Is Torture Ever Right ?

[TheVat]

It's worth considering, given the OP question, and that we are in a philosophy thread, that one could have thought experiments (much as ethicists do with the famous Trolley Problem) which are highly unlikely.  The question posed is, after all, "is it EVER right?" in any possible sense of "right." 

I agree with much of @joigus analysis as to why torture is not scientifically supportable (plus one for that) and very likely to always present itself as a barbaric and unimaginative choice where some other bit of finesse might be better.  

But the scripted thought experiments, like the nuke in London scenario, are meant to make a philosophic incision into the nature of ethical decisions, rather than be a realistic and scientifically documented event in the real world. (hence my earlier point that an actual bomber would have some mechanical contrivance to assure detonation and evade interrogation)(as a couple others posters pointed out).  Just as looming trolley accidents, with that special ethical dilemma as framed in that famous conundrum, do not really happen in the real world that way, so too is the case with many a torture thought experiment.  In some respects, the Trolley Problem and the London Nuke scenario are both ones that invite the philosopher to consider the merits of Bentham's utilitarianism, and ask what, in theory, promotes the greatest general good for the most people.  

 

[beecee]

1 hour ago, joigus said:

Summarising:

Not very imaginative!

Prompted by the emotional, primitive, retributional mind, rather than the rational/empirical.

Not experimentally borne out in any way that I know of.

What about some science instead?

Totally agree it isn't very imaginitive, and is prompted by emotions, and is not science. But I fail to see how you can call it retribution. What about the stubborness of the kidnapper refusing to confess? Or the arrogance and depravity of the bomber, thumbing his nose at the authoriies trying to prevent a catastrophe? It's a moral concern for a little child, and/or thousands of innocent victims. 

Your other points as raised by others have also been answered. If with regards to the pedaphile, we find the child's DNA in his hair, on his clothes, in his car, or (god forbid) under his finger nails? The probabilty of his guilt is obvious at least imo. 

No, we can never be sure of the result of torturing the pedaphile or terrorist, and whether or not they are lying or simply throwing the authories off the track. But I'm pretty sure the little child, or the thousands of people that could be blown up, would want all possibilities examined and tried. And this is the crux of the matter. We are speaking of a situation where all other means have been tried and failed. Will torture work? I don't know, but I hope for the sake of the child and thousands of people and a devestated city that it does work. 

In summing, everyone agrees torture should be banned in any civilised society, pure and simple, no ifs, no buts...its the law.

But as 9/11 proved, sometimes the unexpected happens, the most unlikley scenarios may develop. Its in circumstances like this, that society may need to consider other less moral means, to gain a highly moral result.

 

56 minutes ago, Peterkin said:

The problem with my argument seems to be not in the uncertainty of the prisoner's guilt, which was dealt-with in an "it's in the script" assertion, nor the uncertainty of the efficacy of torture, which was dealt-with by "we have to try anyway", and not even my uncertainty regarding my own capability and response to a circumstance I have not experienced. The main objection seems to be to my refusal to agree that a shade of grey turns white if you put it next to black. It may look white, but it isn't. 

I disagree. I see it simply as a choice to be made, when all other contingencies and means have been tried, to either sit back and procrastinate further, or try something that maybe wrong, but at least less wrong then the actions of the pedaphile and the terrorist.

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/torture/

extract:

3. The Moral Justification for One-off Acts of Torture in Emergencies

In this case study torture of the car thief can be provided with a substantial moral justification, even if it does not convince everyone. Consider the following points: (1) The police reasonably believe that torturing the car thief will probably save an innocent life; (2) the police know that there is no other way to save the life; (3) the threat to life is more or less imminent; (4) the baby is innocent; (5) the car thief is known not to be an innocent – his action is known to have caused the threat to the baby, and he is refusing to allow the baby’s life to be saved.

Edited February 11, 2022 by beecee

[Peterkin]

57 minutes ago, beecee said:

I disagree.

We have known that for some time; I never expected it to be otherwise. To me, the more interesting aspect of this "debate" is why it's so important - why it's worth the name-calling and large bold font and umpteen repetitions of the same question - that I should agree with your position. 

[zapatos]

2 hours ago, joigus said:

Where is the experimental evidence that shows that torturing a person will lead to obtaining useful information?

Quote

Third, inquisitorial torture yielded information. Victims often collabo- rated with interrogators in the torture chamber and often provided truthful information they were not willing to divulge prior to torture. A careful comparison between the evidence torture extracted and evidence witnesses provided outside the torture chamber shows a correspondence in details. Events attested to under torture, and collaborators accused under torture, were corroborated by independent witnesses in other trials. The trials of these collaborators provide further confirmation that accusations made under torture were often truthful.

https://www.gwern.net/docs/history/2020-hassner.pdf

[iNow]

6 minutes ago, zapatos said:

https://www.gwern.net/docs/history/2020-hassner.pdf

The question isn’t IMO whether info can be extracted via torture, but whether other methods are more effective. To that end:

https://www.apa.org/pubs/journals/releases/amp-amp0000064.pdf

[beecee]

1 hour ago, Peterkin said:

We have known that for some time; I never expected it to be otherwise. To me, the more interesting aspect of this "debate" is why it's so important - why it's worth the name-calling and large bold font and umpteen repetitions of the same question - that I should agree with your position. 

I wish it could have continued without the name-calling, inferences etc, and I regret my part in that. Its importance is simply at least in my opinion, the way I also saw the justice/punishment thread...this is similar. 

I call things the way I see it, and am not immediatly concerned with whether it is left or right of the political spectrum, and that may invoke some emotionalism, and while I'm an avid lay supporter of science, I do see emotion as part and parcel of who and what we are as humans. 

I don't particulary care about whether you agree with my position or otherwise, more concerned with answering to the best of my capabilities those concerns you keep raising. To me anyway, you did appear to want to have an each way bet.

Edited February 11, 2022 by beecee

[Peterkin]

6 minutes ago, beecee said:

I don't particulary care about whether you agree with my position or otherwise, more concerned with answering to the best of my capabilities those concerns you keep raising. To me anyway, you did appear to want to have an each way bet.

I didn't know it was a game of chance, or choosing up sides. I answered the questions about what I believe, what I would do and why as truthfully as I could. I strongly disapproved of your bringing a civilian into a police procedure and explained why. I do not question your politics, your morality, your allegiances, your sincerity or your intentions - even though I don't share them, and will [99.9% probably] never share them.  

[beecee]

1 hour ago, iNow said:

The question isn’t IMO whether info can be extracted via torture, but whether other methods are more effective. To that end:

https://www.apa.org/pubs/journals/releases/amp-amp0000064.pdf

If other methods work, all well and good, and I would be fully supportive. I just cannot see how anyone can rule out situations above and beyond what normality demands, no matter how unlikely. The paper you present covers the general normality. 

 

2 minutes ago, Peterkin said:

I didn't know it was a game of chance, or choosing up sides. I answered the questions about what I believe, what I would do and why as truthfully as I could. I strongly disapproved of your bringing a civilian into a police procedure and explained why. I do not question your politics, your morality, your allegiances, your sincerity or your intentions - even though I don't share them, and will [99.9% probably] never share them.  

We must then beg to differ. Just a point on my politics, when I was a young bloke, I was delegate of my work place and the chief instigator of a 5 week strike for pay and conditions...this was in 1970. We achieved near all we asked for including $15 a week pay increase (big money in those days) 35 hour working week, and 4 weeks annual leave. I was in line to achieve big things with my union, (the AMWU) a left wing union, but because I didn't follow the exact policy and spoke at times against certain issues I saw as detrimental, I was quickly pidgeon holed. I prefer my politcal postion of being a fence sitter with legs hanging to the left, and absorbing the best from both sides.

Don't be too concerned though, If you still make it to Australia (our international borders will be open shortly) I'l still buy you a beer.

[zapatos]

1 hour ago, iNow said:

The question isn’t IMO whether info can be extracted via torture, but whether other methods are more effective. To that end:

Of course. But it was the question asked by joigus. 

[iNow]

Well, I’m also sometimes an idiot who multitasks too much, so there’s that. Don’t mind me. I’ll show myself out 😂 

[Peterkin]

1 hour ago, beecee said:

Don't be too concerned though, If you still make it to Australia (our international borders will be open shortly) I'l still buy you a beer.

Don't wait up! I trust nobody's international openings. I embrace nobody I haven't frisked for weapons. And I go noplace on an airplane.

[Intoscience]

9 hours ago, et pet said:

Can anyone cite any case where torture actually produced actionable intelligence that led to a positive result, ie child rescued from pedophile or bomb found before detontion?

not from tv or movies!

  IF...any conspirators were to actually set a bomb to kill thousands of people, do you suppose that those same conspirators might have a FAIL SAFE of any kind?

Say, possibly that in the event that one of them might be caught, they have a ready response in the event of TORTURE?

like it may be that under duress, they give up a location that when acted upon, lets the other conspirators know that one of them has been captured,

or it may be an address that when accessed automatically detonates that bomb?

 

as far as the pedophile/s, it may be an address that is near the real address so as to let the other pedophile know that the authorities are closing in?

what do you suppose will happen to any child after that?

peterkin seems to be the only poster that has really contemplated the question and answered honestly

 

 

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). 

6 hours ago, TheVat said:

It's worth considering, given the OP question, and that we are in a philosophy thread, that one could have thought experiments (much as ethicists do with the famous Trolley Problem) which are highly unlikely.  The question posed is, after all, "is it EVER right?" in any possible sense of "right." 

I agree with much of @joigus analysis as to why torture is not scientifically supportable (plus one for that) and very likely to always present itself as a barbaric and unimaginative choice where some other bit of finesse might be better.  

But the scripted thought experiments, like the nuke in London scenario, are meant to make a philosophic incision into the nature of ethical decisions, rather than be a realistic and scientifically documented event in the real world. (hence my earlier point that an actual bomber would have some mechanical contrivance to assure detonation and evade interrogation)(as a couple others posters pointed out).  Just as looming trolley accidents, with that special ethical dilemma as framed in that famous conundrum, do not really happen in the real world that way, so too is the case with many a torture thought experiment.  In some respects, the Trolley Problem and the London Nuke scenario are both ones that invite the philosopher to consider the merits of Bentham's utilitarianism, and ask what, in theory, promotes the greatest general good for the most people.  

 

+1

7 hours ago, joigus said:

Peterkin and Swansont have brought up the argument of uncertainty.

Exchemist has brought up the argument of efficiency.

Prometheus has brought up (and insisted on, to no apparent effect) the argument of experimental evidence to support such alleged efficiency, so in some sense strongly complements Exchemist’s argument.

Those are all arguments I was thinking about myself before I started reading the comments. It’s taken me some time to start catching up. I’m not finished catching up yet.

Weighing the dubiousness of an extreme procedure against the urgency or compulsory character of an extreme case doesn't seem to meet the standards of a rational setup to discuss the ethical basis for a course of action. It more looks like trying to motivate loopholes for an inexcusable, unjustifiable procedure.

This last point has been dealt with by Phi for All. I can only add some aspects to why I agree with the previous opinions.

The least I can say is that torture^{(* Definition)}, as a system to extract information from an individual, strikes me as an extremely unimaginative, unscientific way to deal with this hypothetical problem.

Main arguments that resonate with my thinking:

Uncertainty

1) Are you sure this person did it? 100 % sure? Then: Are you sure they didn’t do it out of coertion? 100 % sure?…, etc. I can go on forever to argue about how the “method” could be at least disproportionate based on uncertainty. Uncertainty, I hate to break the news to some of you respected and respectable members, is universal. It's always there in some degree.

Efficiency

2) Would torture lead to information that's accurate enough, sure enough? Doesn’t seem like it would work. And not because it’s not been tried. History is rife with cases of false confessions under torture that lead nowhere useful to ascertain the facts.

Evidence

3) Where is the experimental evidence that shows that torturing a person will lead to obtaining useful information? Irrespective of the psychological profile of the tortured person? (Taken from history, of course, because we would find many an ethical problem with actually conducting the experiments.)

Alternatives:

Why not more imaginative strategies based in game theory (the prisoner’s dilemma comes to mind), use of computing power, biotechnologies, even linguistics, or combination of those? (I know of a kidnapping case in Spain that was solved because the expression “bolo”, used in a particular way, appeared in the background in a telephone conversation, an it narrowed down the possibilities to a cluster of small villages.) It sometimes surprises me how much our imagination is silenced when the visceral comes into play.

No, torture is never justified. It's never an intelligent solution. It's been tried to death --literally-- with no significant results to my knowledge. And worst of all, we know its realm is a part of the darkest recesses of the human mind that somehow still lurks there and we'd be much better off without, for good.

Summarising:

Not very imaginative!

Prompted by the emotional, primitive, retributional mind, rather than the rational/empirical.

Not experimentally borne out in any way that I know of.

What about some science instead?

 

* Definition: The act of causing somebody severe pain in order to punish them or make them say or do something.

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.   

Edited February 11, 2022 by Intoscience
spelling

[beecee]

1 hour ago, Intoscience said:

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. 

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. 

I fully support Amnesty International with their strict laws on torture, but I also am bloody sure, if in either of the examples given here, that any legal system would make exceptions for those that undertook torture and were successful in the situations as given here, that they would be pardoned...if it at all ever got to legal hearings. 

3 hours ago, Peterkin said:

Don't wait up! I trust nobody's international openings. I embrace nobody I haven't frisked for weapons. And I go noplace on an airplane.

Our first chance and we will be rushing to Fiji!

Edited February 11, 2022 by beecee

[joigus]

9 hours ago, Peterkin said:

The main objection seems to be to my refusal to agree that a shade of grey turns white if you put it next to black. It may look white, but it isn't. 

This is a very eloquent phrasing of what I meant to say when I wrote,

9 hours ago, joigus said:

Weighing the dubiousness of an extreme procedure against the urgency or compulsory character of an extreme case doesn't seem to meet the standards of a rational setup to discuss the ethical basis for a course of action. It more looks like trying to motivate loopholes for an inexcusable, unjustifiable procedure.

 

8 hours ago, TheVat said:

But the scripted thought experiments, like the nuke in London scenario, are meant to make a philosophic incision into the nature of ethical decisions, rather than be a realistic and scientifically documented event in the real world. (hence my earlier point that an actual bomber would have some mechanical contrivance to assure detonation and evade interrogation)(as a couple others posters pointed out).  Just as looming trolley accidents, with that special ethical dilemma as framed in that famous conundrum, do not really happen in the real world that way, so too is the case with many a torture thought experiment.  In some respects, the Trolley Problem and the London Nuke scenario are both ones that invite the philosopher to consider the merits of Bentham's utilitarianism, and ask what, in theory, promotes the greatest general good for the most people.  

I totally agree with the first part. I'm not totally sure that we can Bentham our way through this though. With this I concede that the problem is a difficult one.

These arguments of counter-weighing the lesser evil against the far worse danger make me cringe. I always see the emotional/primitive-primate creeping in there. We all have that.

@beecee:

Putting the hulking brute father in the same cell as the criminal doesn't sound like a well thought-out method if what we want is to get the information that would lead to saving the child. I'm interested in proposals that would lead to saving the child. Beating the criminal to within an inch of his life, reducing his body to a pulp and watching his agony, having the father be the "expert" to be called in to perfom the operation, doesn't sound to me as driven by the urgency to solve the case.

I want to make it very clear that I'm perfectly aware that I'm not talking from any high moral ground. If something like that happened to me, I would probably succumb to similar feelings. But it wouldn't be my frontal cortex speaking; it would be my amygdala. We all have that switch.

2 hours ago, Intoscience said:

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?

So we're back to what is right. Good point. Let me get back to it later, please. Last night I was thinking about that same question, but I have to finesse my argument, because the way I thought about it, it might sound as if I mean something else.

[joigus]

8 hours ago, zapatos said:

https://www.gwern.net/docs/history/2020-hassner.pdf

I'm not ignoring this. I'll answer ASAP.

But I think @iNow has addressed it already. I meant my comments mostly in that spirit.

[dimreepr]

10 hours ago, TheVat said:

It's worth considering, given the OP question, and that we are in a philosophy thread, that one could have thought experiments (much as ethicists do with the famous Trolley Problem) which are highly unlikely.  The question posed is, after all, "is it EVER right?" in any possible sense of "right." 

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?

 

2 hours ago, beecee said:

4 hours ago, Intoscience said:

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. 

Expand  

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.

[Peterkin]

I realize that all of this has been covered, by several different posters, in lucid terms. I would just like to summarize before leaving the thread:  

I think we're answering different questions. The fundamental one is:

Is your principle of right and wrong constant or situational?

Whether your adherence to either principle is constant or situational is the secondary question.

Any consideration of consequences proceeding from each application of each principle is tertiary.

My principle is constant - which means my classification of good and bad is not really open to debate. My adherence to the principle is situational (if's, but's, maybe's, arguments and excuses). Sometimes I do wrong, for some reason I consider worth doing wrong for. 

My problem with the sliding morality is that its advocates appear to demand preemptive amnesty; insist that a compelling motive flips bad to good. This attitude suggests to me a quite steep slippery slide both for individuals and for societies.

 

9 hours ago, Intoscience said:

We could easily change the argument to - is it ever right to kill someone? The moral implications and justifications are the same. 

No, they're not.

[beecee]

7 hours ago, dimreepr said:

Don't derail this thread for a cheap shot, I'd be happy to answer you both in the appropriate forum.

It's certainly not any "cheap shot" and I really cannot fathom how you can arrive at that conclusion. The similarity is there, and I was making that comparison. Giving the wrong-doer, the pedaphile, the terrorist, the criminal, the benefit of the morals of that society, while he/she has grossly over stepped and discarded those same morals. My priorities lie with the innocent and those that have been the victim of crime.

7 hours ago, dimreepr said:

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. 

We all have agreed if there is another way, then that course be preferred.

7 hours ago, dimreepr said:

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?

(1)If success is achieved, none I suggest. In fact he would likely be lauded as a hero.

(2) We have proceeded of course as we all know, on the condition of certainty and most likely probability. Or beyond any "reasonable doubt"

Throughout this thread, there is one aspect that has me in awe. Even those that claim torture is wrong under any circumstances, are also agreeing that they may act contrary to that morality if in that position.

2 hours ago, Peterkin said:

No, they're not.

Please explain why? You are saying that yes, sometimes, on rare occasions, we need to kill, but in no circumstances do we have the right to use whatever means necessary to extract information from a pedaphile or a terrorist, that may save a child or thousands of people. Do I have that right?

Edited February 11, 2022 by beecee

[Peterkin]

1 hour ago, beecee said:

Please explain why? You are saying that yes, sometimes, on rare occasions, we need to kill, but in no circumstances do we have the right to use whatever means necessary to extract information from a pedaphile or a terrorist, that may save a child or thousands of people. Do I have that right?

All I'm saying is that killing and torture do not come under the same heading or into the same discussion. Killing is a different issue and any question about it needs to be framed separately.

[beecee]

1 minute ago, Peterkin said:

All I'm saying is that killing and torture do not come under the same heading or into the same discussion. Killing is a different issue and any question about it needs to be framed separately.

All I am saying is that both are morally wrong and we have laws supporting that, but sometimes sadly, circumstances arise where they both may need to be considered. I hope I am never put in such a position. 

[Peterkin]

4 hours ago, beecee said:

Even those that claim torture is wrong under any circumstances, are also agreeing that they may act contrary to that morality if in that position.

And have you never done anything in your life that you consider to be wrong?

[beecee]

3 hours ago, Peterkin said:

And have you never done anything in your life that you consider to be wrong?

Yes, of course! but primarily for my own pleasure, and concern and plenty of times. As yet not to possibly save a child's life or that of thousands of other people. And I'm full of respect for you that you would likely chose that lesser wrong, and potentially save a child's life and/or that of thousands of innocent people.

Edited February 12, 2022 by beecee

[Peterkin]

59 minutes ago, beecee said:

Yes, of course! but primarily for my own pleasure, and concern and plenty of times

So has everyone else. All I did was admit that I did this very dark grey one for a better reason than I had done previous transgressions of a lighter shade. Why beat up on me for that?

Edited February 12, 2022 by Peterkin

[beecee]

21 minutes ago, Peterkin said:

So has everyone else. All I did was admit that I did this very dark grey one for a better reason than I had done previous transgressions of a lighter shade. Why beat up on me for that?

😅 Beat up on you!! C'mon now!!!🤣

[dimreepr]

18 hours ago, beecee said:

It's certainly not any "cheap shot" and I really cannot fathom how you can arrive at that conclusion. The similarity is there, and I was making that comparison. Giving the wrong-doer, the pedaphile, the terrorist, the criminal, the benefit of the morals of that society, while he/she has grossly over stepped and discarded those same morals. My priorities lie with the innocent and those that have been the victim of crime.

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.

 

18 hours ago, beecee said:

If success is achieved, none I suggest. In fact he would likely be lauded as a hero.

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...

Edited February 12, 2022 by dimreepr