Torture- Never, or sometimes?

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by Beor

I always get to the good threads far too late.

I dont know what was said so far, but I dont agree with torture at all because if you comprimise your ethical values, or morals, or whatever you call them, once, then you are more likely to continue to slip, until nothing really matter anymore.

I am sure that

One of the questions that has been raised is, "is it really immoral to torture an enemy in order to save lives on your own side?" A comparison that has been made is, "if we are willing to use the ugly means of war to achieve the positive end of preserving lives on our own side, why is it immoral to use torture to preserve lives on our side?"

Insidious Rex and Brownjenkins argue that torture is impractical, because it generates useless information, sets a bad precedent and strengthens our enemies. I am trying to avoid getting into the debate over those technical reasons, because I do not know enough to do so. In my personal views, I am still uncertain about whether torture is never justified, or whether it sometimes is. In order to better explore the issue, I have taken the devil's advocate position and am arguing in favor of using torture in some cases. I am particularly interested in debating the ethics of the matter, but I find myself running into difficulty because the only ethical argument I can get out of either Brownjenkins or Insidious Rex is Insidious' opinion that torture is wrong because the opponent isn't "fair game." "Fair game," according to his definition, is anyone that is seeking to fight us.

To me, ethics are the most important point regarding torture. After that comes practicality. If torture, in some cases, is ethical, that information is very important to me. If it never is, that information too is very important. I'd need to have it explained to me in a way I can clearly understand, either way, and my mind is very open on this matter to arguments from either side.

Practicality, to me, comes second. If the thing is right, that is important. However, many times it is also good for it to fulfill the practical test. Whether or not it will be effective, particularly in a matter such as torture, is very important.

Brownjenkins takes a different stance. According to him, ethics are born from practicality, and so practicality is all it really comes down to. I disagree . So I think that this in a very cursory way covers many of the major positions of the debate, thus far. The matter is not whether or not we should compromise our morals. I definitely agree that we shouldn't do that. The question is whether torture itself can at times be moral.

[Spock]

In war there is only the living and the dead. If by any means you can assure yourself and yours, to be placed in the former then whatever is needed to assure that is fair game....I'm rather Attilish on such matters

[The Gaffer]

Beor makes a good point about ethics, but I still think that the technical issue IS extremely important, as I don't think you can even contemplate the morality if you don't demonstrate that it works. Otherwise it would fail Spock's "Attila" test, and one could argue that we would then spend our time pursuing things that divert us from what will REALLY win us the "war".

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

Brownjenkins, your arguments that refer to "evil never pays," are always very interesting to me. The way I interpret it is that you've gotten an understanding of how God's justice often works out in practical experience without being a Christian! That's my perspective, and it's very interesting to observe those arguments.

Indeed, ethics do entwine with reality and practicality in an extremely real way. However, I approach it from the opposite perspective. To me, ethics do essentially "exist in vacuum." They existed before the world existed, and the practicalities spring from ethics. Why is an evil action often impractical, or why does it often draw a judgment? Because the theft is breaking a natural moral law that exists. When God created the moral laws, he created them as what is most practical as well as what is most good. Sins draw judgment in the world he created, and goodness can draw God's favor. It's fascinating to see how you see how some of this plays out in real life, without seeing it through the perspective of Christianity.

what i am saying is that good ethics = practicality

this is basically what you are also saying when you state "When God created the moral laws, he created them as what is most practical as well as what is most good."

let's put aside where morality comes from... it is irrelavant to the issue at hand... either we are moral because it is practical (as i say)... or we are moral because god created the moral laws (like you say)... but, god created the moral laws because they are, in fact, also practical! (they are not just arbitrary)

so, once again, it all hinges upon technicalities... god would not ask us to follow a moral path that was not the best possible path for maintaining peaceful coexistance with our fellow humans, would he?

obviously, this does not mean always "turning the other cheek"... but if we wish to discover the choice god would make on a given situation, we are best served by looking to the technicalities... and by this i mean the big picture... not just temporary gains like the wealth we gained as a country by killing off most of the american indian population, but the longterm negatives that still exist today by having a large group within our own country that often feel as outsiders and have many social issues that we still have to deal with to this very day as a result

it is not inconceivable that the american indian's cultures could have been melded into the colonistss culture in a much more peaceful way that would have lead to an even more successful and vibrant country than we have today... we can not change this past, but we can change the future

in the end, if a choice seems to be the right one technically when one looks at the big picture, it must be the moral choice god would prefer

[Spock]

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

in the end, if a choice seems to be the right one technically when one looks at the big picture, it must be the moral choice god would prefer

Your beginning to sound like Jerry Falwell.

I must have missed that publication by God.

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by Spock

Your beginning to sound like Jerry Falwell.

I must have missed that publication by God.

my crusade is to bring believers and unbelievers to a common ground... kicking and screaming, if i must

[Spock]

I'll have to ammend the prayer:

From ghosties and ghoulies
and four legged beasties
dear Lord protect us

to read

and four legged beasties
and brownjenkins

[-elfearz-]

I'm undecided about the broader relationship between ethics and practicality. But with respect to the question of torture alone, they seem inextricable. Torture involves inflicting extreme pain on another person. In the abstract, I am convinced this is unethical. If the torture is impractical, in the sense that it is unreliable as a mechanism for achieving the desired result of extracting (truthful) information, then nothing changes. The torture is simply the infliction of pain for no practical purpose, and to me, this cannot be ethical.

If the torture does serve a practical purpose, the waters are muddied. The ethical question then must be whether the end justifies the means. Personally I would still vote against the use of torture in any situation, simply because I think it is probably impossible to come up with a scheme for administering torture which ensures that both ethical and practical burdens are at all times met. Ultimately IMO these questions (particularly the ethical question) will be answered differently by every individual, and to be honest I don't have enough faith in the people with whom the authority to make decisions about torture will lie

[rohirrim TR]

A time is coming when we must choose between what is right, and what is easy.

~the harry potter wizard dude~

[-elfearz-]

Originally Posted by rohirrim TR

A time is coming when we must choose between what is right, and what is easy.

~the harry potter wizard dude~

Good ol' Dumbledore

What is the 'easy' option here?

[rohirrim TR]

I don't know, i just read the book and i thought it was a good quote.

[Spock]

Here's another good quote:
We have grasped the mystery of the atom and rejected the Sermon on the Mount.... The world has achieved brilliance without wisdom, power without conscience. Ours is a world of nuclear giants and ethical infants.
--Omar Bradley



----------------------------------
Have you ever noticed how some days you just get washed over by the sense of cosmic emptiness and lack of meaning? ....Onslow - Keeping up Appearances.

[brownjenkins]

Believe nothing, no matter where you read it, or who said it, no matter if I have said it, unless it agrees with your own reason and your own common sense. ~ Buddha

[rohirrim TR]

To be, or not to be....
~Shakespeare~

[Pytt]

This is widely off topic, isn't it?

"Christmas, children, is not a date. It is a state of mind."

Mary Ellen Chase

Since quotes is so 'in' in this thread

[Butterbeer]

all good quotes, but i vote for spock's and pytt's as the best ...

well, not really off topic, merely an interlude .. we rather await Lief!

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

what i am saying is that good ethics = practicality

Let's look at the life of Sulla the Happy, however. He was a vicious Roman general who went into Rome with his army and slaughtered all his political opponents. In war, he would crucify long lines of people. He was about as amoral, as bad of ethics, as they come. However, after leading ancient Rome for a while, he retired from public life and went and lived in a country estate, with his whores, treasures and luxuries, and he lived and died a happy man, his crimes never having caught up with him simply because there he had butchered all his political opponents. He ordered written on his grave stone, "I have no friend I have not rewarded and no enemy I have not punished." For Sulla, bad ethics = practicality.

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

let's put aside where morality comes from... it is irrelavant to the issue at hand... either we are moral because it is practical (as i say)... or we are moral because god created the moral laws (like you say)... but, god created the moral laws because they are, in fact, also practical! (they are not just arbitrary)

I wouldn't say that he created them because they are practical, but I agree that they are not arbitrary. God has a special design in many aspects of his moral laws. For example, sex. It symbolizes the relationship between God and his Church. It's not arbitrary, and the ideal of monogomous heterosexual wedlock is also the most practical. God doesn't create things because they are practical, but the practicality springs from the fulfillment of the moral law. However, not everything that is practical is ethical. This is most definitely also true. Sulla the Happy's success is a good example of this.

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

so, once again, it all hinges upon technicalities... god would not ask us to follow a moral path that was not the best possible path for maintaining peaceful coexistance with our fellow humans, would he?

Actually, in Christianity, that is exactly what he does. Christ said, "I have not come to bring peace but a sword!" He went on to describe how families would be split because of him. This has happened, as people who convert to Christianity have been persecuted even in their own families, ever since Pentecost. Doing what is right is essential, and often this does not bring peace, but rather turmoil.

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

obviously, this does not mean always "turning the other cheek"... but if we wish to discover the choice god would make on a given situation, we are best served by looking to the technicalities... and by this i mean the big picture... not just temporary gains like the wealth we gained as a country by killing off most of the american indian population, but the longterm negatives that still exist today by having a large group within our own country that often feel as outsiders and have many social issues that we still have to deal with to this very day as a result

Those social issues are very, very small, though, in comparison to the gains we had. Many of those Indian tribes absolutely refused to integrate with our culture, and also refused to move. Our land would have been broken up and much smaller if we had not acted as we did. The social issues really are massively outweighed by the enormous weights on the other end of the scale of prosperity and broad land ownership. I really feel that the North American Indians are another example of what was practical but not ethical. Sometimes what is practical is not ethical. For example, if you are in a concentration camp, stealing from your fellows so that you may live. Many survived in the concentration camp by doing hideous things, and sometimes by causing others to die. There are many examples I can hark to. Crime that you can get away with are examples. Some of these super-wealthy drug lords or prostitution ring leaders are also examples of people who gain enormous amounts of benefit from doing what's practical rather than what's ethical.

Somebody stole my bicycle a few years ago. He or she right now is enjoying what is practical rather than what is ethical, driving around on my truly excellent bicycle, having gotten away with the crime without any loss or drawback. The only problem this person might be experiencing is if he or she continued to steal and ended up getting caught for something else. This would be unrelated to the one crime. Not every crime is serial in nature. For example, often murderers are not serial murderers. People have gotten away with their crimes and been happy and unrepentant. They did what was practical and unethical.

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

it is not inconceivable that the american indian's cultures could have been melded into the colonistss culture in a much more peaceful way that would have lead to an even more successful and vibrant country than we have today... we can not change this past, but we can change the future

I highly doubt that such would have been possible with the Indians. Many were determined to keep their land and their way of life. We would have been very limited if we had heeded them, especially since many of them relied on the buffalo herds, and there is no way we could have built a large civilization across North America, while millions of buffalos are wandering around everywhere, destroying all of our farmland.

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

in the end, if a choice seems to be the right one technically when one looks at the big picture, it must be the moral choice god would prefer

I definitely cannot agree. What works is not always what is ethical. True ethics often can cause people hardship. Jesus Christ experienced that. Gandhi experienced that. Nearly all of the United States' Founding Fathers experienced that. On the other hand, true immorality often can give people great gains. Drug lords, criminals who get away with their crimes, some warlords and tyrants, and others have engaged in what technically worked for them, and experienced great returns. Do you have any idea how much money I could earn if I went into the drug industry, or started working for the blackmarket? The rewards are tremendous. However, ethics rule out these activities, for me.

Originally Posted by The Gaffer

I don't think you can even contemplate the morality if you don't demonstrate that it works. Otherwise it would fail Spock's "Attila" test, and one could argue that we would then spend our time pursuing things that divert us from what will REALLY win us the "war".

I don't see why morality should come second to practicality . There are very good reasons for doing things the other way. First of all, if a course of action is immoral, you can just rule it out without "spending time pursuing things that divert us from what will REALLY win us the 'war.'" It certainly doesn't require nearly as much time and energy for me to say to myself, "stealing is wrong," than it requires for me to go through all the pros and cons of stealing. It certainly also would be easier for the government if they decided a course of action was immoral and so simply discarded it, without introducing lots of studies that would demonstrate whether or not that course of action would work. Looking at ethics first and then practicalities is the most intelligent way to go.

Originally Posted by -elfearz-

If the torture does serve a practical purpose, the waters are muddied. The ethical question then must be whether the end justifies the means. Personally I would still vote against the use of torture in any situation, simply because I think it is probably impossible to come up with a scheme for administering torture which ensures that both ethical and practical burdens are at all times met.

Why does it have to ensure that practical and ethical burdens are at all times met? Obviously, we would design our system to minimize abuses as much as possible. However, we would have to assume that there sometimes will be abuses. For instance, we create laws imprisoning people. We know that there will be abuses, and people will be wrongfully jailed. The Civil Rights movement is a good example of wrongful jailings. So we know that there almost always, for almost all things, will be some mistakes, some errors. We designed our government knowing that there would be abuses, but doing our utmost to make sure that those abuses would be as few and far between as possible. When we go to war, we know that there will be mistakes made and accidental abuses. However, we choose to go to war anyway, because we think the positive outcome is worth the mistakes . . . depending on how many mistakes there are, of course.

[-elfearz-]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

I don't see why morality should come second to practicality . There are very good reasons for doing things the other way. First of all, if a course of action is immoral, you can just rule it out without "spending time pursuing things that divert us from what will REALLY win us the 'war.'" It certainly doesn't require nearly as much time and energy for me to say to myself, "stealing is wrong," than it requires for me to go through all the pros and cons of stealing. It certainly also would be easier for the government if they decided a course of action was immoral and so simply discarded it, without introducing lots of studies that would demonstrate whether or not that course of action would work. Looking at ethics first and then practicalities is the most intelligent way to go.

For me, to even consider whether torture is ethical (and have a real question to answer), involves an assumption that it is practical, or can be practical. So the question would be something like - "if it is practical, can it be ethical?"....OR, "torture is wrong, unless it serves some end which is so overwhelmingly beneficial that it outweighs any wrongness". This seems to make the ultimate question one of practicality. If it is not practical, I don't see how torturing someone can be at all ethical

I may be confused or missing the point . I don't think you can consider whether torture is ethical without context...because (for me anyway) in the absence of context the answer would always be that it's unethical. End of story

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

Why does it have to ensure that practical and ethical burdens are at all times met? Obviously, we would design our system to minimize abuses as much as possible. However, we would have to assume that there sometimes will be abuses. For instance, we create laws imprisoning people. We know that there will be abuses, and people will be wrongfully jailed. The Civil Rights movement is a good example of wrongful jailings. So we know that there almost always, for almost all things, will be some mistakes, some errors. We designed our government knowing that there would be abuses, but doing our utmost to make sure that those abuses would be as few and far between as possible. When we go to war, we know that there will be mistakes made and accidental abuses. However, we choose to go to war anyway, because we think the positive outcome is worth the mistakes . . . depending on how many mistakes there are, of course.

Sorry, I should have clarified. You're absolutely right, of course .
Personally I think that torture is something so horrible - and so permanent in its effect - that it is not acceptable to me that we will sometimes get it wrong, but that the ends achieved will justify this. Personal opinion. Not an objective statement of fact . This is also one of the reasons that I am against the death penalty.

Furthermore (I'm from Australia, but assume it's similar in many countries), the justice system is relatively transparent. When someone is jailed, it is no secret - those near and dear to them most likely know where they are, and if they are innocent, supporters may use whatever political or legal means are available to campaign for their release.

In the cases where people have been tortured, it is not half as open. As one example, I watched a documentary last night about a German national who was wrongfully taken from Macedonia and imprisoned in Afghanistan, where he was tortured (they got his name confused with someone who was suspected to have terrorist connections). They did not tell his wife or children where he was. When they eventually realised their mistake, he was eventually released, but with no admission of the mistake, or of the torture. He says he was told nobody would believe him.

There was an Australian - Mamdouh Habib - who was imprisoned in Guantanomo Bay for some years, and eventually released. Rumours that he was tortured there did not come out until very shortly before his release, and then after his return to Australia he spoke to the media about being tortured. Some believed him; some said he made it up. I watched the interview, and for my part, if he made it up then he is one of the most brilliant actors I've ever seen.

But my point was that torture, as a punishment, is covertly executed. What, then, is there to keep it in check, and to ensure that it is practical "most of the time"?

For all these reasons, I don't think the inevitability of some cases of wrongful torture and the inevitability of some cases of wrongful conviction and imprisonment are at all equal

But I've given this matter limited thought, because I tend to agree that the practical limitations that have been outlined by others are a good enough reason to not employ torture at all.

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by -elfearz-

For me, to even consider whether torture is ethical (and have a real question to answer), involves an assumption that it is practical, or can be practical. So the question would be something like - "if it is practical, can it be ethical?"....OR, "torture is wrong, unless it serves some end which is so overwhelmingly beneficial that it outweighs any wrongness". This seems to make the ultimate question one of practicality. If it is not practical, I don't see how torturing someone can be at all ethical

I may be confused or missing the point . I don't think you can consider whether torture is ethical without context...because (for me anyway) in the absence of context the answer would always be that it's unethical. End of story

Yes, I automatically assume, when considering the moral issue, "if it worked, would it be right?" So I presume practicality when considering the ethics, and then backtrack to the practicality if the ethics seem sound. It may seem roundabout, but it actually is quicker and more efficient than a belabored analysis of the likelihood of success. If I find that torture is ethically wrong even if it works, I don't even need the practicality studies. My opinion on the matter is already formed. Ethics to me are more important than practicality, and hence they receive my foremost attention.

Originally Posted by -elfearz-

But my point was that torture, as a punishment, is covertly executed. What, then, is there to keep it in check, and to ensure that it is practical "most of the time"?

For all these reasons, I don't think the inevitability of some cases of wrongful torture and the inevitability of some cases of wrongful conviction and imprisonment are at all equal

But I've given this matter limited thought, because I tend to agree that the practical limitations that have been outlined by others are a good enough reason to not employ torture at all.

Okay, this is another technical point you have raised, and certainly, like the others, a valid one that is well deserving of consideration. I really should write these technical arguments down as a list on a Microsoft Word document for myself, so that if I do wind up thinking that torture might sometimes be ethically valid, I can then research the practicalities. You all word your points of view quite well.

As regards your comment about torture having permanent impact upon a person, do you mean psychological or physical? Some forms of torture, while still being fairly exquisite, involve only small quantities of physical damage. Psychological impact is likely to be far more extensive and long-term. Were you referring to either, or both, or just one of the two?

[-elfearz-]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

Yes, I automatically assume, when considering the moral issue, "if it worked, would it be right?" So I presume practicality when considering the ethics, and then backtrack to the practicality if the ethics seem sound. It may seem roundabout, but it actually is quicker and more efficient than a belabored analysis of the likelihood of success. If I find that torture is ethically wrong even if it works, I don't even need the practicality studies. My opinion on the matter is already formed. Ethics to me are more important than practicality, and hence they receive my foremost attention.

Fair enough Sorry - it was a stupid question. It was just something that was confusing me.

Personally, I find I need to look at ethics and practicality together, because there are too many variables for me to come up with a clear view otherwise. But whatever floats your boat . I already have the opinion (for a combination of ethical and practical reasons) that a system of torture should not be employed, so this muddled way of looking at things suits me fine. But I see nothing wrong with considering ethics first in the way that you do, in order to reach an opinion on the matter.

In terms of debating whether there should be state sanctioned torture, though, I still prefer to rely on arguments which consider practicality before ethics. Not because I see practicality as more important (on a personal level I do not), but because I see practicality as less subjective. There is, as you say, research which can be conducted and evidence which can be looked at to determine things like whether employing torture "works", what factors might limit its effectiveness and so on. Ignoring bias in the representation of such information, there is a degree of objectivity. If we say that torture is practical, we must say why it works; if we say it is impractical, we must say why it does not achieve the outcome we desire. But ethics I see as deeply personal, and less in need of justification. Thus I think it is harder to reach common ground in a debate over whether something is ethical than in a debate over whether something is practical.

Gah. Am I longwinded or what?

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

As regards your comment about torture having permanent impact upon a person, do you mean psychological or physical? Some forms of torture, while still being fairly exquisite, involve only small quantities of physical damage. Psychological impact is likely to be far more extensive and long-term. Were you referring to either, or both, or just one of the two?

I had pyschological impact in mind. With my complete lack of expertise in psychology or psychiatry, I suspect that extensive and long term psychological impact would be almost inevitable, even where relatively little physical damage is done.
But I suppose what I said would also apply to cases where lasting physical damage is done. Though in such cases I would guess that the psychological impact would also be quite significant.