Torture... Would you condone it?

Torture is a taboo.

Time and again, all along the history of the world, there have been people who resorted to torture in order to get their way, no matter how questionable that "way" is.

Inquisition during the Medieval Era and beyond in the West, burning people at the stake, Chilean torturers under Pinochet, French and Algerian soldiers back in Algeria War, Nazis in the concentrations camps, Soviets in the Gulag, Cambodian Khmers Rouges under Pol Pot and, as it is alleged, good and obligatorily moral American soldiers in Abu-Ghraib and Guantanamo.

But we prefer to avoid the subject of what people were actually capable of doing to other people, no matter their crimes. It was sometimes very refined in terms of cruelty.

Now the questions I have are as follows:

1/ Would YOU practice torture on somebody you don't know? What if it was at gunpoint ie either you torture that person to death and you and your loved ones might live, either you refuse to and you die? What would you decide?

1a/ Do you think you would enjoy it? How far would you be willing to go if so?

1b/If you had done it and gotten away with it somehow, do you think you would be able to live with yourself as if nothing had happened?

2/ Would you be willing to be tortured horribly to death if it meant saving the lives of people you love? How about strangers?

3/ How would you react in front of public execution or public torture?

4/ In what cases do you think torture is justified? What is "too much" or "unacceptable"?

I know these questions are "fucked up" and oblige some of us to look into their darkest selves but, seeing that torture still seems to be accepted in some places, I'd like to see if people are actually aware of their own potential for cruelty.

Now let's be clear: I am NOT trying to shame anyone. Since I've been seeing just how knowledgeable and open-minded people can be on this forum, I thought it would be interesting to see if they could actually discuss morally difficult subjects.

Thanks!

For no reason? No. To save my family? Ignoring the obvious monkeysphere argument, my family is two people versus the one and the hypothetical precludes all other options, so logic dictates that one dead person is better than two dead people.

No. However far was necessary, no more, no less.

Probably not. Not if I never knew anything about the person, by which I must assume that they did not deserve it in any meaningful way.

...we answered this already.

Public execution of someone I consider to deserve it, conducted in an efficient, responsible manner? I'd be approving. Public torture? That's just ridiculous and should be stopped immediately regardless of who is getting it.

Basically none, really. There is no practical reason for it, and we as a society lose more than we gain by righting moral scales in punishing those who are evil by society's standard, as opposed to the "morally clean" idea of execution.

I am now known as Flyboy.

Depends on how you view death. If killing is against your moral code, then I am afraid mental scarring is the only way to make people genuinely wishing to not go against the law.

A single phrase renders Christianity a delusional cult

1) I don't harm people I've got no beef against. Still, if the lives of my loved ones depended on it, I probably would. I would feel bad about it, but I Did What I Had to Do is a surprisingly effective rationalization. Eventually, I'd get over it.

2) That's where security culture comes into play: There's people I communicate with regularly. If I disappeared, they'd alert the rest of my folks. I would only need to hold on for a few hours for my folks to be aware and being able of the kidnapping and take precatuions of their own. You know you can speak after 18-36 hours pass.

3) Whaddayamean in front of? If it's happening ''to'' me, I'd try to escape. If I'm a witness, I wouldn't mind public execution if I think the victim had it coming. I would feel sickened by public torture.

4) I can think of two cases: The ticking bomb (you've got the terrorist, he's planted a bomb and he won't tell you where. It's live and clocks' ticking) and the you catch The Mole inside your group (You totally, absolutely need to know what's been compromised, and you need to know it before the guys who planted the mole can act against you) scenarios.

edited 21st Sep '11 4:01:10 PM by SavageHeathen

You exist because we allow it and you will end because we demand it.

...

The "ticking bomb" scenario is actually an interesting one I hadn't thought of. The Mole scenario is still bunk, IMO, under the "torture is useless for good info" idea. Unlike the first one, where one may reasonably expect to get the info out of the person simply because lack of time precludes all other options.

I would still say that although torture is messy and largely bad, threat of torture is entirely acceptable, and low-level, non-violent, and not extended bouts of "torture" (water torture comes to mind, if used for fairly short duration) can be used to keep up the illusion of "being willing to tear you to pieces slowly while using medicine to keep you conscious," or some other such nonsense...

edited 21st Sep '11 4:05:36 PM by USAF713

I am now known as Flyboy.

@ OP: For starters, despite some hyperbole, you're not doing a good job of defining torture. Is it just hot irons, the rack, and the pincers? Water boarding? Sleep deprivation? Solitary confinement? All of these are defined as torture by somebody, and everyone will react to them different.*

But to skip on to the questions ...

Depending on a) the torture method, and b) the chosen victim, my answer is most probably yes. Again, this is wholely dependant on the victim, but most probably not. For all that I'm willing to talk violence on the internet, I don't think I'd have the stomach for it - I am not that hard to get queasy, and I'm not a fan of gorer films like Saw. Yes. Yes, and probably not. Fortunately, there's not a whole lot of people I love. Um, performing, viewing, or participating? Assuming you mean the second, I would do my best to channel my inner Stoic, and then try to avoid it from then on. And this goes straight into the "Well, what is torture then?" It's impossible to answer without breaking it out by what counts or doesn't count as torture.

That’s the epitome of privilege right there, not considering armed nazis a threat to your life. - Silasw

I would argue that solitary confinement—given adequate food and water for survival—is not torture and is totally fair game.

I am now known as Flyboy.

1/Yes. I consider me and my loved ones more important than some random stranger and I'm assuming that any random stranger would consider themselves and their loved ones more important than me.

1a/ I'm pretty sure I wouldn't enjoy doing anything if I were hold at a gunpoint. I would go as far as the one threatening us would want me to go.

1b/ The incident would change me, fundamentally.

2/ If the people being saved were people I'd consider to be under my protection (younger siblings/children/girlfriends), otherwise no. No for strangers.

3/ I wouldn't react much at all in front of execution. I would refuse to watch torture.

4/ As I see it, torture is really good only for one thing: to scare people. So maybe if I had a much more powerful enemy to whom I'd had to fake that I'm more dangerous than I actually am. Of course torturing one of his mooks might backfire and my enemy might do anything to get back at me. That's the thing about torture, its results are unpredictable and thus as a method it´s unpractical.

edited 21st Sep '11 6:17:37 PM by sveni

Depends on why I'd be doing it. For no reason, or to be a sadist, no. If I'd die otherwise, yes. If my loved ones would also die, yes. If it was the only way to interrogate someone in a war, yes (though if it's used improperly, it's worse than useless). As a punishment, yes, if I were pushed far enough. This question might be more effective if someone had to torture a person they knew; it'd be extremely disturbing to cause that kind of anguish to someone you actually had a connection with, even if that connection was relatively minor.

I honestly have no idea, to the first question. I'd like to think not, but as I have never tortured anyone, I don't know. I have, however, gotten into the mind of torturers many times when writing stories; I can see why people might enjoy it, which is High Octane Nightmare Fuel to consider how close ordinary people are to becoming sadists in love with causing pain. As for the second point, as far as necessary.

Again, depends on why I did it. I think I'd be changed, somehow; torturing someone for the first time would be a significant milestone in my life, regardless of why. However, the degree to which I was able to live with myself would depend on why I had done it. If it was for a good enough reason, to me, then I'd probably be able to sleep easy; if it was someone I knew and had no feelings of hatred towards, or if I did it unwillingly, I wouldn't. If I did it to be a sadist, I wouldn't feel bad, since I'd be a sadist, and I'd love causing pain.

No to both. Anyone who says yes probably hasn't been tortured, or has been tortured enough that it wouldn't matter to them. On top of that, I rather like being alive; I don't even think I'd die for anyone, let alone die painfully.

I wouldn't like to watch, but my reaction would probably be the same as everyone else around me. Not because I'd mindlessly adopt the crowd's mindset, but because the mood of the area I was in would probably have an effect on mine.

Torture is justified when there is no other avenue, and it is done in a way that yields useful information. I can also understand it if the torturer has been pushed past a certain point by the victim, though I don't think I could come up with a moral justification for it. It's too much if the person dies, or is maimed or crippled as a result (though if the situation is desperate enough, I would make an exception). It's unacceptable if it doesn't follow both criteria of justification, or if it's done for no reason at all.

No, it's definitely torture. Speaking as someone who's experienced something close to it (not exactly the same thing as solitary confinement, but very similar), I would go completely insane if I were subjected to that for longer than a couple of days. I can handle physical pain quite well, but that was something I never want to go through again. It is better than certain other methods of torture, though, so I could justify using it in the right situation.

edited 22nd Sep '11 1:00:20 AM by tropetown

It's not torture in the conventional sense, but I will grant that it's certainly not all fun and games.

I simply think that it's quite easily condonable and in fact probably quite effective as an interrogation technique (for terrorists and the like, not run-of-the-mill criminals), as it side-steps the "torture is useless for information" thing.

I am now known as Flyboy.

I agree to a point; it does prevent your victim from suffering life-threatening injury, so they won't be tempted to give you the wrong information to save their own lives. It does, however, present the same problem as regular torture methods do; your victim might just tell you anything, just to end the mental strain that this would visit upon them. Another problem is that solitary confinement is endurable; a sufficiently strong willed person could resist the temptation to give out information for a long, long time. They'd go insane after that, but since they wouldn't be in physical danger, and there wouldn't be any way to increase the level of torture without using another method, the torturer would have to play a waiting game with the other person, which is not ideal in a desperate situation.

Which is why we should default to threat of torture.

Solitary confinement proves you're willing to do bad shit to them. Threaten to do far, far worse, and they'll believe you. And then they talk, and then you jail them or execute them, depending on how much of a jackass they are.

I am now known as Flyboy.

Interesting. What if they call your bluff, and you do nothing? Solitary confinement would be most useful coupled with another type of torture, I think.

So psychological torture, then?

Support Gravitaz on Kickstarter!

Would I condone it? Depends on what kind of bastard the person being tortured is. In general, if the person isn't that big a bastard, like a thief or other low level criminal, not so much. But if they are, say, a human trafficker/sex slaver like the antagonists in Taken, then hell yeah I do.

My endorsement of it really hinges on what the person being tortured has done. But in general I don't. To quote Michael Westen: "it doesn't work and it just makes a mess."

edited 21st Sep '11 7:13:23 PM by MarkVonLewis

Well, if they call the bluff, you make it to be not a bluff anymore.

That would be why the initial bluff shouldn't be set too high. Don't go straight for that car battery, start with the water torture and work from there...

Michael Westen is the casual spy's gospel writer.

Yes.

edited 21st Sep '11 7:14:29 PM by USAF713

I am now known as Flyboy.

Yep. Always leave yourself room to escalate.

Or torture someone else in front of them so that they see what you're willing to do. Though there'd have to be some huge extenuating circumstances for me to condone that.

"It takes an idiot to do cool things, that's why it's cool" - Haruhara Haruko

If the victim was extremely resistant to torture, and if he'd be useless if I went any further, I might do that. Of course, if you wanted to keep it a secret, you'd have to kill everyone that had been tortured, unfortunately.

edited 21st Sep '11 7:19:14 PM by tropetown

Ideally, torture several people in different ways, observe your target's reactions to each, and use that to decide which method to use on them (and play up the suspense of what kind of torture they might get to break them as well).

"It takes an idiot to do cool things, that's why it's cool" - Haruhara Haruko

That seems like a very effective way of doing it.

Support Gravitaz on Kickstarter!

> 1/ Would YOU practice torture on somebody you don't know? What if it was at gunpoint ie either you torture that person to death and you and your loved ones might live, either you refuse to and you die? What would you decide?

Yes, i dont have any choice, in this situation the one who point the gun is the torturer, not the "hired hand"

> 1a/ Do you think you would enjoy it? How far would you be willing to go if so?

No, being forced soing something never enjoyable

> 1b/If you had done it and gotten away with it somehow, do you think you would be able to live with yourself as if nothing had happened?

Yes, i count myself as victim, the torturer is the one who forced me.

> 2/ Would you be willing to be tortured horribly to death if it meant saving the lives of people you love? How about strangers?

No, i don't like pain. and couldn' t handle it well.

> 3/ How would you react in front of public execution or public torture?

Probabaly fascinated. i hope i wouldn't like it, although i do have violent taste in movie pick, so it possible i will be fascinated by it.

> 4/ In what cases do you think torture is justified? What is "too much" or "unacceptable"?

Only one case : ticking time bomb, for everything it unjustified. Torturing family member is unacceptable even in ticking time bomb.

I wouldn't torture someone in either case. Anyone who would tell me at gunpoint to torture someone isn't trustworthy enough to believe them; they might kill me and my loved ones regardless, or only if I agreed to torture the person. That harm can't be reliably avoided, since I'd be dealing with a psychopath, so it doesn't influence my decision.

Absolutely not. I take no pleasure in seeing harm come to another person, much less causing harm myself.

I wouldn't do it in the first place, so it's a moot point. If I actually did — through some widely implausible circumstance which would almost certainly have to involve an altered state of mind, I must note — my answer is "no".

In the abstract, yes, for either people I know or strangers. Utilitarianism requires that the greater harm be avoided, and personal harm shouldn't be distinguished from harm to a stranger. In practice, there's a good chance I wouldn't have the strength of will to do the right thing.

Attempt to stop it if I have a reasonable chance of doing so.

Torture is not justified in any plausible scenario. (Yes, I'm sure plenty of you can construct some entirely artificial, wildly implausible scenario where torture might be justified.) Any supposed benefits are highly questionable and not nearly enough to outweigh the enormous inherent harm — and that's not even taking into account the indirect, societal, and political harms.

The "ticking time bomb" scenario is no exception, since torture is known to be a highly unreliable source of information. Conventional interrogation still has a better chance, even under such time pressure.

How the hell is "ticking time bomb" an exceptable condition for torture? If the person being tortured knows their plans will succeed after a certain amount of time, they have NO reason to tell you truthful information. In fact, it's more in their favor to tell lies that will take a long time to pan out and waste even more of your time.

Hmm. 1/ Would YOU practice torture on somebody you don't know? What if it was at gunpoint ie either you torture that person to death and you and your loved ones might live, either you refuse to and you die? What would you decide?

I doubt I would be able to. If my loved ones were at stake... I don't know. I honestly don't think it's something I'd be capable of no matter how much it might hurt not to.

1a/ Do you think you would enjoy it? How far would you be willing to go if so?

God, no. Seeing people unjured or in pain makes me sick to the stomach.

1b/If you had done it and gotten away with it somehow, do you think you would be able to live with yourself as if nothing had happened?

Again, no. I would probably go to the police and turn myself in. Or maybe go become a nun or something.

2/ Would you be willing to be tortured horribly to death if it meant saving the lives of people you love? How about strangers?

I have no idea. I would like to think the answer is yes, but I really don't know.

3/ How would you react in front of public execution or public torture?

I would like to think I would protest it. It is my firm belief that it is my duty to stand up and oppose things that I know are wrong even if I may get in trouble for it.

4/ In what cases do you think torture is justified?

On a society-wide level, none.

Be not afraid...