dimreepr

We can only play the hand we're dealt; how is that irrelevant to the OP?

Which part of this sentence "sure, if we live forever we'll probably encounter such an unlikely scenario, and you'll be right." is tripping you up? It's a different question: 1. There is absolutely no doubt who the perp is. 2. They ignore all the warnings and cannot be placated. 3. We have no choice but to stop them. 4. And putting an end to their obvious distress, might even be a kindness. OTOH 1. There is always a doubt, when the perp is witnessed by a third party. 2. They might be ignorant of the crime and any amount of persuasion, won't change that fact. 3. Adding to their distress, can never be a kindness...

Another great post +1 I'll just add, the excuse given to justify torture, is a time limit and no other choice; @beeceethink probability over possibilities. If most victim's do not provide the information requested; the chances that you catch the right guy at the right time and get the right information, in time, is vanishingly small; sure, if we live forever we'll probably encounter such an unlikely scenario, and you'll be right...

LOL +1, but maybe he's got a big dick???

There is no land of the free, it's the home of the entitled...

Very interesting +1, I'll watch the rest tomorrow and get back to you. The rugby's about to start... 🤞

There is no similarty at all: Even if I accept that torture is effective (I don't) it's always morally wrong, even if it, luckily, yields results. To kill someone, even at risk of damaging oneself, is on a spectrum of morality; it's a kindness to kill someone who has no choice but to suffer until they die; it's morally repugnant to kill for one's own plearsure. Have you ever tortured someone? I'm guessing the answer is no; people hurting people is normally traumatic, so how do you know that you wouldn't suffer from PTSD? Besides most heroes shy away from being lauded, maybe there's a reason for that; but I wouldn't know, I've never been a hero...

There was the light, and only a few could see...

As @joigus pointed out (+1 BTW) there is a better way, so philosophically speaking there is no reason to step over the moral line other than emotional retribution/revenge. The question's we have yet to address is: The damage our decision will do to the torturer? The damage we do to ourselves, if we find out we've condemned the wrong person? Exactly to the highlighted part. Again, I see a real resemblance between those here claiming the moral highground and claiming there is never ever any right or reason, for torture, to the same supposed moral high ground by those in the justice/punishment thread, in claiming we have no need for jails. In both cases, the sympathies and thoughts by those, seem to be with the perpetrators and criminals and terrorists that may undertake such atrocities, albeit rarely in the current debate. Different question, different thread and a different memory of the claim's made. Don't derail this thread for a cheap shot, I'd be happy to answer you both in the appropriate forum.

If I could, I would...

The myth of invasion...

The rule here is, attack the argument, not the lionfish...

Change is inevitable, the lionfish isn't...

Is it?

That's a very specific set of circumstances, to justify torture: There's a time limit. You would have to know, without doubt, that you have the guilty party on the table; or you're waisting time... You would have to know, without doubt, that the information gained can be trusted; or you're waisting time... I can't be sure that would even justify a 'B' movie... https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/abs/socratic-moral-psychology/wrongdoing-and-damage-to-the-soul/73B3EF2F0D93EC847489578AC0C03C69

At what point, do the two collide?

This a joke, right?

That's the reason torture doesn't work: you'll say anything to avoid more pain, even if you're not guilty. I'll do and say anything to find more pain. How can the torturer tell the difference? It's only in Hollywood that, the good guy's can stoicaly endure the pain for the greater good and the bad guy's can only give it out, but can't take it.

I'm not putting myself down, that's your bias talking; being wrong or admitting stupidity is not a weakness, it's honesty and it's our/science's strength (that's what makes us special). There's no point doing an experiment, if we already know the answer... Being 100% sure about anything is a faith based philosophy, I'll keep my question based philosophy if it's all the same. Be careful which ones you kill:

At least I know I'm stupid and freely admit the limits of my ability; pretending I'm clever just leads to someone like @joigus posting what he did (no hard feelings BTW)... I'm sure you have, somewhere, maybe in the evolution thread... But that's beside the point, because the answer is "42" or if you prefer "what's 6*7?"

Way to miss the point, yet again; or are you being deliberately obtuse? That's just cheating at solitaire... 😉 Essentially, we have a moral obligation to plan for a purpose; a purpose you insist doesn't exist...

Indeed +1, no-one in this game wants an actual war...

There-in lies your bias; I, also, respect the man immensley, but I also recognise that he's just a man; and as many women will testify, men are often wrong...