Intoscience

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.

Or, what ever symptom378 is on, I want some. Cause it's been a long-time since I was able to experience such a fantasy world.

Absolutely, though the burden of moral ethics is not necessarily the burden of just one person. Yes it maybe that one person ultimately makes the call but many can agree on whether the call was the right or wrong one to make. Each society has morals that people share, their views may differ on some, but there are a general standard by which the majority can agree on. The ten commandment's are an example of this where God makes the call but the majority agreed at the time that it was the right way to live. I would hope, though it may not always be the case that (aside from Hollywood movies) in modern democratic society, the general consensus is accepted and then the call is made by the authority. During scenarios presented in this thread, there would be a team of investigators and professional's highly trained to deal with these situations who would be following a strict protocol, this I'm sure about. What I don't know is whether there is a protocol that under extreme/desperate circumstance allows for the use of torture when all other measures have failed. If there is then its therefore deemed by the professional community in general, that torture would be acceptable in these circumstances. So the answer to the op is yes. Well, ask those that claim its never right, including yourself, the same question. I can honestly with full conviction state that if I was put in the situation I'd have no idea how I'd react or what action I'd take. I would hope that I would do what I believe, hopefully with full support, is the right thing to do. My belief is that in a certain situation the right thing to do would be to attempt to save lives with whatever means was necessary. The right thing being the lesser of the 2 evils, greater good or what ever you want to call it. So, I'm in no position to condemn someone for making that call provided they acted in what appears to be the best interests at that time.

I do, and I appreciated your response with a sensible attitude towards it. In fact I don't disagree with you, that in "real world" situations we might find that torture is mostly not only morally but logically pointless, a route to take that has a high failure rate and also likely to lead to further injustice. But this doesn't "ever" not make it the right action to take and that under certain extreme circumstance it might just be the only option left. I think if you can discount it, with absolutely no doubt, as ever being an option then you can easily answer the OP's question with a no. There are people who do so, and that's fine that's their opinion and they are entitled to that. I'm just not sure everyone is being honest in their conviction.

Not much use against tracked heavy armoured vehicles though.

Yes, and its the refusal to acknowledge this fact that I find rather strange. The focus seems to be around all the situations where torture would be un just (of which there are many) and the many possible undesirable outcomes to support this refusal. The question was is it "ever" right, well if there is just one possible example where it is the right thing to do then the answer has to be yes. That example is; when all else has failed, all considerations have been made, the situation is now desperate and there is a chance that it may be successful.

My focus as always been on this ^^^^ There seems to be a focus on deliberation of all the possible consequences and aftermath of a particular action that we all agree is morally un just in any normal, or rather more regular scenarios and may also lead to further complications or undesired future situations. I can't argue against this, for a couple of reasons; Any actions imposed in many situations in life may create future complications or undesirable outcomes. From experience we try to avoid this, so it it should be prudent that this be a consideration when imposing an action. No one can predict the future, there can only ever be estimated possibilities based on experience/history, again this should be a consideration and play heavily in the decision to take a certain action. Basically, we don't know the future, but we can make judgement on whether a particular action is justifiably based on the likelihood of a particular outcome and the merits of this as apposed to not acting. There is a possibility that not acting is most likely to produce a less desirable outcome than acting, we all know this as damage limitation. There is also always a chance that the outcome ends up the least desirable situation, granted, hindsight is a wonderful thing. But if we went through life with this attitude would we ever make progress? Maybe? Chance has produced some amazing breakthroughs and I think should not be ignored. I believe that if there is a chance to save someone, even if its ever so slim, that this chance should be taken. This is my moral stance and though could be short sighted (depending on the long term outcome), I believe is the right thing to do.

The ranking officer makes the ultimate decision, yes of course. But to get to that decision I would hope that an investigating team has worked hard to determine the facts to their best of knowledge and explored all avenues prior to. Yes, this is all open to interpretation, cultural influences and corruption. We can spend time discussing all the different scenarios, implications...etc. but there is still a possibility that in one extreme case torture is an option that could be considered and possibly effective. Reading through all the recent posts and there have been some excellent points raised, my answer to the OP still remains yes. +1

Why does it have to be only me catching them in the act, or accusing them of guilt? In fact I would be mortified to find that such a decision was made without jury. Since time is of the essence in the circumstance we are considering, this doesn't mean a trial by jury in a court of law. But a decision agreed on by a professional investigating team. Why do you assume that the child/bomb is secure whilst the perp is in custody? there could be a timer on the bomb, an accomplice on stand by... any number of possible scenarios. The child could be locked away hidden, starving, cold on the brink of death... again any number of possible scenarios. While there is any one possibility that becomes a desperate situation, where all other methods/attempts to succeed have failed, then unless you can be sure torture would be a 100% failure, then you are morally obliged to consider it as an option. The moral obligation is determined by the factors I stated in the 3 points, so are very relevant. It's not whether me or anyone else is desperate, its whether or not the situation is desperate. The decision to torture should not be determined by the former, which could be influenced by irrational emotion. The decision should be considered by the latter, which should be influenced by logic and morality.

True, If we could predict empirically then this would solve all our issues and we'd have a definitive answer. However I don't think this is a matter of prediction but rather a matter of possibilities. It's never right to torture anyone, until the time comes when its the only the right thing left to do. The only time I can think of it ever being the right thing to do is when all else has failed and its the only option left that might have a chance of success. This is different than torturing someone every time in similar situations, the situation has to be a real possibility and specific on 3 points - The level of guilt of the perp, the number of options left in the time remaining and the hierarchy of evils. 1. The perp has to be guilty (or at least have very high odds of being) 2. All other available methods to extract information should have been exhausted right upon to the last moment. 3. The act of violence to gain the information should be a lesser evil than the possible outcome of success.

I agree, we can discuss alternative methods of information extraction, and you know what, I'm sure there are many that are more effective and humane than the barbaric act of torture. But the question remains "is it ever right to torture someone?" My opinion is that 99.9% of the time the answer would be no, but there is that 0.1% that could possibly be a yes. ever = 100%, unlikely = 99.9%, possibly = 0.01%

+1

Yes, how can you consider any different under those circumstances? I don't disagree with what you are saying, I'm sure that in most real life circumstances torture would most likely be useless. But again, there is too much focus on the if's, buts and maybe's This is the point I'm focusing on (my bold) and the reason why I replied yes, not no, to the op. If there is an element of doubt then there is also an element of possibility. If the probability of success is zero then there would be no doubt, but rather certainty that it would result in failure. If we are to consider the possible negatives then we must also consider the possible positive/s I believe, if faced with such a situation, most people would take what ever odds they can, anything above zero is a possibility and gives even just a glimmer of hope.

There are many things that we do in life that are deemed wrong in general, however can also be the right thing to do depending on the circumstances. This just happens to be a rare an extreme example of such. "happy" is a strange term to use, no sane, compassionate, non-sadistic person is ever happy about inflicting pain on another. But they may have good reason to do so, which may result in a desired outcome, which makes them happy. I'm a compassionate, sensitive person. I'm sure I would find it very difficult to torture someone even if I believed it was for the greater good. So yeah, I would definitely not be happy about it, this sentiment we both share.

Why do you continue to twist the context? There is nothing positive about the action of torture, however the torture may result in a positive outcome. Or rather an outcome which is the least negative (the lesser evil). Regret comes after the event, usually as a result of failure, a lack of trying, or hindsight, or a combination of all 3. The question is how deep is that regret and which one are you prepared to live with? How do you know you are doing the wrong thing until the results are in? If you can accurately predict the outcome then you can choose what action is the "right" one to do. In less extreme circumstances you may choose not to act if the odds are that it is most likely to fail. However, faced with no other choice and nothing left to lose then acting on something gives you better odds than not, even if the chance of success is minimal. This is logical. The problem arises when such an act has very damaging moral implications, then you have to consider the moral obligations as part of the logical path. Keeping it simple - the lesser evil trumps, if a greater good is possible.

Then why are we discussing anything? There seems a focus around the negative unknowns whilst at the same time dismissing the positive unknowns. Maybe its just me, but the reasoning around this is that with all the unknowns considered there can only be 2 possible results, it will either work or it won't. Why would you not try and improve the odds from zero? If you knew that that it would result in failure 100% of the time then it would be automatically (by any sane and logical person/s) dismissed as an option rendering the action pointless and not even on the table for consideration at anytime. Thus the answer to the OP would automatically be No, both logically and morally.

The lottery example was to show that even when the odds are extremely poor there is still a chance. Not sure about your national lottery, but where I come from the jackpot is not won every week. Anyhow the point was to compare odds nothing else. Doesn't matter whether it has happened or not, the focus should be - is it possible? Yes, if my child had committed such a crime where there was no reasonable doubt of their guilt (which is what myself and beecee are focussing on). Obviously I would in all my power attempt to prevent this action, this goes without saying as a loving parent. But If torturing them was the only option left in a last ditch attempt to save innocent lives, then as much as it would destroy me, I would have to condone it.