Morality of reverse torture?

Cap'n, I'd still like to see your response to my question but, just in case it helps, here are some popular lies people to tell in order to get pleasure.

"Yes, I love you"

"It's OK I had a vasectomy"

"The bank will honour the cheque"

"I'm divorced"

Obviously your position will be different in detail but your objective will be the same.

Tell lies that you think the other person wishes to hear, in order to gain pleasure.

Clearly in both cases you need to tell lies that seem plausible- by the time the other party finds out that you lied, it's too late.

Of course in the scenario you put forward you have an advantage over the love-rat.

If the interrogator were in a position to verify your claims then he wouldn't need to torture you in the first place.

On the whole, I think this new idea of "reverse torture" serves to show why torture itself is a dead loss. People lie. Given a strong enough incentive, all people lie.

It doesn't matter if that incentive is the avoidance of pain or the pursuit of pleasure.

The new take on the idea puts it in a context of seeking pleasure which we are all familiar with, rather then the world of the torture victim which, thankfully, few of us ever see.

That, in turn, makes it easier to see exactly what people would do.

From that point of view this is a very helpful thread; it helps to explain why torture is not just morally unacceptable, but that it's ineffective too.

Oh, BTW, Genecks, torture doesn't make people fear for losing their life, quite often they beg for death rather than continued pain.

I't really not a nice way to behave.