dimreepr

You can't compare the odds, that's my point; maybe one of the maths geniuses can explain it properly. As per @Prometheus argument, it's possible that killing the next person you see, will save millions of lives, but you can never know. That's the excuse America used to torture people without trial, the thing is, the people involved were all dead... That's another thing you can't possible know, how you'd react in that scenario, however much you imagine how you'd be a hero, you can't image reality...

"I stated that Hiroshima and Nagasaki are 'among the most unspeakable crimes in history.' I took no position on just where they stand on the scale of horrors relative to Auschwitz, the bombing of Chungking, Lidice, and so on." -Noam Chomsky If you think hard enough you can justify anything...

If your best mate is the newest superpower, you're gonna want to stand behind them, while flipping the bird.

What an excellent question +1 It is the very essence of justice; do I deserve to suffer because I've made a mistake or do I deserve the chance to feel pleasure, if I'm sorry and I've paid my penance?

Here's a what if for you; you have to torture your own, possibly innocent child, severely enough to extract the correct information in time to save a million people you've never met?

But we're not talking about a lottery, that someone wins every week, we're talking about deliberately hurting, and potentially killing, a possibly innocent person, without a trial; it's jedwood justice, unless you think mob rule work's. And the excuse has, to my knowledge, never happened and is never likely to happen, no if's or but's (perhaps you can provide evidence to the contrary). Would you still be advocating for torture, on the off chance (by which I mean incalculable odd's of success) if the potentially innocent person is you or your child/loved one?

"lord what fools these mortals be"

None of us are innocent, we're all guilty of being humans...

That only work's for the survivors... Free will is limited: Our enviroment, our diet, our teacher's etc... But we have to believe our choices matter, otherwise what's the point...

So, your imagined unreal situation is correct and anyone who disagrees is being obtuse? You need to get a new definition...

There's many a hole in the OP; it's like saying "If the ball goes in the net, it will be a goal". It's not a realistic question, for many a reason as pointed out by other member's. 1. Torture is an unreliable way to extract information, as pointed out by @John Cuthber, you either get the information you want (because they'll say anything you want them too), or you get no information at all (a terrorist/priest is an extremely committed extremist). 2. The only way too ascertain guilt with certainty is to catch them in the act and as @Peterkin pointed out, if you've got the perp, you've got the victim/bomb. 3. Even if we ignore point's 1 and 2, there's a time limit, so they only have to suffer until the clock ticks down to zero. 4. Apparently, we all agree that torture is morally wrong; so when the clock reaches zero, whatever the consequences, we have to stop the torture, because that would be revenge. The only logical conclusion is, torture is only right in a scenario that will never exist. It's funny that you'd think that, because you haven't answered my questions... I came here for an argument, not abuse...

There's no other way of empathising.

Sniff it, if it smells bad don't eat it...

😁

Did you choose to post this? 😉

No you haven't... Please discribe the scenario, where the perp is not caught in the act, but you can be 100% certain of the perps guilt without a trial. I bet you can't... I don't think you understand what the word obtuse means; please explain how that sentence is a result of "obtuseness"??? And I don't think you understand what a strawman argument is. It's not, as I explained 'in that other thread' "If you catch the fecker in the act, feel free to kill in order to stop the fecker; and as @Peterkin suggested torture is rendered moot, if you have both the perp and the victim safe, therefore any pain/torture inflicted after the fact, can only be revenge; even if the fecker deserves a good kicking... Like I said, "some might be open to new idea's".

Maybe you're my wonderwall???

Indeed, it depends on how badly you want revenge...

Really? Please elaborate. Stop making excuses to torture someone you don't like. How can it be morally correct, if it's wrong? Well, you certainly imply it; I assume you mean, the only philosophy that work's is your own... 😇 Indeed... "The older I grow, the more I distrust the familiar doctrine that age brings wisdom.” - Mencken Without a trial you're down to common sense; you've been a member here long enough to know how unreliable common sense is... 😉🙏 I've given up trying to influence you, but there's plenty of people who read what's written on this site; some of whom are open too a different way of thinking...

for whom the the bell tolls

I can forgive myself either way, but it's a lot easier if I don't dam/age myself... 😉

This is not proof that philosophy never work's. Indeed +1 I don't want to be a gadfly, I want to be a teacher...

Sex might be mechanical to you, but I prefer the illusion of making love... 😉

That about sums it up. +1

That's exactly what we're talking about, if you condemn a man without trial. And given the very specific scenarios, there wouldn't be time for a trial until after the, potentially fatal, torture. It's not evidence of anything, because it hasn't happened... Am I your bias? Is that why you don't read my post's properly? Because whatever I say, you know better... Don't hold your breath. Indeed +1 No-one knows how they'll react to a situation they haven't encountered before; we can't know, if we're wired for flight or fight, before the fright.