Is torture ever acceptable?

[Spiderman]

Things that bother me about Abrahamic Monotheists is the way they torture people to death and set up laws that remove hands and feet, or Christians who preach that there is a place of eternal torture for non-Christians.

That is complete psychopathic cruelty!

So, I have said elsewhere but for those who haven't seen it, I don't even believe a terrorist who rapes and murders my whole family then hacks off my limbs should be tortured to death.

I think the severely wounded creature is tormented enough, is miserable (and joyless) from hate and bitterness, and needs to be put out of his misery quickly!

Also, If I'm such an offense to God, he should just put me out of my misery. What good does it do to torture me?

So, I think torture is never acceptable. Not ever!

Do you?

Please explain!

 

[Enoch07]

Yes so long as marriage is legal.

 

[CruzNichaphor]

I've gone through stages in my life where fantasizing about torturing and murdering specific people would actually get me to sleep at night. I don't think that's a disturbing personal fact of mine; I consider it to be a personal example of how people's rational minds can be directed in specific ways. I've never tortured or murdered anyone before and I don't intend to do so in the future, but I understand/empathise with any individual's compulsion to do so.

 

[stvdv]

Things that bother me about Abrahamic Monotheists is the way they torture people to death and set up laws that remove hands and feet, or Christians who preach that there is a place of eternal torture for non-Christians.

It bothers me also. I can't stand injustice like this

Probably these people in your OP feel like: "I really don't care much if anyone gets hurt by what i do"

So they are full of anger, hate, lust, jealousy etc AND to not feel their own pain they build a big wall around their own heart
This wall around their own heart prevents feeling their own pain BUT also prevents feeling Love, compassion, and empathy

Breaking down such walls is almost impossible, because they need to face their own pain

 

[stvdv]

Is torture ever acceptable?

It has been acceptable in the past so many times for millennia
So it seems that torture is acceptable given the circumstances

But you can only torture if your heart is closed
So only if someone tortured you in the past

The best therapists are those who experienced themselves
Same for many professions I guess.

So it is acceptable, but not my preference I would say

 

[Duke_Leto]

I've gone through stages in my life where fantasizing about torturing and murdering specific people would actually get me to sleep at night. I don't think that's a disturbing personal fact of mine; I consider it to be a personal example of how people's rational minds can be directed in specific ways. I've never tortured or murdered anyone before and I don't intend to do so in the future, but I understand/empathise with any individual's compulsion to do so.

I think that’s a normal feeling, for what it’s worth. I’ve felt similarly in the past.

 

[joe1776]

ANY act can be moral if it does the least harm in a moral dilemma. For example, if you caught and held the person responsible for planting a dirty bomb capable of killing thousands of people in downtown New York City, you'd be morally justified in torturing him if necessary to get its location and save those lives.

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

ANY act can be moral if it does the least harm in a moral dilemma. For example, if you caught and held the person responsible for planting a dirty bomb capable of killing thousands of people in downtown New York City, you'd be morally justified in torturing him if necessary to get its location and save those lives.

The overwrought "ticking time bomb" scenario aside, torture isn't a good way to retrieve accurate information.

 

[joe1776]

The overwrought "ticking time bomb" scenario aside, torture isn't a good way to retrieve accurate information.

That's a common claim, one disputed by the intelligence community. And, I don't simply write them off as sadists who torture because they enjoy it.

It's a tough call because scientists can't set up experiments that can be replicated.

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

That's a common claim, one disputed by the intelligence community. And, I don't simply write them off as sadists who torture because they enjoy it.

It's a tough call because scientists can't set up experiments that can be replicated.

Actually the intell8gence community agrees with me, and we have operational evidence to that effect. But that's kind of beside the point, because the ticking time bomb scenario never happens.

 

[joe1776]

Actually the intell8gence community agrees with me, and we have operational evidence to that effect. But that's kind of beside the point, because the ticking time bomb scenario never happens.

You made two claims you can't support with evidence to add to the the first claim you can't support.

 

[SalixIncendium]

Things that bother me about Abrahamic Monotheists is the way they torture people to death and set up laws that remove hands and feet, or Christians who preach that there is a place of eternal torture for non-Christians.

That is complete psychopathic cruelty!

So, I have said elsewhere but for those who haven't seen it, I don't even believe a terrorist who rapes and murders my whole family then hacks off my limbs should be tortured to death.

I think the severely wounded creature is tormented enough, is miserable (and joyless) from hate and bitterness, and needs to be put out of his misery quickly!

Also, If I'm such an offense to God, he should just put me out of my misery. What good does it do to torture me?

So, I think torture is never acceptable. Not ever!

Do you?

Please explain!

Are we talking about torturing another in general or torturing another to death? I think there's an important distinction.

I also don't think it's a rational stance to say that "torture is never acceptable." Here's why...

Hypothetical:
Your child is being held captive in a place unknown to you. S/he is in a tank that is slowly filling with water and will drown in 6 hours. You know a person that knows the location and controls the situation but refuses to tell you where s/he is.

• Option 1: You torture that person or have that person tortured until s/he reveals your child's location?
• Option 2: You don't think torture is acceptable ever, so you allow your child to die.

Which option to you take? Is there a third option?

 

[Spiderman]

Are we talking about torturing another in general or torturing another to death? I think there's an important distinction.

I also don't think it's a rational stance to say that "torture is never acceptable." Here's why...

Hypothetical:
Your child is being held captive in a place unknown to you. S/he is in a tank that is slowly filling with water and will drown in 6 hours. You know a person that knows the location and controls the situation but refuses to tell you where s/he is.

• Option 1: You torture that person or have that person tortured until s/he reveals your child's location?
• Option 2: You don't think torture is acceptable ever, so you allow your child to die.

Which option to you take? Is there a third option?

I would not torture the person because there is no guarantee it will give me the correct information.

I also don't know that the child is alive in a tank filling up with water in the first place.

Im not there to know what is going on. The child could already be dead.

 

[SalixIncendium]

I would not torture the person because there is no guarantee it will give me the correct information.

I also don't know that the child is alive in a tank filling up with water in the first place.

Im not there to know what is going on. The child could already be dead.

Okay...

Let's add the caveat that you were just permitted to FaceTime or Skype your child and you know s/he is alive and have an approximate time frame for his/her demise.

 

[Spiderman]

ANY act can be moral if it does the least harm in a moral dilemma. For example, if you caught and held the person responsible for planting a dirty bomb capable of killing thousands of people in downtown New York City, you'd be morally justified in torturing him if necessary to get its location and save those lives.

No justification.

The tortured person could say, "there is no ticking time bomb".

And for all I know, he could be telling the truth. So, why keep torturing him.

Torture has produced many false confessions.

I don't know of a case where a ticking time bomb was discovered through torture.

Even if it was, i don't think torture is ever justified, and no one ever knows whether it will produce a false confession.

If the person says in agony, "I don't know", they could be telling the truth.

 

[Revoltingest]

I voted <no>.
But if there is ever to be torture, then it should only be of other people.

 

[Spiderman]

Okay...

Let's add the caveat that you were just permitted to FaceTime or Skype your child and you know s/he is alive and have an approximate time frame for his/her demise.

I don't know that torture will produce the correct information, and if the man has been captured and vulnerable to torture, he isn't going to let me Skype my child.

Even if he is that stupid, I don't know whether his confession is true or false.

If he says, "some one i work for has your child, and he hasn't told me where the child is kept".

That could be a true confession.

 

[SalixIncendium]

I don't know that torture will produce the correct information, and if the man has been captured and vulnerable to torture, he isn't going to let me Skype my child.

Even if he is that stupid, I don't know whether his confession is true or false.

If he says, "some one i work for has your child, and he hasn't told me where the child is kept".

That could be a true confession.

You're talking around the point. We've already said that he knows where your child is. Also you are assuming capture of the assailant. It may be he is attempting to extort something from you that you do not have.

Let's get right to the point. What recourse do you take to save your child, with torture being the most obvious choice? Or do you simply allow your child to die because you are against torture?

 

[Spiderman]

You're talking around the point. We've already said that he knows where your child is. Also you are assuming capture of the assailant. It may be he is attempting to extort something from you that you do not have.

Let's get right to the point. What recourse do you take to save your child, with torture being the most obvious choice? Or do you simply allow your child to die because you are against torture?

Such a situation is impossible to prove, nor can I prove the person knows the information, or that he will provide it. Therefore, torture just doesn't seem like the right thing to do.

The scenerio also just seems far to unrealistic, that I would not want to suddenly approve of barbaric infliction of pain on another human being , because some highly highly unlikely scenario could make it potentially justified.

 

[joe1776]

No justification.

The tortured person could say, "there is no ticking time bomb".

And for all I know, he could be telling the truth. So, why keep torturing him.

Torture has produced many false confessions.

I don't know of a case where a ticking time bomb was discovered through torture.

Even if it was, i don't think torture is ever justified, and no one ever knows whether it will produce a false confession.

If the person says in agony, "I don't know", they could be telling the truth.

Moral dilemmas happen everyday in an infinite variety. Therefore, ANY act will be justified when it does the least harm in a moral dilemma.

Given the infinite variety of moral situations, uses of torture have been justified in the past and will surely happen in the future.

Your mind is trying to make an absolute moral rule: torture is always wrong. Absolute rules simplify things but they don't apply to moral situations which are as unique as snowflakes.