Is Torture Ever Right ?

[Peterkin]

11 hours ago, beecee said:

 Beat up on you!!

No, no, of course I must have misunderstood. You were all very nice gentlemen about my calling torture unequivocally wrong and my lack of certainty in whether I could or would ever employ it in a scripted situation that gives me no other options. I'm sure your disgust was a sincere as my attempts at explanation, all of which you deemed 'improper'.

The question remains: If you admit having done something you consider wrong, why should I not admit the same? It's the WHY part I'm interested in, not the specifics of expression.  Why is it important that I change my assessment of torture in the made-up situation?

Why does the intent of the act change the nature of the act?

Is it the motivation that makes something right or wrong? Take a minute to think of the implications.

Edited February 12, 2022 by Peterkin

[TheVat]

As it happens, we watched a movie last night we had missed when it was released in late 2015, Eye in the Sky, with Helen Mirren and Alan Rickman and a fine ensemble struggling with the ethics and legalities of making a drone strike in Nairobi on a house full of terrorists who are getting ready to do two suicide bombings.  Without going into all the complexities (one of the most cerebral political thrillers I've seen), I'll just say it comes down to a choice: strike immediately and kill the bomb-vested ones before they leave (this is the only way to intercept them), while also likely killing a young girl selling bread right outside, or wait until the girl has sold her bread and leaves.  If they wait, it is certain the bombers leave and dozens, maybe hundreds, will die in a shopping mall or marketplace.  (a surveillance "beetle" is inside the house, so they can see the bombers strapping on vests and wiring up)

A similar problem to this thread's - the proposal is to do something morally wrong to do something right, to save many lives.  The generals are all pretty much okay with it.  The government ministers are more resistant (not all for the best of reasons).  The drone pilot, seeing the little girl, is horrified and puts up resistance and throws some procedural wrenches into the machinery.  The film is almost a "must see" for an ethics thread like this one.  

 

 

[Peterkin]

Strange coincidence: we have been watching The West Wing on DVD, and just passed the episode where they had to decide about an air-strike on an apartment building where the terrorist leaders lived. The military calculation was straightforward: if they did it right away, that night, civilian casualties were estimated between 35 and 50. If they waited until the children went to school and some adults went to work, they would only kill only 15-20 civilians. However, by morning, some or all of the terrorists might also be gone.  

This kind of casualty trade-off calculation is standard for military strategists; has a quite different effect on politicians and policy-makers; and different again on the uninvolved spectator. There is a significant difference, too, in numbers and persons. 15 civilians is the price of an important move against a dangerous enemy; collateral damage. A little girl selling bread has a face and an identity: killing her is a murder.   

And I'm still holding out for a difference between pushing a button to blow somebody up from a distance, suddenly without warning, and the protracted, deliberate, direct infliction of pain while looking into another person's eyes.

[beecee]

6 hours ago, dimreepr said:

There is no similarty at all:

I disagree, sorry about that.

6 hours ago, dimreepr said:

Have you ever tortured someone?

No, but I've gladly put a bully or two in theur place on a few occasions, bloody nose etc...Oh and at other times received them myself. 

3 hours ago, Peterkin said:

The question remains: If you admit having done something you consider wrong, why should I not admit the same? It's the WHY part I'm interested in, not the specifics of expression.  Why is it important that I change my assessment of torture in the made-up situation?

I actually am reasonably convinced you are philosophically over thinking the  situation. If you chose to "beat up on yourself" because you have saved a little child and/or thousands of innocent people, then I have sympathy for you. By the same token I respect that you would if the situation were to ever arise, make that morally correct decision, despite it being morally wrong in normal circumstances.

3 hours ago, Peterkin said:

Why does the intent of the act change the nature of the act?

Is it the motivation that makes something right or wrong? Take a minute to think of the implications.

I really don't need a minute. I would probably do what you would do, irrespective of your philoosphical jargon and beating up on yourself. And more importantly, the way the majority of a reasonable western society would also see it. Therein lies the crux of the matter.

3 hours ago, TheVat said:

  The film is almost a "must see" for an ethics thread like this one.  

Yes, good movie, saw it a while back. And yes, a painful decision to be made, and thankfully I am glad I would never likely be put in such a situation.

1 hour ago, Peterkin said:

 And I'm still holding out for a difference between pushing a button to blow somebody up from a distance, suddenly without warning, and the protracted, deliberate, direct infliction of pain while looking into another person's eyes.

It's sad and an indictment on the human race, that sometimes such decisions do need to be made. 

Edited February 12, 2022 by beecee

[Peterkin]

1 hour ago, beecee said:

I actually am reasonably convinced you are philosophically over thinking the  situation

Maybe so; this being a philosophical venue 'an all, I assumed thinking about the philosophical aspects was appropriate.

1 hour ago, beecee said:

If you chose to "beat up on yourself"

I didn't. This wasn't me:

Quote

To be honest, I find that quite disgusting. Treating the hypothetical nuke in London as really happening, and you are in charge of finding it, you would rather let five million people vaporise, than try torture on the perpetrator. I think that's not principled or high minded, it's mental cowardice, or a lack of caring for others, or both.

This was mistermack, applauded by two other posters. His conclusion was inaccurate, but you were happy with it: 

Quote

Agreed. Although I see this more as an exersise in simply shoring up one's personal passive philosophical approach that is essentially unworkable. He has already admitted he would chose the lesser wrong, and is now simply playing with words, as per the following.....

"Outweigh. Not wipe out."

There was no playing; I simply refused to abandon my original stand on the wrongess of torture.  I said the same thing over and over, as many times as I was asked : Sometimes I do wrong for what I consider a compelling reason, but I refuse to pretend that my compelling reason makes it right.

So, I ask again: Does motivation change the nature of the act? If so, by what philosophical mechanism? 

Edited February 12, 2022 by Peterkin

[beecee]

1 hour ago, Peterkin said:

This was mistermack, applauded by two other posters. His conclusion was inaccurate, but you were happy with it: 

No, his conclusion was spot on, and that's why I was happy with it. Are we going to go through all this again?

1 hour ago, Peterkin said:

There was no playing; I simply refused to abandon my original stand on the wrongess of torture.  I said the same thing over and over, as many times as I was asked : Sometimes I do wrong for what I consider a compelling reason, but I refuse to pretend that my compelling reason makes it right.

You are adept at playing word games. All agree torture is wrong. But sometimes, in certain circumstances, doing wrong and abandoning the immorality of torture, is justified on those pedaphiles, terrorists, hardened criminals, that ignore the standards of morality in a society. They, the pedaphiles, terrorists, hardened criminals, have set their bar of immorality.

1 hour ago, Peterkin said:

So, I ask again: Does motivation change the nature of the act? If so, by what philosophical mechanism? 

*shrug* 

"Philosophy consists very largely of one philosopher arguing that all others are jackasses. He usually proves it, and I should add that he also usually proves that he is one himself".

Henry Louis Mencken. (1880-1956). Minority Report, H. L. Mencken's Notebooks. Knopf, 1956.

1 hour ago, Peterkin said:

Maybe so; this being a philosophical venue 'an all, I assumed thinking about the philosophical aspects was appropriate.

It is about ethics and morality, and the justified ethical decision to recognise that sometimes the actions of others, see the need to reconsider the ethics and morality of a particular society, particularly when pedaphiles, terrorists, and hardened criminals have dictated that position.

Edited February 12, 2022 by beecee

[Peterkin]

5 minutes ago, beecee said:

All agree torture is wrong.

So, what's your objection to my believing it all the time, not just most of the time?

6 minutes ago, beecee said:

But sometimes, in certain circumstances, doing wrong .... is justified

Yes.

7 minutes ago, beecee said:

abandoning the immorality of torture,

Is not. 

The "word-game" is flipping the definition of wrong for your own reasons.

[beecee]

1 minute ago, Peterkin said:

So, what's your objection to my believing it all the time, not just most of the time?

You have answered/contradicted  that in your next answer...

2 minutes ago, Peterkin said:

Yes.

 

3 minutes ago, Peterkin said:

Is not. 

The "word-game" is flipping the definition of wrong for your own reasons.

You may see it that way, I don't, and as such see the facts that the pedaphiles, the terrrorists and hardened criminals,  set those standards, which authorities, and you and me, need to morally execute...all your fabricated philosophical  objections not withstanding.

It is about ethics and morality, (not philosophy) and the justified ethical decision to recognise that sometimes the actions of others, see the need to reconsider the ethics and morality of a particular society, particularly when pedaphiles, terrorists, and hardened criminals have dictated that position.

 

[Peterkin]

25 minutes ago, beecee said:

t is about ethics and morality, (not philosophy) and the justified ethical decision to recognise that sometimes the actions of others, see the need to reconsider the ethics and morality of a particular society, particularly when pedaphiles, terrorists, and hardened criminals have dictated that position.

Is that a yes to my question?

Does the motivation of the actor determine the morality of the act?

[joigus]

On 2/11/2022 at 4:09 AM, zapatos said:

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

Quote

The reality was quite different: The Inquisition tortured ruthlessly and unhesitatingly, but it also tortured comprehensively, systematically, and meticulously. It practiced bureaucratized torture. It did not seek confessions but information regarding specific religious offenses. Many of its victims provided that information. Most did not, yet were released. Very few died in the torture chamber.

(My emphasis.)

From the same article. I'm still not convinced that torture is an efficient method to obtain information. In particular, I'm not satisfied with such inaccurate statements that contrast many against most. I tend to interpret most as a lot more than many. In that case, and if the author is to be believed, most didn't provide information. I rest my case.

[zapatos]

1 hour ago, joigus said:

 In that case, and if the author is to be believed, most didn't provide information. I rest my case.

I never claimed your position was wrong. You asked for evidence that torture will lead to obtaining useful information and I provided some. 

[beecee]

2 hours ago, joigus said:

 I'm still not convinced that torture is an efficient method to obtain information. In particular,

I am not sure either, but my position is that in the life and death of innocent parites and situations as detailed in this thread, it still needs to be considered, once everything else has failed. 

 

 

3 hours ago, Peterkin said:

Is that a yes to my question?

Does the motivation of the actor determine the morality of the act?

I don't see that as a relevant analogy...apples and oranges. Sometimes the immoral act, fails to inhibit its useage, when the morality of the pedaphiles, terrorists, and hardened criminals, do not act according to those morals. Not sure how many more different ways I need to say that.

Because you're a nice bloke, let me try again anyway......

Sometimes doing what is wrong, is preferential and desirable to doing what has been documented as morally correct. 

Edited February 13, 2022 by beecee

[Peterkin]

15 minutes ago, beecee said:

Sometimes doing what is wrong, is preferential and desirable to doing what has been documented as morally correct. 

Which is what I've been saying all along.

One may deem it necessary to commit a wrong to prevent a greater wrong. That might make it acceptable in an isolated situation. That might make it justifiable to the society whose collective ethics have been violated. That might make it forgivable. Nothing could make it right. 

 

[beecee]

1 hour ago, Peterkin said:

Which is what I've been saying all along.

Then you are correct, and we ageee!!!!

1 hour ago, Peterkin said:

One may deem it necessary to commit a wrong to prevent a greater wrong.

Yes!

1 hour ago, Peterkin said:

That might make it acceptable in an isolated situation. 

Yes, yes!!!

1 hour ago, Peterkin said:

That might make it justifiable to the society whose collective ethics have been violated.

Yes, yes, yes!!!!

1 hour ago, Peterkin said:

That might make it forgivable. 

Yes, yes, yes, yes!!!

1 hour ago, Peterkin said:

Nothing could make it right.

  😏🙄😏😑And you were going so well up to that point!!!!

Everything you have acknowledged before, makes that wrong the right thing to do, and therefor right and not wrong. 

Edited February 13, 2022 by beecee

[Peterkin]

So, you say the motivation of the actor determines the rightness or wrongness of the act.

Your god approves of your torturing the terrorist; the jihadist's god approves of his blowing up infidels.

I say the rightness or wrongness of the act is constant: the jihadist is committing a wrong act in order to save his people; you're committing another wrong act to save your people.

 

Edited February 13, 2022 by Peterkin

[Peterkin]

ran out of time

Edited February 13, 2022 by Peterkin

[joigus]

9 hours ago, zapatos said:

I never claimed your position was wrong. You asked for evidence that torture will lead to obtaining useful information and I provided some. 

Thanks for the clarification. Yes, you're right. But it's very difficult to obtain any quantitative picture from the article you provided. It's peppered with adjectivation, and adverbialisation directly derived from adjectives in almost every paragraph:

cruel, brutally efficient

cautiously, suspiciously

ruthlessly, unhesitatingly, comprehensively, systematically, meticulously

nearly certain, enough partial proofs, strong circumstantial case...,

I'm aware that Hassner scarcely has any other way to qualify these procedures, their limits, compulsory character, range of applicability, etc., as the truth is we are inevitably constrained to use only historical analysis to infer these qualifications. A lot is presumably lost in "historical noise." Maybe contemporary sources were more interested in justifying their methods than really conducting a serious experimental analysis. I really don't know. I prefer to position myself among the sceptics and the cautious of the premise that torture is actually efficient in regards to obtaining information.

Let me, please, insist on the particular point from the article that gave me pause:

Quote

 

Many of its victims provided that information. Most did not, [...]

 

IOW: Most of the victims did not provide that information, if I understood correctly.

[dimreepr]

2 hours ago, joigus said:

Thanks for the clarification. Yes, you're right. But it's very difficult to obtain any quantitative picture from the article you provided. It's peppered with adjectivation, and adverbialisation directly derived from adjectives in almost every paragraph:

cruel, brutally efficient

cautiously, suspiciously

ruthlessly, unhesitatingly, comprehensively, systematically, meticulously

nearly certain, enough partial proofs, strong circumstantial case...,

I'm aware that Hassner scarcely has any other way to qualify these procedures, their limits, compulsory character, range of applicability, etc., as the truth is we are inevitably constrained to use only historical analysis to infer these qualifications. A lot is presumably lost in "historical noise." Maybe contemporary sources were more interested in justifying their methods than really conducting a serious experimental analysis. I really don't know. I prefer to position myself among the sceptics and the cautious of the premise that torture is actually efficient in regards to obtaining information.

Let me, please, insist on the particular point from the article that gave me pause:

IOW: Most of the victims did not provide that information, if I understood correctly.

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...   

Edited February 13, 2022 by dimreepr

[zapatos]

6 hours ago, joigus said:

IOW: Most of the victims did not provide that information, if I understood correctly.

I agree with that assessment. What I take exception to is when people state unequivocally that "torture does not work". Even without any actual experimental data, I accept that most people on this site would in under one minute give up the location of the $100 they have hidden in their homes once the burglar begins ripping out their fingernails. 

Torture as a policy seems unworkable because (among other things) it is difficult to screen the false information from the true information. But that is not because no one is telling the truth. A fanatic may give you false information to mislead you, and a person who knows nothing will give you false information just to make the torture stop. But the innocent bystander or conscripted foot soldier who just happens to have information you want is likely to give you true information under duress. The problem is not that torture doesn't work at all, it is that it is difficult to discern the wheat from the chaff. 

[beecee]

15 hours ago, Peterkin said:

So, you say the motivation of the actor determines the rightness or wrongness of the act.

I don't see that as a relevant analogy. 

15 hours ago, Peterkin said:

Your god approves of your torturing the terrorist; the jihadist's god approves of his blowing up infidels.

We have absolutely no evidence of any unscientific, mythical, magical spaghetti monster. In fact all supernatural and paranormal claims are unscientific.

15 hours ago, Peterkin said:

I say the rightness or wrongness of the act is constant: the jihadist is committing a wrong act in order to save his people; you're committing another wrong act to save your people.

Except one is acting under some unscientific concept, as supposedly laid down by his magical speghetti monster. The other is acting to prevent such nonsensical reasons for the taking of lives. 

9 hours ago, joigus said:

I prefer to position myself among the sceptics and the cautious of the premise that torture is actually efficient in regards to obtaining information.

And normally so would I. The point though is that in either of the thought experiments given, all other avenues have been exhausted, and failed. Why then see it as 100% imperitive that the lesser wrong in question, be tried, even if only a 1% chance of success. We have the life of a little child at stake, not to mention that of thousands of innocent vicitims. Perhaps threaten, (in the case of the terrorist) him with some action/s that may exclude him from ever meeting his god in any supposed next life.

[Peterkin]

22 minutes ago, beecee said:

I don't see that as a relevant analogy.

It's not an analogy. It's a simple statement of what determines the ethical category of 'torture' (or any other human activity.)

You say that whether an act is right or wrong depends on the motives of the person who performs the act. If you do it for a noble reason, it's good; if you do it for an ignoble reason, it's bad. That makes the classification of good and evil acts subjective and situational.

I classify human activities on scale of right or wrong, before anyone is called upon to carry them out. And each kind of activity remains in place on that scale, no matter who performs it or why.

(On that scale, torture is is just below the black end of the spectrum, surmounted only by bondage-torture-murder. Most of which, btw, is carried out legally by agents of a duly constituted government.)

22 minutes ago, beecee said:

We have absolutely no evidence of any unscientific, mythical, magical spaghetti monster. In fact all supernatural and paranormal claims are unscientific.

That doesn't matter. He has his set of values; you have yours, and you're both equally convinced that you're doing the right thing, because you are doing it for a noble reason. 

 

22 minutes ago, beecee said:

Except one is acting under some unscientific concept, as supposedly laid down by his magical speghetti monster. The other is acting to prevent such nonsensical reasons for the taking of lives. 

All that means is that you disagree with somebody else's values - and that you believe that disagreement gives you carte blanche to do with him as you will, should he come under your power. Too bad he is equally convinced of the truth and validity of his values, and wouldn't hesitate to do likewise, should you come under his power.

The claim to represent Science is an imaginary shield.  

Edited February 13, 2022 by Peterkin

[beecee]

8 hours ago, dimreepr said:

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...   

If there is any probability of saving the child or thousands of innocent people, after all other avenues have been exhausted, then it must be taken. Ask the thousands of people about to be blown to bits.

19 hours ago, beecee said:

Sometimes doing what is wrong, is preferential and desirable to doing what has been documented as morally correct. 

Why don't you simply answer that question, as Peterkin at least has as follows? 

19 hours ago, Peterkin said:

Which is what I've been saying all along.

The thought experiments is exactly that, despite your pretentious  histrionics to avoid and limit that possibility. Everyone to date has agreed that torure is wrong. 

As is often the case with you dimreeper, your many answers are cryptic and generally never to the point, but a general two step/waltz around those points. Let me ask you straight out. (1) If in the case of the kidnapper, being assured of his guilt, would you still refuse all aspects of obtaining information, no matter how small, that may pevent to death of a child, including the generally held immoral act of torture?...perhaps your child? (2) Would you in the case of the terrorist, continue to act morally, despite the imminent death of thousands of innocent people, and not use torture after all else has failed?

Now dimreeper, I'm not going to hold you to a simple yes or no answer, but I would like an answer without any pretentious philosophical rhetoric.

37 minutes ago, Peterkin said:

 It's not an analogy. It's a simple statement of what determines the ethical category of 'torture' (or any other human activity.)

You say that whether an act is right or wrong depends on the motives of the person who performs the act. If you do it for a noble reason, it's good; if you do it for ignoble reason, it's bad. That makes the classification of good and evil acts subjective and situational.

I'm saying I agree with you. I'm saying that sometimes doing what may be classed as morally wrong under normal circumstances, is desirable and morally right under other extreme circumstances. eg: If perhaps some of the terrorists in the 9/11 terrorism had of been caught before they undertook their plan. I'm saying that no matter how small the possibility of success is, that we are duty bound to try them all in those circumstances. 

37 minutes ago, Peterkin said:

That doesn't matter. He has his set of values; you have yours, and you're both equally convinced that you're doing the right thing, because you are doing it for a noble reason. 

All that means you disagree with somebody else's values - and that disagreement gives you carte blanche to do with him as you will. Too bad he is equally convinced of the truth and validity of his values. The claim to represent Science is not a universal shield against all blame.  

Of course it matters. I'm talking about normal recognised values in any western society. I'm talking about the fact that I don't really care about what a muslim's general value is, and what value he puts on life and accepts that he has a right to that. I 'm talking about the average muslim's reasonable existance and tolerence of western values, just as per my tolerence towards their values. I'm talking about the probable threat of a terrorist/jihadist, blowing up thousands of innocent people, because he is even in the view of most muslims, nothing but a bloody religious fanatical maniac.  I'm not talking about murdering extremists and religious fanatics, that use their religion as an excuse to maim. kill and control.

I tolerate the average normal muslim, just as I tolerate the average normal Christian, Caluthumpian, Atheist or whatever an individual wants to label himself as.

 

 

Edited February 13, 2022 by beecee

[Peterkin]

1 hour ago, beecee said:

I'm talking about normal recognised values in any western society

Of course you are.

 

1 hour ago, beecee said:

I'm talking about the fact that I don't really care about what a muslim's general value is,

Of course you don't - and he doesn't care about yours.

That's what the two of you have in common.

[beecee]

1 hour ago, Peterkin said:

Of course you don't - and he doesn't care about yours.

That's what the two of you have in common.

Is your position on so much shaky ground that you chose to be obtuse about it, and take what I said out of context? It is also bordering on dishonesty. 

What I said was....

3 hours ago, beecee said:

Of course it matters. I'm talking about normal recognised values in any western society. I'm talking about the fact that I don't really care about what a muslim's general value is, and what value he puts on life and accepts that he has a right to that. I 'm talking about the average muslim's reasonable existance and tolerence of western values, just as per my tolerence towards their values. 

 Then I finished it off with...

3 hours ago, beecee said:

I tolerate the average normal muslim, just as I tolerate the average normal Christian, Caluthumpian, Atheist or whatever an individual wants to label himself as.

I certainly do not tolerate the murdering, extremist religious fanatics, that do not give a second thought to the taking of lives willy nilly, whenever it suits their extremist religiously inspired fanatical and mentally sick minds. And which even their more reasonable countrymen detest. Is this what you deem should be tolerated Peterkin?

Edited February 13, 2022 by beecee

[Peterkin]

1 hour ago, beecee said:

Is your position on so much shaky ground that you chose to be obtuse about it, and take what I said out of context? It is also bordering on dishonesty.

I honestly restricted my response to what was relevant to the topic. Your political views are not. Your views on religion are not. Your tolerances and intolerances are not.

What's relevant is the basis of your definition of right and wrong. You base the definition of right and wrong on your reasons for doing something. He bases the definition of right and wrong on his reasons for doing something. You have that in common - even if nothing else. 

Edited February 14, 2022 by Peterkin