Torture: What is it, and when (if ever) should it be used? (moral, punishment)

[Mr Spinkles]

According to dictionary.com's definition:

tor·ture Pronunciation Key (tôrchr)
n.

1. 1. Infliction of severe physical pain as a means of punishment or coercion.
   2. An instrument or a method for inflicting such pain.
2. Excruciating physical or mental pain; agony: the torture of waiting in suspense.
3. Something causing severe pain or anguish.

I encourage anyone who wishes to post alternative definitions of torture. For now, I'll adopt defintion #3.

Are not all punishements, on some level, a form of "torture"? It seems to me that what we call "torture" is really just a more severe form of "normal" or "acceptable" punishment. There is no magical barrier where just punishment or the legitimate offering of incentives becomes "torture". (By 'offering incentives', I mean offering a reduced punishment for an inmate's cooperation with an investigation.)

The question, then, is where do you draw the line?

[Fluffy]

By definition #3 I'm assuming you mean "Something causing severe pain or anguish" (a bit confused seeing as it is labelled 2)

Anyway, firstly, lets get the easy bit out of the way. This definition needs refining if we are to apply the question "When should it be used". At the moment, such an act would be similar to asking the same question about the term "death". No morality can be applied to such a term till we refine the definition to include a free, rational, initiator (so death might become murder, for example).

Therefore, in this post I will use the definition, torture: "Severe pain or anguish caused by a free, rational, initiator.

Now has I can recalling having said before, it is my firm belief that intent is more important than action, at the very least when it comes to determining morality. It certainly needs to be taken into account rather than ignored. Killing somebody whilst they attempt to kill you is arguably more justifiable than going on to the street and taking pot shots at random pedestrians.

Similarly, there will be circumstances where torture is acceptable simply because it will be a necessary means to an end. The extent, or severity, of the torture is irrelevant as long as it is at the minimum required to produce the desired effect. In other words, ignoring other factors, torture is morally acceptable under the following 2 conditions:

1) The purpose or intent behind the torture is considered morally desirable
2) The torture is taken to the smallest extent possible to gain the desired result or reduced as much as possible till the desired effect takes place

[michel]

c.1495 (implied in torturous), from M.Fr. torture "infliction of great pain, great pain, agony," from L.L. torture "a twisting, writhing, torture, torment," from stem of L. torquere "to twist, turn, wind, wring, distort" (see thwart). The verb is 1588, from the noun. Tortuous "full of twists" is recorded from 1426.
I must admit that I was going ro go for an outright 'Under no circumstances' should Torture ever be allowed to be used, but, having read Fluffy's posts, I suppose that, if it is for the 'lesser evil' - an example being one in which someone had planted a bomb thaty would destroy a whole city (this is an example), and it was known - irrefutably - that the bomber was in police hands, then the lesser of the two evils would be to torture the one man to save the lives of many.

I am still not happy with that though, because there are so many criteria to define, and so many conditions 'to be met' that I would I,magine what was a demarkation line rapidly disintegrating, and being 'moved' to one side or another, to meet political requirements.

I suppose that will have to suffice, although I am not happy with the Idea - and, most importantly - I would never wish to be the torturer.

As one of my way of gauging the morality/imorality of acts is saying to myself "You must be prepared to do yourself anything that you would require other people do"' that would not 'pass the test' - because I could not personally torture anyone.

I suppose I am therefore taking rather a lot of thought and time in saying 'none'.

[Mr Spinkles]

michel-- Good post, but you did not address an important question: What IS torture?

Is it torture to deny a person her freedom by keeping her in a prison cell for years on end?
Why or why not?

Originally Posted by Fluffy

Therefore, in this post I will use the definition, torture: "Severe pain or anguish caused by a free, rational, initiator.

By your definition, is not the act of confining a person to a jail cell for years on end "torture" if this action is performed by "free, rational" prison gaurds and if it causes "severe pain or anguish" to the inmate?

[jamaesi]

If the punishment fits the crime, I don't believe it's torture.

There's this funny thing about torturing people for information, too. This is well documented, too! It seems they'll say anything to get the pain to stop, even giving false information and naming innocent people...

[Mr Spinkles]

Originally Posted by jamaesi

There's this funny thing about torturing people for information, too. This is well documented, too! It seems they'll say anything to get the pain to stop, even giving false information and naming innocent people...

I certainly agree with you there, though that does depend on how we define "torture". My understanding is that non-physical, psychological "torture" is a fairly reliable way of getting information.

[michel]

O.K torture. I suppose is the infliction of pain by anyone person on another - and pain is either mental or physical, and is very subjective. So perhaps torture could even be described as that which causes someone grief.............

[jamaesi]

Verbal abuse has hurt me more than physical abuse.

If someone hits you, the bruise will fade.
When someone dehumanizes you, well, that sticks around.


From here.

Although torture is usually thought of in terms of its physical impact (pain and damage), the psychological impact is often greater and tends to remain with the victim long after the actual activity is discontinued.

The process of psychological torture is designed to invade and destroy the belief of a victim in their validity as a human being, to destroy presumptions of privacy, intimacy, and inviolability assumed by the victim, and to destroy their unspoken trust that these things can save them. Beyond merely invading the victim's mental and physical independence on a one-to-one level, such acts are made further damaging via public humiliation, incessant repetition, depersonalization, and sadistic glee.

...

Psychologically, torture often places the victim in a state where the mind works against the best interests of the individual, due to the inducement of such emotions as shame, worthlessness, dependency, and a feeling of a lack of uniqueness. These and other mental stresses can lead to a mutated, fragmented, or discredited personality and belief structure. Even the victim's normal bodily needs and functions (e.g. sleep, sustenance, excretion, etc.) can be changed and made to be construed as self-degrading, animalistic, and dehumanizing.

Torture robs the victim of the most basic modes of relating to reality and, thus, is the equivalent of cognitive death. Space and time are warped. The self ("I") is shattered. The tortured have nothing familiar to hold on to: family, home, personal belongings, loved ones, language, name. They lose their mental resilience and sense of freedom. They feel alienated — unable to communicate, relate, attach, or empathize with others.

Examples of psychological stress include: paralysing fear of death or pain, uncertainty, playing on anticipation, fear for (and of) others. But torture also creates further extremes of dynamic, and can disrupt usual cognitive processes to such an extent a victim is unable to retain the usual sense of personal boundaries, friends and enemies, love and hate, and other major human psychological dynamics.

Some well-known animal experiments performed in the 20th century show that in addition to these, a victims own strengths and weaknesses can be enhanced by psychological stress to the point that they will enter a "grey" mental world of great suggestibility, where certain critical faculties in the brain shut down under overload. This renders them less able to judge what they believe and refute, to conduct logical argument or reject the views of interrogators, and can cause them in some cases cases even to side with the interrogator and torturer in confusion.

Doesn't sound like the best way of getting information to me. :/

[Mr Spinkles]

Originally Posted by jamaesi

Doesn't sound like the best way of getting information to me. :/

What is the alternative, other than getting no information at all?

[jamaesi]

What is the alternative, other than getting no information at all?

No information is better than false information.