Intoscience

looks like it. What is relevant to answering the OP is whether or not there is any plausible realistic situation where the use of torture may result in a generally preferred outcome. Would the use of torture be justified if it attempted/resulted in preventing an atrocity worse than that of the act of the actual torture employed. Go ahead and continue to complicate it with if's and but's and anything else you would like to throw in the mix. If you can honestly answer with - Any and all acts of torture are as equally as atrocious as the pain/suffering resulting in the death of innocent live/s then I feel that along with my wife, I find myself kicking/banging my head against the wall. Doesn't matter, for the purpose of answering the OP. There only has to be one plausible situation where the perp is not only assumed guilty but found guilty before or after the event whether or not the outcome was/is successful or not. If the act of torture in any attempt was found to be/is justified then the answer is = yes.

Of course its relevant, you are arguing that the pain and suffering of the perp is the same as the loss of innocent lives. If the perp is identified as guilty beyond reasonable doubt within the time frame left then the act of torture is not a worse crime than the act of killing innocent lives. I said the senseless pain and suffering resulting in death of innocent lives. How does that apply to a criminal identified as guilty beyond reasonable doubt? Why should it? many people have been tortured and survived. No one ever said that the torture should last until the perp dies.

We do categorise humans, their guilt, innocence and value... based on their actions within the society they live. We have parameters within which these are set and which by the justice system operates. How else would we operate law and order, crime and punishment? A perfect example of this is when the death penalty is applied, (which by the way I don't condone even though I may personally feel its just for certain crimes) where it is deemed that the perps life no longer has any value in society.

Why would torture in the scenarios we are discussing result in the death of an innocent person?

Hitting dimreeper's toe will not make mine better. However if I whacked his toe and it saved a life then would you not argue that the pain and suffering dimreeper endured was worth the resulting outcome? (dimreeper may not agree but i suspect he/she is a considerate soul who would happily endure some suffering to aid another) But you are welcome to if it eases your pain!

Because like moral acts, pain and suffering range in severity, and the resulting outcome/effects of the act/pain/suffering ranges in severity. The question is, what severity is the most acceptable? My toe hurts!

Doesn't really matter for the OP's question. Ethics, book keeping or how ever you want to categorise it as. The question was "is torture ever right?" if you can justify it's use in any shape or form then the answer is yes. In my mind and for all sorts of reasons, but mainly logically, I feel it could be justified in a plausibly possible real life scenario. In a nutshell - The rights of the perp is far less valuable than the lives of the innocent/s in peril. But if it's about human values then how can you compare the rights of a perp against the lives of innocent people? Well my wife often makes me want to kick the wall, or rather, bash my head against it!

True, but pain is also a spectrum and the resulting effects range in severity. I currently have a sore big toe which is very painful and causing me much discomfort, affecting my sleep, concertation and mood in general.

Could depend on your personal beliefs, However, I guess an act which is considered the most despicable by the general consensus of all humanity. Which I guess would be the senseless act of taking innocent life in the most painful and most suffering way imaginable. But I'm sure you will pick at my guess. What would you consider to be the "wrongest"?

Yes, and It's a spectrum - sometimes personal, sometimes a consensus, and sometimes logical. I have assumed the OP's question covers all these and consideration for the answer should be for every possible situation across the whole spectrum.

I agree, this pretty much sums it up.

I think personally I'd be more surprised if life wasn't found in areas where the conditions and the chemistry prevail for the possible formation of life. "I just hope that such evidence is forthcoming before I kick the bucket"- Beecee I share this sentiment, though I hope that we discover life in other star systems and even more excitingly intelligent life!

+1 Well its often a personal judgement call depending on the situation and who is involved. Sometimes I will lie to my partner to save her feelings (and my ass) so this for me is the greater good x 2, since telling the truth has no beneficial outcome for either of us. I once gave myself a new years resolution that I would not lie under any circumstance and that no matter what the outcome I'd tell the whole truth. To be honest it was an experiment I decide to try out which arose from a conversation I'd once had on this very subject. The experiment failed miserably (or was a success, depending on your view) as it resulted in many conflicts and I was actually slowly and systematically being pushed out of social groups and it was seriously affecting my personal relationships. I was actually branded an ass hole and a weirdo. It appeared to me that a certain amount of lying is required to be accepted in social groups and relationships.

I've tried not to invoke feelings into the discussion as they can blur the situation. However, I share your sympathy and empathy, but this is my point. You are focussing too much on feelings rather than logical justification. Again you assume that you are making the decision/doing the torturing. If you were unaware that torture was used as a method to attempt and/or save your child how would you feel about that? The difference between a child and an adult is that adults are expected to understand and take responsibility for their actions. Children (dependent on age) are still learning and the level of responsibility is much lower. Of course there will be mental scares for many in such a traumatic situation, this is unavoidable, regardless of the outcome. Again, this is why I try not to focus on such, since its inevitable. No one is arguing that torture is not an "evil" / morally wrong act. The question is, is it morally less evil than the act that will unfold should torture not be employed? If so, then the answer to the OP, logically, has to be yes. I believe that in certain situations, the objective view of the vast majority of civilised, intelligent sane people would agree. We all have scares to bare, the question is which scars are the preferred ones should you have the option to choose? From your post I get the impression that you are happy to kill someone but not to torture someone, simply because its "in our nature"? Survival is our natural instinct not killing, killing just happens to be a method that can be employed for survival or preservation, whether that be for food, defence or war. Torture, in certain extreme situations could be employed as a tactic of defence, preservation or survival. You can compare the morality of both since they both are methods that can cause harm to others in an attempt to preserve life.

I think they are similar not the same, you can compare the morality in a similar fashion and favour or object. There are many cases where in "self-defence" or in defence of another, someone gets killed and one could question whether or not this was the "right" thing to do at the time. Desperate times sometimes seek desperate measures, this was my point. My focus for answering the OP is centred around the one possibility where an evil act could be the right thing to do and the lesser of the 2 evils. In long consideration and listening to all the arguments presented I cannot honestly change my stance and still suggest that there could plausibly be a real situation where torture is the only option left which is the lesser of the 2 evils. Maybe I'm wrong but I believe that if found in such a situation, the vast majority of people, if being honest, would consider and condone the use of torture. For example, if your child had been kidnapped and their death was a real possibility. All attempts at retrieving your child had failed, negotiations with the perp, investigations into the location etc... all used and exhausted. Torture was an option on the table as a last resort. Would you not only consider it, but also condone it? Basically in this situation you are placing the life of your child in higher value than the rights/life of the perp. This I believe is the "right" thing to do and I believe that majority of people would agree.

I think the question is a little open ended, you know for certain all has failed when the victims lose their lives. So in answer I will engage with you as follows: When all else that is knowingly at your disposal within the time frame remaining. The bomb is ticking and time is nearly up, you have the choice to cut a wire or not. Don't cut the wire and you are guaranteed death, choose and cut a wire and you have a chance of either living or dying. Given that at this stage you have no idea which wire will be the correct one you have the option to try, or accept the inevitable. I choose to cut a wire.

Nice post, "would there be some part of me, small or large, that enjoys it? Would it change me? Would it make it easier for me to do things that the me of today would abhore? " These are good questions, and some of us being totally honest, may not like the answer to some. It would definitely change you, no doubt any sort of trauma would do so to any sane person. The act of torturing someone would be a very traumatic experience for most people. This is one of many considerations that should be taken into account. I'm trying not to focus too much on all the possible collateral damages in consideration for the use of torture it can and does (in my opinion) over complicates the question. In answering the OP I just focus on a thought experiment where the circumstances could be possible regardless how unlikely. If there is just one scenario where using torture can be justified, regardless how wrong this act may be, then the answer to the OP is (in my opinion) yes. Much earlier in this thread I offered other examples of justifying doing a morally wrong act. But these where shot down as not comparable. - Is it ever right to kill someone? For me this presents the same moral issues.

This is all one can only hope for and what I believe we all agree on. There have been some very good points made and some convincing arguments on both sides I feel. However, I'm struggling with the notion when someone admits they would consider the use of torture at the same time refute the use of torture under any circumstances. No one is questioning the morality of torture, we all agree it is wrong. We all agree that all other methods should be employed in an attempt to save lives. But the question remains - Is it ever right to torture someone? Well, morally/ethically no it is never right to torture someone. But it may be the right thing/only option left to do in certain extreme situations, hence the lesser of the 2 evils. I find these types of threads often frustrating but at the same time enlightening. They help me to question and/or affirm my own beliefs and also educate me. I hated education as a child and as a young student. These days I use these forums to educate and entertain myself, both which work really well hand in hand.

Some people go through life accepting that one day they may need a cane, but for now they manage without, until all else has failed. You can continue with your ideology all day long, we all would like the fairy tale ending, unfortunately life seldom has one.

No not at all, I completely understand your position (my bold). I just don't agree that the inevitable outcome of a particular act of torture would generate future terrorists. In some circumstance I'm sure it may result in further terrorism. This, in those circumstance should be consider as part of the strategy. But again for the purpose of the OP - When all else has failed, all considerations are made, there could be a situation where torture as a last resort is the right thing to do. Exactly and this argument can be flipped on its head. If he never attempted to kill them then he was guaranteed the monster. He tried but failed, had he succeeded then maybe the outcome would be different. But sticking to this premise, as you imagine: don't torture anyone and the monster you fear will not emerge.

So you kill the paedophile out of kindness? That's a simple answer. If the child was Hitler and was destined to commit the atrocities, then I would kill the child. Killing the child in this instance would prevent the death and suffering of far more people than that caused by the paedophile. But this exactly highlights my point throughout this thread. Sometimes in certain circumstances moral judgement may have to be back benched by logic, to gain the preferred outcome. The "desired" outcome would be that the child is raised and educated differently and hopefully persuaded to follow a different path in life. The paedophile is rehabilitated and goes on to live a normal life and even better gets opportunities to pay back to society for the crimes in a way that positively improves that society.

I actually meant to say "preferred" outcome, "desired" is not really suitable in the context we are discussing. I don't follow, how does torturing someone to gain information, that may lead to the saving of lives, compare to me randomly killing someone for no particular reason, logically or statistically? The use of torture will result in one of three possible outcomes: Useful information is obtained Un-useful information is obtained No information is obtained Even in an utopian world, someone somewhere will find an excuse to form a radical group to fight against the system or others. We would get very far if we clung on to the what if's so not to act.

But part of the strategy maybe to consider torture as a last resort. Our focus is on when all else has failed and logic dictates that there could be a small chance that torture would result in a desired outcome. Naturally we all would prefer to protect ourselves and our family, this is key to survival and something nature has programmed into us. Fortunately (or maybe not) humans have the capacity to consider the merits of actions rather than just instinct, also have developed a moral duty which enables us to set priority levels based not only on logic, but also compassion and foresight. We all agree that life is precious and each life is equally of value. However, when it comes to morality we do consider the value of a life in terms of comparison. For example; You are faced with a situation where you must choose between either an innocent child or a convicted paedophile. One must die and you have to make the decision. If every life is equally valued, what is your choice and why?

I'm not sure that is the motive behind it. I think beecee is just pointing out that person/s who are actually likely to be faced with the moral justification of such an horrendous act accept that there could be a situation where torture is the right thing to do. All I'll say is, I just hope that if I ever find myself or my family victims in such a situation that some "do gooder" who thinks/believes they can save humanity with a big ball of cotton wool is not making the call.

Hi Jalopy, Non of what you wrote is correct, other than - "The speed of gravity = the speed of light", the effect of gravity does propagate at the speed of light. Some friendly advice, If you are serious about learning science then please take some time to read/study the basic principles.