Intoscience

Yes, in the context of the situation. I think one of the issues of this discussion is how people have/are interpreting the term "right". You either mis-interpret my intentions, or this is a cheap shot of your own? I will assume misinterpretation, In the context of this thread and based on what we are discussing then there are many similarities as Beecee has already pointed out. For example, lets say the bomber has his finger on the detonator all attempts to negotiate with him have failed, is it the "right" thing to do to shoot him dead? i.e Is the choice to shoot him dead an option that should be considered once there are no other options left? - Is the choice to torture him in hope of retrieving information that may lead to preventing the bomb from detonating an option that should be considered when there are no other options left? We can argue the statistics all day long, unless either options are doomed to 100% failure every time in all scenarios then are they not valid options to consider? And would they not be the "right" (the lesser of the 2 evils) thing to do at that defining moment when all else as failed? probably 99% of the time - no, but for 1% of the time it might just work in which case the answer would be - yes. So in answer to the OP based on the original premise of "is it ever right" then in this context and with this reasoning I believe the answer is yes. My point is that, in extreme circumstances, moral judgment and values are called into question and one has to consider the merits of the "lesser evil act".

All "ifs" and "buts", all irrelevant when time is ticking and all else has failed. The question is, is it ever right to employ torture. We all agree that torture is wrong barbaric and most likely unsuccessful (although unless anyone here is an experienced expert in this then we really don't know). +1 You are quite correct and all excellent points. But the question isn't about efficiency, experimental evidence... The question is, is it ever right to torture someone? We could easily change the argument to - is it ever right to kill someone? The moral implications and justifications are the same. I answered yes, not because I condone torture, but because in extreme circumstances when all else has failed, when there is no hope left and you are faced with imminent failure, then any chance even the slightest of chances it may work then I believe its worth a shot. We can go back and forth and argue the moral aspects, the efficiencies and the science behind using such a barbaric and immoral tactic... But when all said and done, the only time I would answer no to the question is if I knew with 100% certainty that torture would not work. "If", (and I hate using that word but hey oh) torture was proven by science & data to have a 99.9% failure rate, even then is it not worth a shot when there is nothing left to do or lose? I believe, if faced with the choice, anyone who is about to lose a loved one and is desperate would not mull over the moral, or efficiency implications.

+1 But you are focussing on all the maybe's if's and but's, many of which there are. There are and will be many unkowns in all situations. No one is saying torture is ok, we all agree that torture in any form is wrong and dehumanising and immoral... The question is, is it ever right to employ torture? I say yes, in extreme circumstances when all else has failed and there is nothing left to lose and you have one last ditch attempt to save lives. Regardless whether its statistically unlikely to be successful, at the very last moments when you are left with only one choice that will either work or it won't. If it works great, you save one or countless lives at the cost of a few who suffer (maybe for life). If it fails, well, at least All known available options were exhausted. There are 2 kinds of regret, either one you have to live with - the doing or the not doing. Which one would you live with?

Finally, an answer that makes a bit of sense (at least part of it). If the scenario can be possible then jumping or not through the hoops is not relevant to the OP. The mad bomber is a plausible scenario without too much complication. There's a bomb, many people are going to die, the person controlling the bomb is not giving up its location or prepared to disarm (seems a reasonable scenario so far to me). All attempts at negotiation and other lines of enquiry to providing a positive solution have failed. Things are now desperate and its looking highly likely that many people are going to die. Why would you not employ torture as a last ditch attempt to save lives? There is nothing left to lose!

If torture doesn't work then why is it employed at all? Why are the special forces operatives taught and trained to employ and endure torture? Seems like a waste of time and resource if your statement was true. Torture may not be effective the vast majority of the time (I don't know the stats), but when things get desperate then statistics become irrelevant, because even the slightest chance in a "no hope" situation is better than doing nothing. Desperate times may call for desperate measures.

There seems to be a lot of if's, but's and maybe's, most which are only relevant to each individual scenario and not really relevant to the crux of the matter. Regardless, I'll reiterate, All other lines of enquiry, actions, plans, attempts have failed. Time is now seriously of the essence, there is nothing left to lose, people are going to die, torture is now really the only last ditch attempt at rescue. Would you employ this tactic? If not, state your reasons for why not? for example: Because torture is statistically not very effective? Because the outcome is not likely to be positive anyhow? Because its immoral and all people have the same rights and should be treated accordingly no matter what? Because its barbaric and should not be employed by a civilised society?...

I asserted that the father would be a poor choice for the reasons I stated, and also likely to be less effective and it's less likely to be a constructive outcome, than if a "professional" was employed. It's not relevant to the question asked in the OP. The question is, is torture ever right? in other words is there any situation, any at all, where torture can be justified. In extreme circumstances the effectiveness of torture (if employed) would be crucial to the outcome and could save many innocent lives. The question is, is there no scenario where the sanity of the torturer and the suffering of the criminal might be a small sacrifice to make if the outcome is successful? There seems to be a number of people who believe that torture should never, under any circumstances, be employed regardless of the risk. I'm interested in understanding this stance and the justification for it.

Bit boring really, but I'm not much of a materialistic person. I have a cupboard draw at home where I keep all the trinkets and gifts I hold dear. Some have high monetary value others just emotional. So I guess this would be my most prized material possession(s). I do own a silver platter that has been handed down in the family since 1770, although I don't know the history behind it. My son will inherit it once I pass.

I take the same stance and agree that there maybe extreme circumstances where torture (in my humble opinion) could be justified. There are others that disagree (their opinions). I'm interested to hear the reasons why they disagree and what they may offer (if any) alternatives that would completely negate the use of torture no matter what the scenario. In my simple mind, the survival of the mass far outweighs the suffering of the few. So in desperate times, where there is no other option left, and time is ticking, then extreme measures are justified. This is my reason for answering YES to the question. I want to understand, and maybe even be convinced of the reasons, why the answer would be NO.

Who is doing the torturing is really irrelevant to the discussion. Having the Father doing the interrogation would be a poor choice for a number of different reasons; emotional state, lack of training, post traumatic stress... etc. However I do understand that he may want to and why, since most who have children, especially young vulnerable children will stop at nothing to ensure their safety (myself included). Probably, if a possible real life scenario is to be used, the mad bomber one is a better choice. The question remains, is there any situation when all else fails where, regardless of law, that torture in an attempt to obtain a better overall outcome can be justified?

This is true, however the OP is discussing whether or not torture is "ever right". Meaning, is there any scenario, even if statistically unlikely but hypothetically possible where torture can be morally justified? So long as those details are a possibility, no matter how narrow a slice it maybe, then the issue is relevant to the discussion.

The questions would be, do you have one of the guilty persons that know the whereabouts? Have all other methods of information extraction been exhausted? How desperate is the situation? If the person captured is guilty, all other forms of information extraction have been exhausted to no avail, and the child's life is in immediate danger, then if anyone has any better suggestions then I'm interested to hear them. This post is gonna end up down the same road as the "punishment" thread.

I guess if you believe, in the afterlife, heaven etc.. then death is not the end but the beginning. Which can be why many extremists see death and sacrifice as no big deal. Since God is the creator (if you believe in such) of all things then he/she/it is also the destroyer of all things, maybe the only entity who can justify such acts. Personally I don't believe in God or an afterlife, so for me this life is a gift to be cherished, since it will come and go in a blink of an eye.

I'm not arguing anything other than why would the Earth be a target for visitation unless there was something special about it or happened just to be on route? It's like walking on a beach and aiming for a particular grain of sand that's of interest. Unless you already new about it and specifically aimed in that direction then the likelihood is you would never even notice it, unless by shear chance you happened upon it and was looking for something in particular that the grain of sand possessed. Now it might turn out that the Earth is special and as a result we are being noticed. In this case stealth maybe a preferred option from outside visitors, and for reasons not known or understood by us.

Yes, I just couldn't remember his real name, Thanks No offense, but what a crock of shite...

How many rocky planets are there with liquid water in 10 light years of Earth? I only know of one so far but it could be more. However 10 light years is a small region relative to the size of the galaxy so the question would be how many technological species are there in a region of 10 light years of the Earth, existing at the same time? There are billions of choices of paths, what are the chances that Earth happened to be on one of them?

I get your point, however rocky planets similar to ours could be quite common. Indeed current observational data suggests that many, if not the vast majority of stars with solar systems contain at least one rocky planet. Earth may well be on the list of targets, but if nothing special and quite common, then out of the billions of choices there is no reason why we should expect Earth to be picked out of the bunch. Based on this premise, I would assume the Earth would be chosen purely based on its accessibility/location, i.e. along the path of "potential fuelling stops."

Earth may not yet have been noticed anyhow, even with the radio signals broadcasted over the past century, maybe no one has seen us waving?

Because they can..., who says they are hiding? we might be just too blind to see.

Forgiveness and judgment can be 2 different animals, there is no requirement for a judge in a court of law to forgive, only to serve justice based on the law. Yep, Jesus was full of nice sentiments, if people actually followed his example in many aspects of life this world would be a better place. Unfortunately, a child murdering rapist, especially repeat offenders are not likely to "go and sin no more" and if not dealt with are highly likely to commit further atrocities. "We shall not cast stones because we are all guilty of sin, therefore non are qualified to cast judgement on this poor soul, so we forgave him, we let him go, and told him not to sin again" Good luck with explaining that one to the parents of the victims.

Some crimes are unforgiveable, The kidnap, rape torture and murder of an innocent child springs to mind. But there you go... maybe that's just my archaic view point, and not PC.

My apologies, this is one of a few words I always mix up, sometimes along with "were and where". I also regularly get letters in the incorrect order in words. If it wasn't for spell check my sentences would read rather amusing or irritating, depending on your OCD. I'll drop it then.

Do you find peace on this merry go round of a thread?

Peace from not acting in a way that makes me feel bad, or peace from knowing that my actions may result in prevention?

Possibly, I can't argue against this since I haven't (fortunately) had to experience such. Though PTSD takes different forms in different individuals for many different experiences, so there maybe a chance, but its not a given. I may suffer PTSD from the experience of losing a loved one at the hands of a killer, by which any further PTSD from seeking personal justice maybe be negligible. Who knows?