• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Is torture ever acceptable?

Is torture ever acceptable?

  • Yes

    Votes: 7 33.3%
  • No

    Votes: 14 66.7%

  • Total voters
    21

Milton Platt

Well-Known Member
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!

If you have a person in your custody who knows where and when a nuclear device will be detonated in a highly populated area and torturing him could provide information that would save millions of lives, would you simply allow the device to be detonated or would you use torture to get the information?
 

SalixIncendium

अग्निविलोवनन्दः
Staff member
Premium Member
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.

Claiming the scenario is "far to unrealistic" is just a dodge so you don't have to amend your moral stance in the OP.

Can we stop with the tap-dance and pick an option or offer an alternative?
  • 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.
 

Spiderman

Veteran Member
If you have a person in your custody who knows where and when a nuclear device will be detonated in a highly populated area and torturing him could provide information that would save millions of lives, would you simply allow the device to be detonated or would you use torture to get the information?
There isn't a way of knowing that he will provide accurate information or that there is really a ticking nuke.

I can't approve of barbaric treatment of another person because there is an extremely rare possibility that it will accomplish the greater good.

Under extreme torture the guy is probably going to say, "I don't know," or "there is no ticking bomb".
 

Spiderman

Veteran Member
Claiming the scenario is "far to unrealistic" is just a dodge so you don't have to amend your moral stance in the OP.

Can we stop with the tap-dance and pick an option or offer an alternative?
  • 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.
I can't approve of barbaric treatment of another person because in an extremely unlikely scenario it could accomplish the greater good.

Under the circumstances, there isn't any guarentee that torture will produce the desired results.

I more take the Gandhi and Martin Luther King approach. Guns and violence can save lives. Don't use guns and violence anyway.
 

Milton Platt

Well-Known Member
There isn't a way of knowing that he will provide accurate information or that there is really a ticking nuke.

I can't approve of barbaric treatment of another person because there is an extremely rare possibility that it will accomplish the greater good.

Under extreme torture the guy is probably going to say, "I don't know," or "there is no ticking bomb".
You are trying to modify my scenario. You can know that there is a nuclear device, through other intelligence. You do not know what the guy is going to say, but you do know that without cohersion, he will say nothing.
So would you allow millions of people to die or try and get the information through torture?
 

Spiderman

Veteran Member
You are trying to modify my scenario. You can know that there is a nuclear device, through other intelligence. You do not know what the guy is going to say, but you do know that without cohersion, he will say nothing.
So would you allow millions of people to die or try and get the information through torture?
I would not try to get the information through torture.
 

stvdv

Veteran Member: I Share (not Debate) my POV
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?

1) Your religion says "Non-Dualism". I think you lost track for a moment, creating this Dualistic scenario?:D

2) As @PopeADope has no child, and not planning on it, this Hypothetical situation is also not applicable to him

3) If you still want to use this Hypothetical example then you MUST add "Pope you are a killer in this example" OR "Pope you are a non dual advaitist" OR "...."

Without that addition it makes no sense such a Hypothetical example. Totally unrealistic

With that addition the answer is simple:
a)If Pope is a psychopath/killer be sure he find a way to have him talk in 1 minute [have his spideys exchange bodily fluids to start with]
b)If Pope is an Advaitist he will look you in the eye and say "Who Am I? ...Who Are You?"
c)If the child is Pope's psychopathic son AND Pope is psychopathic than you might get a surprise answer

PopeADope is who he is now. No children. No plan to make a child [as far as I know].
Having deadly spiders exchanging bodily fluids with him as his favorite entertainment [only stopping this now because he feels sorry his spidey has his power/poison sucked out of him]
You talk about an Aghori of the `worst` kind [all respect of course]:D:D:D
Probably the only Aghori jumping from a building in the USA
Your example is totally insufficient
You can never corner an Aghori IMO:rolleyes:
 
Last edited:

Quintessence

Consults with Trees
Staff member
Premium Member
The questions to me in any sort of situation - whether we're talking torture or something else entirely - are these:
  • Utility. Do the means successfully achieve the desired ends, or not? Put simply, does it work?
  • Norms. Are the desired ends in alignment with my values, or not? Put simply, do I agree with it?
  • Honor. Do the means conflict with my code of honor, or not? Put simply, can I live with it?
On the issue of torture, it's more difficult for all of those items to align in a way that make me give it a thumbs up. Torture is inherently dishonorable behavior, which means it will always fail the third question. That means the bar for passing the first two is higher. The ends must strongly align with my values to justify such sacrifice; the means most not only work, there needs to be no other alternative that would work just as well under the given conditions. I can't think of any example that has passed that bar.

That said, my bar is not someone else's bar. I will not condemn someone for having a different code of honor or having different principle values. Whether or not something "works" is an objective measure, though, and I will thoroughly condemn someone using torture if it's been proven to not actually work. It's my understanding that the efficacy of torture is somewhat dubious.
 

Spiderman

Veteran Member
I would. I place a higher priority on millions of individual lives collectively than I do on the temporary discomfort of a single individual.
I just don't see any guarentee that torture will solve the problem, and it isn't a vicious behavior i would want to carry out on anyone.

Guns could have saved lives for Gandhi's followers. Yet that isn't a guarentee. And Gandhi chose not to use violence, even if it could potentially save lives.
 

Spiderman

Veteran Member
1) Your religion says "Non-Dualism". I think you lost track for a moment, creating this Dualistic scenario?:D

2) As @PopeADope has no child, and not planning on it, this Hypothetical situation is also not applicable to him

3) If you still want to use this Hypothetical example then you MUST add "Pope you are a killer in this example" OR "Pope you are a non dual advaitist" OR "...."

Without that addition it makes no sense such a Hypothetical example. Totally unrealistic

With that addition the answer is simple:
a)If Pope is a psychopath/killer be sure he find a way to have him talk in 1 minute [have his spideys exchange bodily fluids to start with]
b)If Pope is an Advaitist he will look you in the eye and say "Who Am I? ...Who Are You?"
c)If the child is Pope's psychopathic son AND Pope is psychopathic than you might get a surprise answer

PopeADope is who he is now. No children. No plan to make a child [as far as I know].
Having deadly spiders exchanging bodily fluids with him as his favorite entertainment [only stopping this now because he feels sorry his spidey has his power/poison sucked out of him]
You talk about an Aghori of the `worst` kind [all respect of course]:D:D:D
Probably the only Aghori jumping from a building in the USA
Your example is totally insufficient
You can never corner an Aghori IMO:rolleyes:
Thats the best compliment I have ever received! No one ever called me an Aghori. And to be called "the Aghori of the worst kind", is an even better compliment yet! :D
 

stvdv

Veteran Member: I Share (not Debate) my POV
If you have a person in your custody who knows where and when a nuclear device will be detonated in a highly populated area and torturing him could provide information that would save millions of lives, would you simply allow the device to be detonated or would you use torture to get the information?

As I am now, I would not torture

Of course if you brainwash me to get the job done and you are good at brainwashing then I would torture

My question to you would be: Would you go that far to get me brainwashed yourself so I do the job that you yourself could have done yourself?
 

joe1776

Well-Known Member
The questions to me in any sort of situation - whether we're talking torture or something else entirely - are these:
  • Utility. Do the means successfully achieve the desired ends, or not? Put simply, does it work?
  • Norms. Are the desired ends in alignment with my values, or not? Put simply, do I agree with it?
  • Honor. Do the means conflict with my code of honor, or not? Put simply, can I live with it?
You're kidding yourself. Let's put you in a situation that once actually happened to some American soldiers in Viet Nam in a village called My Lai.

You believe your leaders when they tell you that you are there to kill the enemy in a worthy cause. However, you are ordered by your platoon leader to kill a group of Vietnamese civilians.

Your mind isn't going to run through the slow, deliberate, reasoning process you described, nor will it need to. The order is going to immediately feel wrong to you. This is your conscience giving you moral guidance in a situation that is just one of an infinite number or moral situations you might encounter in your life. It's immediate and intuitive moral guidance emerging from your unconscious mind.

Since you have free will, you can follow the order or refuse to do so. If you kill civilians, your conscience will nag you your entire life whenever you remember the day.
 
Last edited:

Milton Platt

Well-Known Member
As I am now, I would not torture

Of course if you brainwash me to get the job done and you are good at brainwashing then I would torture

My question to you would be: Would you go that far to get me brainwashed yourself so I do the job that you yourself could have done yourself?

Why add an extra step? and why does it require brainwashing?
 

Milton Platt

Well-Known Member
I just don't see any guarentee that torture will solve the problem, and it isn't a vicious behavior i would want to carry out on anyone.

Guns could have saved lives for Gandhi's followers. Yet that isn't a guarentee. And Gandhi chose not to use violence, even if it could potentially save lives.
Fair enough, Pope. However, Ghandhi wasn't presented with the scenario I asked you about.
 

Spiderman

Veteran Member
Fair enough, Pope. However, Ghandhi wasn't presented with the scenario I asked you about.
You are asking me to be vicious, sadistic, and cruel, on account of some ****ed up scenario that would never happen! I will not compromise my moral code. Nice try mister! :mad:
 

Kangaroo Feathers

Yea, it is written in the Book of Cyril...

Spiderman

Veteran Member
Myself and lovers of peace like @stvdv and Gandhi will deal with nukes. Less tortured animals raised in slaughter houses. Less hungry mouths to feed meat!:mad: More disembodied spirits like Sai Baba! :D
 

Milton Platt

Well-Known Member
You are asking me to be vicious, sadistic, and cruel, on account of some ****ed up scenario that would never happen! I will not compromise my moral code. Nice try mister! :mad:

No, I am not asking you to compromise what you believe. That is your right and I would be the first to back you up. I am only trying to demonstrate that moral issues can be very nuanced.
I think such a scenario can happen. What would prevent it?
 

Spiderman

Veteran Member
No, I am not asking you to compromise what you believe. That is your right and I would be the first to back you up. I am only trying to demonstrate that moral issues can be very nuanced.
I think such a scenario can happen. What would prevent it?
One could never be guarenteed that torture would generate the needed result, or honest confession!
 
Top