Is Torture Ever Right ?

[beecee]

8 hours ago, dimreepr said:

The only logical conclusion is, torture is only right in a scenario that will never exist.. 

That is a nonsense claim and conclusion.

(1) In reality we do not know whether torture will work or not, but in the circumstances provided, it would be morally incorrect and wrong not to try it after all else has failed.

(2) Guilt can be logically concluded in other ways, in the situations already described in this thread, if you care to look.

(3) Ignoring points 1 and 2 is nothing more than a cop out. While there is a time limit, it could also be minutes hours, or days. We are morally bound to do the best we can in any given situation.

(4) If we run out of time, and the child dies or thousands of innocents are killed, then the pedaphile, terrorist, criminal, will and should face the harshest possible punishments according to the law. And personally, I don't really give a flying f^%$ whether that includes what you passively label as revenge. I would guess though, that if it was your own wife, child, brother, sister, mother, father, you maybe whistling a different tune. 

6 hours ago, dimreepr said:

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

Yes, you need to keep that in mind, (being human that is) ..we are all human along with our emotions when applied to situations in this thread. Trying to hide that, or somehow eliminating that in situations being discussed is impossible, and is pretentious nonsense. We in Australia have impact statements from victims of crime, that rightly have a bearing on the punishment metered out to the wrong doer.

Your first statement is absolutely wrong. Children of course are innocent, as are many adults in certain situations. Now I understand how you maybe able to philsophically  twist and turn that claim, but you also know what I think of philosophy over reality. While no human is an angel, in certain situations they are innocent.

In essence though, that whole statement, ( None of us are innocent, we're all guilty of being humans) is irrelevant to the subject at hand, and simply put in to shore up your flagging philosophical stance. 

Edited February 21, 2022 by beecee

[John Cuthber]

13 hours ago, Intoscience said:

No one is arguing this, no one is saying that torture will work. The argument is that it might, even with the smallest of chances.  

But you never really know when it does.

 

1 hour ago, beecee said:

We can never be sure it won't work the way we want it to, and while there is a chance, we are morally obliged to try it, after all else has failed.

So, we lower ourselves to moral failure... just in case something that never really worked, suddenly does.

 

 

1 hour ago, beecee said:

Curious though, how can you claim that you will not get the desired outcome?

Because the victim knows that lying is an option.
 

[dimreepr]

"lord what fools these mortals be"

[beecee]

15 minutes ago, John Cuthber said:

But you never really know when it does.

Of course you do! How can you say that? The recovery of the kidnapped child, or the saving of thousands of lives.

17 minutes ago, John Cuthber said:

So, we lower ourselves to moral failure... just in case something that never really worked, suddenly does.

 Again, you seem to be making presumptions. Who said it has never worked? What is the moral failure you speak of? The non existent moral fibre of the pedaphile, terrorist or criminal? In the current pertaining conditions, my morals lie with saving and/or protecting the innocents, in every way possible.

22 minutes ago, John Cuthber said:

Because the victim knows that lying is an option.

He also knows he may need to suffer more if he does. That's a pretty flimsy excuse  actually.

10 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

"lord what fools these mortals be"

😅😄 

"There is no statement so absurd that no philosopher will make it".

Cicero, Marcus Tullius (106-43 BCE) Roman statesman. De Divinatione

[Intoscience]

11 hours ago, John Cuthber said:

But you never really know when it does.
 

Well you do, as beecee pointed out, if the victims of the crime are saved. 

The main point is that if you don't try you will never know, but you will know for certain if you don't try the victims are doomed. 

I find this morally undesirable. Logic even dictates this.

When people suggest to me that I'm wasting my time buying a national lottery ticket because I'm never going to win they are most likely correct. The odds of me winning are extremely low, so as far as gambling goes it's in reality a waste of money. However, I'm prepared to keep buying a ticket because there is an extremely small chance that I might just win, and the outcome of this is that I get to win the prize that was worth trying for - You have to be in it to win it

If you don't try you can never achieve, if you do try at least there is a chance, no matter how unlikely it is, you will.

When all else fails and you are left in a situation where torture or do nothing are your only 2 options left, do nothing results in one outcome. 

     

19 hours ago, dimreepr said:

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.

No, the question is a simple one that gets over complicated by irrelevant reasoning. There's too much focus on all the if's but's and maybe's. 

1.Torture is most likely very unreliable for information extraction and could be most likely result in failure. Is it proven that torture has a 100% failure rate? If so I'm happy to retract my answer to the OP and change it to a No.

2.In some situations there maybe no way to ascertain 100% guilt, granted. however when time is of the essence and you have enough information to assume the perp is guilty then this is the logical approach.

3&4. You state yourself that the clock is ticking, this applies to the victims as well as the perp being tortured. but I think the clock for the victims is far more important than the clock for the perp, would you not agree? No one says that the perp requires torturing beyond what is necessary, now you are making up scenarios.

Like beecee, my concern lies with the victims facing their doom, not the perp being tortured. The perp being tortured has a good chance of survival (though some would argue doesn't deserve such), the victims face inevitably death.

But hey, if you can rest easy on your choice and sleep at night happy that the choice you made was the best one, good luck. I'm not here to argue what you should believe, think or feel. 

In my simple mind, I follow what I believe is the logical route where I can, until there is no logical route left, then I go with my gut and/or the route that I feel is the best one to take at that given moment. We can all look back with regret and say "only if". 

 

[beecee]

12 minutes ago, Intoscience said:

The main point is that if you don't try you will never know, but you will know for certain if you don't try the victims are doomed. 

I find this morally undesirable. Logic even dictates this.     

Here, hear!

Just to add, this is in the "ethics"  section, and yet all I'm seeing from some, is for the abandoning of ethics, and morality in favour of some pretentious philosophical, absolute, immovable high ground. I see it as morally contemptable to not try any and every means possible to save the innocent child and the other thousands of innocents. 

In saying all that, and again to show how philosophical standings, can vary depending on the philosopher, here are some doozies.

 

I also found this.....https://www.britannica.com/topic/right-and-wrong

right and wrong

ethics:

"that holds that the moral rightness or wrongness of an action should be ascertained in terms of the action’s consequences. According to one common formulation, an action is right if it would promote a greater amount of happiness for a greater number of people than would any other action performable"…

 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/ethics/introduction/consequentialism_1.shtml

 

Consequentialism: "Consequentialism says that right or wrong depend on the consequences of an act, and that the more good consequences are produced, the better the act".

Of all the things a person might do at any given moment, the morally right action is the one with the best overall consequences.

Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy: Consequentialism

::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

Despite the above, I don't need to depend on philosophical jargon or thoughts of what is right or what is wrong, or what is moral and what is immoral. I simply stand by my own morals and that of the care, sympathy, and priorities to the vicitms of crime in any and all circumstances, and see the pedaphile, terrorist, and criminals, as having set their own bar of morality pretty low to non existent.

 

Consequentialism says that right or wrong depend on the consequences of an act, and that the more good consequences are produced, the better the act.

 

[John Cuthber]

13 hours ago, beecee said:

He also knows he may need to suffer more if he does. That's a pretty flimsy excuse  actually.

He knew that at the outset.

He chose to carry on.

It's a pretty robust reason really, and it's not an "excuse".

[dimreepr]

4 hours ago, Intoscience said:

I find this morally undesirable. Logic even dictates this.

When people suggest to me that I'm wasting my time buying a national lottery ticket because I'm never going to win they are most likely correct. The odds of me winning are extremely low, so as far as gambling goes it's in reality a waste of money. However, I'm prepared to keep buying a ticket because there is an extremely small chance that I might just win, and the outcome of this is that I get to win the prize that was worth trying for - You have to be in it to win it

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? 

[Prometheus]

On 2/17/2022 at 6:45 PM, Genady said:

Our ability or inability to prove something or to construct something in math doesn't affect its existence. The same with ethics.

You make your opinion sound like an established fact, which of course it is not.

I can understand though, if you take this position, how you can consider an ethical problem as some pure abstraction and give 'definitive' answers. But, like @joigus suggested, many people do not think of ethics like that and we have reached a stalemate; nothing more can be said.

 

On 2/17/2022 at 7:37 PM, beecee said:

I don't accept that we can never know with 100% certainty, the guilt of a person. I gave examples of that in the justice/punishment thread. 

Hard to debate anyone 100% certain of anything.

 

On 2/17/2022 at 7:37 PM, beecee said:

When thousands of innocent lives are at stake, every possible means need be implemented to at least attempt to save them.

By the same reasoning, i should go out and murder the next person i meet, because there is a vanishingly small probability they will be the next Hitler. Of course, that is stupid. I say this to highlight that having some idea of how likely torture is to work is important to the decision. If it's as likely as any random person you meet being the next Hitler, would you still do it?

 

[dimreepr]

3 hours ago, beecee said:

I see it as morally contemptable to not try any and every means possible to save the innocent child and the other thousands of innocents.

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?

[Prometheus]

4 hours ago, Intoscience said:

When all else fails and you are left in a situation where torture or do nothing are your only 2 options left, do nothing results in one outcome. 

False dichotomy (in the real world, haven't been following the latest unrealistic 'scenario'). Torture is only one interrogation technique. There may be more effective techniques: i know no one here is interested in evidence, but here is some that suggests alternatives to torture actually work better.

[joigus]

26 minutes ago, Prometheus said:

False dichotomy (in the real world, haven't been following the latest unrealistic 'scenario'). Torture is only one interrogation technique. There may be more effective techniques: i know no one here is interested in evidence, but here is some that suggests alternatives to torture actually work better.

Very interesting. Thank you. And seems to be the closest to hard evidence that any of us has contributed so far from the pragmatic --non-ethical-- point of view.

------

And now for something completely different...

As long as we're heavily involved in devising thought experiments...

Let me set up a totally hypothetical scenario. Suppose enough research is done that we learn there is a procedural pathway to have a person spill the beans no matter what compelling motivation they have to keep it secret by exciting some part of their brain. This part of the brain is the nucleus accumbens, which is related to pleasure, positive reinforcement, and the like. Completely hypothetical, mind you.

So, in this hypothetical scenario, we've found out that, instead of best results being obtained by ramping up the pain circuitry; they are obtained by ramping up the pleasure circuitry.

Would you still do it? Remember, the guy is scum, and you're set up for giving him the time of his life.

But you get to save poor little girl in dark, damp basement.

Would you still do it? Answer yourselves, more importantly than answer here.

[Genady]

58 minutes ago, Prometheus said:

You make your opinion sound like an established fact, which of course it is not.

I can understand though, if you take this position, how you can consider an ethical problem as some pure abstraction and give 'definitive' answers.

You are certainly right and the phrase, "if you take this position" is a key part. Here is another position, which I've expressed several days later,

On 2/19/2022 at 8:58 AM, Genady said:

I think that Right and Wrong, including their application to torture in general or in specific cases, is a matter of personal taste. The latter develops under effects of individual, social, and environmental factors.

These are two of possible consistent positions (not 'my opinions').

[dimreepr]

48 minutes ago, joigus said:

Let me set up a totally hypothetical scenario. Suppose enough research is done that we learn there is a procedural pathway to have a person spill the beans no matter what compelling motivation they have to keep it secret by exciting some part of their brain. This part of the brain is the nucleus accumbens, which is related to pleasure, positive reinforcement, and the like. Completely hypothetical, mind you.

So, in this hypothetical scenario, we've found out that, instead of best results being obtained by ramping up the pain circuitry; they are obtained by ramping up the pleasure circuitry.

Would you still do it? Remember, the guy is scum, and you're set up for giving him the time of his life.

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? 

[Peterkin]

2 hours ago, joigus said:

Would you still do it? Remember, the guy is scum, and you're set up for giving him the time of his life.

In a heartbeat. There is nothing in my ethical code to prohibit causing pleasure.

Indeed, if I could replace the pleasure all people like this "scum" derive from doing harm with a harmless battery-operated brain-tickler, I would do that, too.

BTW, some chemical truth aids may be more effective than physical pain, with less residual damage - but ou can't count on them working, either. It's always a gamble.  

[TheVat]

 This, from @Prometheus link, seems a suitable coda:

"National security restrictions and the ethics of psychological research mean that the outcomes of torture cannot be evaluated empirically."

Which means that any ethical analysis that depends on a determination of utility will fail.  

This leaves us with deontological ethics.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deontology

We don't know the consequences, therefore we must consider the act in and of itself, as it relates to our moral duties and obligations.

 

 

[beecee]

9 hours ago, John Cuthber said:

He knew that at the outset.

He chose to carry on.

It's a pretty robust reason really, and it's not an "excuse".

It's a chance and we are morally obliged to try it.  

7 hours ago, dimreepr said:

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.

The person is not potentially innocent. The person is guilty, and I am appalled that you would rather let a child die or thousands of other innocents be blown, rather then cross your rather obnoxious passive philosophical line with regards to torture, on low life like the pedaphile, terrorist or criminal. But then again, you'ré the same person that pushes for the elimination of jails for convicted criminals because you believe they may have had it hard at some time or other in their lives. Thankfully, in a real society, the priority will always be for the victims.

7 hours ago, dimreepr said:

 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).

  You cannot say it has never happened and I'm pretty sure if you had any evidence  of that it or similar that it has never happened, you would be plastering it all over the forum....but even if true, we can be thankful for that, and the fact that we have jails and punishments to deter such criminals.

7 hours ago, dimreepr said:

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? 

Would you still stand by your pretentious high ground on torture, if it was your child that was kidnapped, or your whole family in the area of the bomb detonation?

7 hours ago, Prometheus said:

Hard to debate anyone 100% certain of anything.

We are not talking about science. We are debating a scenario where 100% certainty is guaranteed, by the evidence.eg: DNA found under the kidnapper's finger nails, in his hair, in his car, an admission of guilt of the kidnapping in a mocking fashion and daring the authorities to find the child and their other kidnapper....the same admission by the bomber in the same mocking I dare you to find it fashion. Or as in the real life case I gave in the justice/punishment thread, a low life caught raping a little girl and stabbing one of her rescuers.

7 hours ago, Prometheus said:

By the same reasoning, i should go out and murder the next person i meet, because there is a vanishingly small probability they will be the next Hitler. Of course, that is stupid. I say this to highlight that having some idea of how likely torture is to work is important to the decision. If it's as likely as any random person you meet being the next Hitler, would you still do it?

Yes it is stupid and the analogy poor and non existant.

7 hours ago, Prometheus said:

False dichotomy (in the real world, haven't been following the latest unrealistic 'scenario'). Torture is only one interrogation technique. There may be more effective techniques: i know no one here is interested in evidence, but here is some that suggests alternatives to torture actually work better.

Great!!try all the techniques you can think of, even torture as the final effort in obtaining the information. Perhaps mental torture for the jihadist bomber in doing something that will prevent him linking up with his 42 virgins in the next life, I don't really care that much. My general stance with regards to the repugnancy of torture, is over-ridden by my sympathy and care towards saving the vicitms.

7 hours ago, joigus said:

Would you still do it? Answer yourselves, more importantly than answer here.

Of course I would do it, or any other methodology anyone can dream up to facilitate the saving of the little child or the thousands of other innocents.

6 hours ago, dimreepr said:

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? 

 

4 hours ago, Peterkin said:

In a heartbeat. There is nothing in my ethical code to prohibit causing pleasure.

Indeed, if I could replace the pleasure all people like this "scum" derive from doing harm with a harmless battery-operated brain-tickler, I would do that, too.

BTW, some chemical truth aids may be more effective than physical pain, with less residual damage - but ou can't count on them working, either. It's always a gamble.  

Whatever it takes to rescue the child or save countless other innocents. The criminal, kidnapper, terrorist, will in the end, still be rightly punished for his crimes. If giving the scum and low life some extreme pleasurable moments can bring about a successful outcome, great!!! Like I said, he or she will still be jailed and punished later on, as he or she should be.

All avenues tried  people!!! That's all I have been saying all along with other robust thinkers!! 😉 

Thanks joigus for that wonderful Einstein like thought experiment!! 😉

Edited February 22, 2022 by beecee

[beecee]

On 2/21/2022 at 11:40 PM, dimreepr said:

It's not a realistic question, for many a reason as pointed out by other member's.

Sorry to keep picking on you dimmy, but if we take ourselves back to around the year of our Lord, 2000, how many would have imagined that 12 months later, four airlines would be hi-jacked, the two towers of the World Trade Centre brought down after two of those planes were crashed into them, and the Pentagon itself, also feeling the impact of another of the planes. Who would have thunk it!!! 

Now let's imagine that one of those 19 potential hi-jackers was caught with documents that presented roughly a terrorist attack on or about that date. 

In essence, the only unrealistic aspect, is the pretentious waffling on about the immoral aspects of torture, on any occasion, when all other methods have been exhausted, and . 

I repeat......

 

..https://www.britannica.com/topic/right-and-wrong

right and wrong

ethics:

"that holds that the moral rightness or wrongness of an action should be ascertained in terms of the action’s consequences. According to one common formulation, an action is right if it would promote a greater amount of happiness for a greater number of people than would any other action performable"…

 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/ethics/introduction/consequentialism_1.shtml

 

Consequentialism: "Consequentialism says that right or wrong depend on the consequences of an act, and that the more good consequences are produced, the better the act".

Of all the things a person might do at any given moment, the morally right action is the one with the best overall consequences.

Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy: Consequentialism

 

Edited February 22, 2022 by beecee

[Intoscience]

21 hours ago, Prometheus said:

False dichotomy (in the real world, haven't been following the latest unrealistic 'scenario'). Torture is only one interrogation technique. There may be more effective techniques: i know no one here is interested in evidence, but here is some that suggests alternatives to torture actually work better.

Quite right torture is one of many interrogation techniques. But the OP is focused around whether torture is the right thing to do not what alternatives there are. Yes we can consider alternatives, much like we can consider real life scenarios. But to answer the question directly "is it ever right to torture someone" we have to consider all possible scenarios rather than focus on the most likely scenarios.

So to re-iterate, when all other options have been exhausted and you are left with only 2 options - torture or not. Is it ever possible that torture is the right thing to do?

21 hours ago, joigus said:

Very interesting. Thank you. And seems to be the closest to hard evidence that any of us has contributed so far from the pragmatic --non-ethical-- point of view.

------

And now for something completely different...

As long as we're heavily involved in devising thought experiments...

Let me set up a totally hypothetical scenario. Suppose enough research is done that we learn there is a procedural pathway to have a person spill the beans no matter what compelling motivation they have to keep it secret by exciting some part of their brain. This part of the brain is the nucleus accumbens, which is related to pleasure, positive reinforcement, and the like. Completely hypothetical, mind you.

So, in this hypothetical scenario, we've found out that, instead of best results being obtained by ramping up the pain circuitry; they are obtained by ramping up the pleasure circuitry.

Would you still do it? Remember, the guy is scum, and you're set up for giving him the time of his life.

But you get to save poor little girl in dark, damp basement.

Would you still do it? Answer yourselves, more importantly than answer here.

Absolutely, which ever technique is going to cause the least distress for all those involved is the most logical and morally correct action to take.  No one is arguing this.

14 hours ago, beecee said:

It's a chance and we are morally obliged to try it.  

All avenues tried  people!!! That's all I have been saying all along with other robust thinkers!! 😉 

Exactly,  +1

Edited February 23, 2022 by Intoscience

[dimreepr]

"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...
 

[Intoscience]

22 hours ago, dimreepr said:

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? 

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.   

Edited February 23, 2022 by Intoscience
spelling

[dimreepr]

56 minutes ago, Intoscience said:

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.

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.

12 hours ago, beecee said:

Sorry to keep picking on you dimmy, but if we take ourselves back to around the year of our Lord, 2000, how many would have imagined that 12 months later, four airlines would be hi-jacked, the two towers of the World Trade Centre brought down after two of those planes were crashed into them, and the Pentagon itself, also feeling the impact of another of the planes. Who would have thunk it!!! 

That's the excuse America used to torture people without trial, the thing is, the people involved were all dead...

58 minutes ago, Intoscience said:

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.

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... 

Edited February 23, 2022 by dimreepr

[Intoscience]

28 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

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... 

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.

Edited February 23, 2022 by Intoscience
spelling

[dimreepr]

6 minutes ago, Intoscience said:

Then why are we discussing anything? There seems to a focus around the negative unknowns whilst at the same time dismissing the positive unknowns. 

What's possitive about torture?

I'm only dismissing the possibilty that you can know the consequences, of your action's; what I think is, if you do the wrong thing, you'll probably regret it...

There's no reason to use torture, just a list of excuses...

 

Edited February 23, 2022 by dimreepr

[Intoscience]

2 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

What's possitive about torture?

I'm only dismissing the possibilty that you can know the consequences, of your action's; what I think is, if you do the wrong thing, you'll probably regret it...

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.