Torture- Never, or sometimes?

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by -elfearz-

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.

I'm not sure. I've had lengthy arguments with people over other matters of ethics, and it is possible to move from point A to point B with some people. However, you're correct that my take on ethics right from the start is quite different from IR and Brownjenkin's view, and this does limit us a great deal in our ability to discuss these ethics.

Originally Posted by -elfearz-

Gah. Am I longwinded or what?

We're all longwinded. Don't worry about it .

Originally Posted by -elfearz-

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.

However, might one judge that bringing strong physical or psychological damage is worth it, if it saves lives?

[-elfearz-]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

I'm not sure. I've had lengthy arguments with people over other matters of ethics, and it is possible to move from point A to point B with some people. However, you're correct that my take on ethics right from the start is quite different from IR and Brownjenkin's view, and this does limit us a great deal in our ability to discuss these ethics.

It's possible with some people, yes. But sometimes there comes a point where you have to agree to disagree.

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

However, might one judge that bringing strong physical or psychological damage is worth it, if it saves lives?

Yes, one might, and if you asked 10 people you'd most likely get 10 different answers about when (if at all) it's "worth it". Personal ideas of ethics would govern our responses

We agreed that it is more or less inevitable that some innocent people will be mistakenly tortured if we have a system which allows for the torture of prisoners. Regardless of whether damage inflicted upon (eg) a terrorist is worth it if the outcome is that lives are saved, I do not think that it is "worth it" to accept that such damage will inevitably be inflicted upon some innocent people as collateral, given that we seem to have no strong evidence that using torture actually does save lives. As I understand it the debate over whether it does this is still well and truly raging.

Ah - I've made it a question of practicality again . I'm sorry Lief, I just...can't...separate them!

If someone was able to produce very, very strong evidence that torture is a highly effective and efficient way of garnering reliable information which can be used to save lives, I would be prepared to reconsider whether it is ethical or appropriate in light of the new evidence. I don't promise (or even really expect) to change my view, but I would definitely think on it.

[Spock]

Torture is damaging bodily parts permanently, IMO. Anything else goes.
As long as our enemy is damaging our people, killing our people and beheading our people, we need to do whatever it takes to end that cycle.
...it is only to that segment which opposes us and is not a societal endorsement of the practice...I can never understand why many cannot understand that.

[-elfearz-]

Originally Posted by Spock

Torture is damaging bodily parts permanently, IMO. Anything else goes.

It actually didn't even cross my mind that we might have definitional arguments here, but of course it's a huge issue! Sorry, I haven't read the entire thread...just the start and the end.

I think psychological harm is at least as significant as physical harm, and consider simulated drowning and the like to be forms of torture. Porter Goss disagrees with me.

Originally Posted by Spock

As long as our enemy is damaging our people, killing our people and beheading our people, we need to do whatever it takes to end that cycle.

How does employing torture bring about the end of this cycle?

Originally Posted by Spock

...it is only to that segment which opposes us and is not a societal endorsement of the practice...I can never understand why many cannot understand that.

But how is that not an endorsement of the practice? To my mind it is an endorsement of the practice as a mechanism which should be employed to bring about a desired result.

Originally Posted by Spock

it is only to that segment which opposes us

And who decides what that segment is, and which people belong to it?

[Spock]

..sigh, I can see I have to leave this topic for a while.......if straight forward statements cannot be accepted without disecting into meaningless liberal drivel, then we're doomed.
with great pain I shall moderate as necessary

[-elfearz-]

Eek.

I'm sorry to be the cause of such great pain.
Can we be friends, liberal drivel aside?

*insert random peace offering here*

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

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.

you made a lot of good points but, since this one goes to the core of them, i'll address it alone to be concise

the problem is you are focusing too much on individual examples (from "Sulla" to "Americans")... in my mind ethics are about what is good, and practical, for the continued prosperity of humanity as a whole... this includes both Sulla and the society he lived in... he may have personally benefitted in his lifetime, but do his decendents rule the world today? we all know the ultimate fate of the roman empire... were not the very ethics he practiced largely what lead to his society's ultimate downfall?

we're also not frozen in time... to take it back to torture, while torturing a terrorist might achieve the short-term goal of saving some lives, any student of history knows that it would be foolish to assume that America will always be in the position it is now in terms of global power... nuclear weapons were a great equalizer among the powers of the world... they made wars for conquest like ww2 basically a threat of the past for any nation that held them

advances in the future may change this dynamic even more drastically... imagine a new kind of weapon of mass destruction (or mass defense) easily obtainable by anyone in the world

Sulla did what he did because he could, but his society ultimately paid the price for his actions and those of others like him because they lost their position of power... they lost the ability to act without consequences... the same may be our fate some day, and our only defense against that is to act in ways that, while not loved by our enemies are at least respected by them... being ethical is acting in a way that takes into account not just the short-term consequences, but the ones 10, 100 and 1000 years down the road

it's not about an individual human life, or how much more land and money an american has over an indian... it is about how stable and peaceful the neighborhood, country and world we live in is... a powerful and wealthy individual or nation might be able to escape the short-term consequences, but time will catch up to them or their decendents eventually

this is why there are global "rules of war" (the geneva conventions)... intelligent leaders realized that, while we may not all get along, we all must hold a certain degree of respect for the people we share this planet with (even if this respect is not returned in all cases), even the ones we are at war with, if we wish to get this respect in return

put simply, if we choose to torture, even for what we deem "good reason", we make the practice ethical for all people... because "good reason", in and of itself, is relative to the person doing the torturing

[Insidious Rex]

Originally Posted by Spock

..sigh, I can see I have to leave this topic for a while.......if straight forward statements cannot be accepted without disecting into meaningless liberal drivel, then we're doomed.

Then try making straight forward statements spock instead of "ignorant conservative drivel" like saying "we need to do whatever it takes to end that cycle" and implying torture is what it takes to do this. Because apparently you arent taking into account that torture only hardens your enemy and makes further enemies out of neutral folk and even friends. And how does that end the cycle exactly? It only exacerbates the bad situation.

LIEF: I thought of something this morning about your ethical approach to this. If you insist that torture can be a valuable tool to winning a given conflict then what is your approach (ethically) on slavery? Is it also ethical to enslave people because one can certainly and easily make the logical argument that this would help us win a conflict. Nothing like cheap slave labor to buoy the war effort after all. So what say you to slavery? Is that somehow different ethically from torture?

And to take the thought process further: If it all comes down to saving the most lives then would it be ethical to shoot one innocent person in order to save nine? For example if a hostage holder said pick one of my ten hostages. Whoever you pick I will kill but I will let the others go free. If you do not do it in one hour I will kill all ten. Is it ethical to tell him who to kill? Or do you refuse and risk him killing them all? There is risk involved in both scenarios. If you torture someone you risk getting bad information that could perhaps make things even worse. You also risk creating monsters and alienating your friends and neutral parties and creating more terrorists. If you allow the hostage taker to shoot someone you risk him going back on his word and shooting the others anyway. So if you insist that the torture scenario is ethical and worthwhile wouldn’t you have to do the same for the hostage scenario?

[Butterbeer]

And how does that end the cycle exactly?

...er... maybe the wheels come off?

...gets a puncture?

[Spock]

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

Then try making straight forward statements spock instead of "ignorant conservative drivel" So what say you to slavery? Is that somehow different ethically from torture?

IBID!

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

And to take the thought process further: If it all comes down to saving the most lives then would it be ethical to shoot one innocent person in order to save nine? If you torture someone you risk getting bad information that could perhaps make things even worse. You also risk creating monsters and alienating your friends and neutral parties and creating more terrorists. If you allow the hostage taker to shoot someone you risk him going back on his word and shooting the others anyway. So if you insist that the torture scenario is ethical and worthwhile wouldn’t you have to do the same for the hostage scenario?

IBID!
Thanks for proving my point

[Insidious Rex]

Hey spock got the hicups there or something?

And by the way that second part... you know the part after i said LIEF... wasnt directed at you thanks.

[Jonathan]

Originally Posted by Spock

As long as our enemy is damaging our people, killing our people and beheading our people, we need to do whatever it takes to end that cycle.

Machiavellian morality eh? - The end justifies the means.

[inked]

Originally Posted by Jonathan

Machiavellian morality eh? - The end justifies the means.

It doesn't? I mean, IT DOESN'T!

Is this like a new concept or something?

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by Spock

Torture is damaging bodily parts permanently, IMO. Anything else goes.

So to you, rape is not a form of torture. Neither would be the application of a red hot poker. Or electric shocks. I'm afraid we definitely are at a disagreement on this point, Spock.

Others, I thank you very much for the splendid responses. They certainly have been an interesting read. I'm tied up in exams though right now, hand and foot. My finals, and other exams, are all taking place next week. I've probably got six to eight exams in the single week, plus a major speech and a massive research paper due. So I'm busy as an ant. I'll respond after I finish my finals!

[-elfearz-]

Good luck Lief!

I've just finished mine, so am indulging in excessive sloth

[Insidious Rex]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

I'm tied up in exams though right now, hand and foot. My finals, and other exams, are all taking place next week. I've probably got six to eight exams in the single week, plus a major speech and a massive research paper due. So I'm busy as an ant. I'll respond after I finish my finals!

Sounds like sheer torture...

[Butterbeer]

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

Sounds like sheer torture...

torture the torturer?

mmm ... maybe there is a moral justification after all ...

[Lief Erikson]

My conclusion

I've come to a conclusion at last on the matter of torture . Through extensive discussion with the Lord and my Dad, and through searching the scripture, and of course through talking with all of you, and through watching movies, I have come to a conclusion at last. Torture is wrong.

Question 1: Isn't torture justified when it is used in order to extract information that can save lives?

Answer 1: Torture that is used in order to extract information is not just. You will use it until you have what information you need, and no longer or shorter. Thus, it is not a punishment for crime in any way. You may be defending lives on your side, but you are not defending them from the person you are torturing. The torture you are using on your imprisoned opponent in order to extract information is not defensive, any more than torturing some animal for medical information is defensive. It is offensive. Offensive war is never justified, though defensive war is. So this is not justice (we are not punishing a crime) and it is not defensive (we are defending our own people, but not defending them from the person we are torturing, so torturing that person is not defensive but offensive).

Question 2: Isn't torture justified if it is used to scare others into not fighting you, thus keeping peace and saving lives?

Answer 2: Again it is not just, for the punishment is not in proportion to the crime but is instead in proportion to how other people will react upon seeing the punishment. It is apparent, also, that while you are defending lives, keeping the peace, you are not defending yourself against the person you are torturing, for he is helpless. Your actions against him are offensive, rather than defensive.



Now, let us suppose that in some cases, punishing people in horrible ways for unspeakable crimes is just. It is important to note that what is just is not always what is right or what is best.

Mercy is righteous. It often is also more practical, for a righteous man will often attract more support than a wicked one. Julius Caesar was a good example of this. When he conquered his enemies, he showed them mercy. As a consequence, many of his enemies became loyal allies and friends. Another good example of this would be Jesus. According to scripture, he came across a demon possessed man, and the demons asked him if he was here to torture them. Instead, he showed them mercy, sending them into a herd of pigs rather than into torment. This was an ultimate display of mercy. He had complete justification for torturing them, for they were torturing others, and their guilt was worse than anyone's. Making an example of them might have inspired fear among others, also. Instead, he chose mercy. When an enemy is no longer a threat and mercy is shown, it is clear that this is more than justice. It is goodness. It is better that we practice goodness than that we practice justice.

[Insidious Rex]

Well hallelujah! He has seen the light!

[Lief Erikson]

(Grins)