don’t really mean the same thing to different people. Why argue over that exactly when we are speaking a different language in effect. The practicalities of the situation seem so glaringly obvious to me that there is no real reason to get deeper into it at all. Theres a laundry list of reasons not to torture and theres no reason TO torture other then because you are as you say an unspeakable sadist…

I'm beginning to suspect that there cannot be a moral objection from an atheist/agnostic perspective. Perhaps the only possible objections from that standpoint must be technical.

Frankly I find reducing this to a religious argument or a believer vs. non-believer contest rather pathetic. It goes beyond that for me. Anybody, Christian or not, should be able to see immediately the ineffectiveness and counter productiveness and sheer hypocrisy of torture. Call it practical if you like. I just think its basic common sense. Doesn’t have to have a religious basis at all to see that. Why do certain people always insist on connecting every single action or thought process with religion or belief systems? I will never understand that really. To me this has nothing to do with being agnostic. Or christian. You can bet there are many christians who can justify torture to themselves just as there are many agnostics who can while at the same time there are people in both camps decidedly against it. So what does this tell us then?

[Jonathan]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

I'm beginning to suspect that there cannot be a moral objection from an atheist/agnostic perspective. Perhaps the only possible objections from that standpoint must be technical.

Oh you can't be serious...

It's not your religion that determines if there's morality in you. It is your own self that does. Christians can lack morality just as well as atheists/agnostics can be full of it.

[rohirrim TR]

wow it sort of is sounding like a philosophical debate now.
i posted on the first page about the inneffectiveness of torture maybe it didn't show up or something, anyway i basically said that it simply doesn't for the simple reason that if your torturings someone by sticking toothpicks in him and lighting them he's going to tell you what you want to know -whether he knows anything or not-to get the torture to stop.

Morally speaking -if were going to argue along those bounds-, torture is reprehensible. everyone here agrees on that it would seem.

I for one as a sith lord have never had a need for torture; force mind control works way better and i always know i'm getting the truth.

[Lief Erikson]

At this moment I'm in the middle of school work, so unfortunately, I don't have time to respond to everything in depth at this moment. I'm just posting to say that as regards my comment about atheism/agnosticism, I did come off pretty unclearly. I didn't mean that there are no atheists or agnostics who behave in a moral way . There certainly are some excellent atheists and some hideous Christians. What I said was just an aside, a comment that I don't think atheists have any rational reason from their belief system that justifies their moral stance. The only reasons they can use are technical. I know, they use words like "disgusting," at times. This doesn't jive with their belief system, however, for if there is no God and morality is man-invented, there is no real reason to NOT torture.

This is irrelevant though and extremely off-topic. Sorry for bringing it up .

I'll respond to the rest of what's been written as soon as I can!

[Spock]

IIRC the concept of ethics and good sportsmanship went out by the end of WW I. As Gen. Patton said "you win by letting the other guy bleed, the other guy die".

[The Gaffer]

Originally Posted by Valandil

Here's a question to toss out: If torture DID generally provide information (or other results) which was/were useful and/or helpful - would it THEN be OK?

Hmm. Interesting. It's that "if you knew what you know now and could go back in time to 1925, would you murder Hitler?" question. My answer is "in exceptional circumstances, probably." But the key thing about the question is that we know that those circumstances are not the case.

Chivalry in warfare is a myth, methinks. What changed was the technology of mass (and long-distance) killing, not our ethics.

[Spock]

What changed even more was the liberal establishment got a huge gain with mass communications...IMO

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

The only reasons they can use are technical. I know, they use words like "disgusting," at times. This doesn't jive with their belief system, however, for if there is no God and morality is man-invented, there is no real reason to NOT torture.

sure there is... the very reasons you choose to define as "technical" i would call real-world reasons... they make sense and benefit society... peaceful relations and unspoken "rules of war" are beneficial to eveyone, whether or not there is any afterlife or divine being... the non-believer derives his morality from the world we live in... and, in fact, i'd argue that most believers do to

in contrast, one could argue that the only way to make something appear moral that does not make any real-world "technical" sense is via morality derived from a supernatural source... this is what the terrorists do, as do some who oppose them

torture is wrong because of those very technical reasons... there is no need to look any further, and it is wrong to ignore them