Torture - Ends Justifies The Means?

Torture is, technically, illegal, but we still do it.

Now, is it a good thing? Do the ends justify the means?

Now, I think that torture is wrong, full-stop. People can be trained to resist torture till the bitter end. And in any case, how do we know that the information they give is accurate? People would confess to anything under torture.

It's ineffective, and a good way to convince yourself that false information is correct. The evidence does not suggest that enhanced interrogation techniques has saved any lives and, further, it ultimately undermines who we are as a people.

Torture = bad, mmmmmkay?

inb4 the first motherfucker to say, "Well, I'd condone it if was a last-ditch effort to stop a terrorist attack." That situation has never happened, quit watching 24 you goddamn idiot.

"It is better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to open one’s mouth and remove all doubt." - Some guy with a snazzy hat.

.

edited 12th Jan '12 8:19:55 PM by kyfhv

Yeah, it doesn't do any good. People admit to anything to stop being tortured, regardless of whether or not they did it.

I would not condone physical, violent torture (electric shock, cutting bits and pieces off, etc.) for anything, nor would I condone any form of torture as punishment for any crime.

I have a very limited scope of where I might condone it, and only on a case-by-case basis, and that's when we have a convicted terrorist who we have a reasonable expectation of knowing where higher-profile targets in the same organization, and in that case I would recommend, after trying and convicting him, that we only use psychological torture (solitary confinement and, perhaps, sleep deprivation), and only to the extent that it is not permanently damaging.

I don't have a problem with, say, the CIA being overly theatrical with the threat of torture (which is a very useful thing), but actually doing it is almost always going to be bad.

So, 99% of the time, torture is going to be bad, because the theoretical allowance of it would require evidence that we should expect the person actually knows something of merit, that we've convicted him with evidence beyond a reasonable doubt, and that we do not go so far as to cause permanent, lasting harms. In other words, it's almost never going to be something to be condoned, because rarely do terrorists meet any of those requirements...

I am now known as Flyboy.

I've noticed that pro-torture arguments tend to hinge more on "the bastards have it coming" than any expectation of results. It seems a bit like when people hope a sex offender will get raped in prison. (Which creeps me out too, for the record.)

That's Feo . . . He's a disgusting, mysoginistic, paedophilic asshat who moonlights as a shitty writer—Something Awful

I think the fact that it's useless is a more powerful argument than it's inhumanity. Being merely inhumane can theoretically make it justified by preventing more inhumanity in the future, but being useless just means that there's no reason to do it ever, full stop.

The threat of torture is exactly the same. The fact is that people will saying anything to avoid pain, even if they're innocent.

I can't say that the threat of torture is bad, because you lose nothing by utilizing the option and cause no actual harm to the subject at hand. It's basically a free shot at getting something out of them, without actually needing to do anything substantial.

Also, there are other practical benefits from, say, solitary confinement (such as keeping them out of the general population, where they might get killed and/or do nefarious things), in addition to getting a person to be more willing to talk. I wouldn't advocate things like "the hole," but a nice, padded room for awhile serves dual-purpose.

Stupid shit like car batteries and slicing and all other such nasty things are useless either way.

I am now known as Flyboy.

Even if it's "harmless", it still doesn't actually get any useful information. So there's no point in doing it. A "shot" at them giving useful information isn't really worth all the wasted time investigating dead ends coming from liars or people who honestly don't know but feel compelled to say something.

They've got to investigate every lead anyhow. They literally lose nothing by doing it. So, why wouldn't they do it?

With the strict assumption that the threat of torture =/= torture.

I am now known as Flyboy.

^ I'm not sure that assumption is accurate . . .

That's Feo . . . He's a disgusting, mysoginistic, paedophilic asshat who moonlights as a shitty writer—Something Awful

My view on it can best be summed up by a line by Michael Westen: "Torture is like getting groceries with a flamethrower - it doesn't work and just makes a mess."

Considering torture leads to unreliable information, the only end is making a person feel intense physical or psychological pain.

Not only is torture immoral... it is also ineffective. A figure of incicence may make a "confession" under pain, while those that mean harm... like a terrorist, especilly if they are a suicide bomber for example... may be so commited that their will power to not bend to the pain.

I’m a lumberjack and I’m ok. I sleep all night and work all day.

While I agree that torture is ineffective, I think that it is not the real reason why it should be forbidden.

Suppose that we somehow discovered some sort of method which is inhumane, but 100% effective in returning truthful confessions. Then, I would argue, we still should not use it, ever — not even to save lives, and not even if it was the only option available.

If something is not right, you should not do it. The consequences of this refusal are irrelevant: even if it was a situation of the "torture this person, or one billion people will die horribly" sort, one still should not do so.

edited 15th Oct '11 8:05:24 AM by Carciofus

But they seem to know where they are going, the ones who walk away from Omelas.

That's context dependent. It's bad international or domestic public policy and bad as a tool for extracting truths, but good for forcing false confessions and providing entertainment for sadists. They do as long as there isn't a more important end with which they conflict.

There is also a fact that whatever operatives you caught might have "back-up" lies. AKA info that seems truth and seems be what you want but is incorrect, only serves to misguide you.

Ever seen movie Unthinkable? It's pretty disturbing and has downer ending, but it also shows how useless the torture is in face of someone truly devoted to his cause. I try to not to spoil much, but the point H decides to start torturing kids for sake to get intel is very disturbing. In the end, it is useless and innocent children are almost traumatized.

Agreed. Efficiency or lack thereof of torture is irrelevant.

Whether this one considers torture justified would depend of the victim, not of the end, by the way. And it would be wrong in 99.99% cases.

Basically, the only situation in which this one sees torture as justified is when we are 100%, without any possibility of mistake, sure that the victim has tortured other people, and in this case this one considers it justified regardless of case. But as in real life we can never be 100% sure about the degree of anyone's guilt, torture is unacceptable.

If we disagree, that much, at least, we have in common

I believe that inflicting suffering on those that have oppressed the people is always justified. Torture as a means of revenge against deposed tyrants and their enforcers is a-OK, even if it's messier and worse PR than to Just Shoot Them.

edited 15th Oct '11 9:39:49 AM by SavageHeathen

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

Revenge is a pointless, barbaric concept. Ideally, I would be in favor of Just Rehabilitate Them, or — if this is not possible — of Just Keep Them Safe And Inoffensive; but I can understand that, in some circumstances, this may not be possible and Just Shoot Them may be the next best thing.

I kind of disagree on the last part. Even if someone had tortured people, I do not think that I would have the right to torture him/her myself. That would not heal the sufferings of his/her victims, and it would make me a worse person. If the person was culpable, and this was the only possible way to save other people... I don't know. My gut instinct says that I should not inflict pain, not even then, but I might be wrong on this.

edited 15th Oct '11 9:58:07 AM by Carciofus

But they seem to know where they are going, the ones who walk away from Omelas.

Torture as a means of interrogation is useless.

Torture as a means of punishment depends on the intent behind the punishment. It's excellent retribution and often good for deterrence, but very poor for rehabilitation or incapacitation (except when it becomes a method of inflicting death). Furthermore, it has very adverse effects on the psychology of the torturer, so I wouldn't recommend it. And on the moral side, use of mass torture as a tool of deterrence is a sign of a society that itself needs to be destroyed.

I despise hypocrisy, unless of course it is my own.

this one is aware that her idea of justice is often considered a bit...extreme. Not without reason.

But it is irrelevant for most of real life situations, because we cannot ever be absolutely sure, and if there is a slightest possibility of error - then this one considers torture unacceptable

If we disagree, that much, at least, we have in common

I believe in utilitarianism, so I do actually think that the ends justify the means — as long as you consider all ends, not just the ones you want to happen; that is, all consequences of any action must be considered, and an action is justified if and only if it can reasonably be expected to result in the best overall consequences.

Torture is unjustified in any plausible scenario exactly because the ends justify the means. Torture always, by its very nature, has extreme adverse consequences — for the tortured, for the torturer, and for any society that condones torture. Since it's known to be ineffective, there is no factor that comes even close to balancing that out.

To be clear, if it were actually an unambiguous choice between torturing someone and letting a billion people die, I would support torturing them. However, my point is that there is no remotely plausible scenario in which that could occur. Torture would almost certainly result in false information or reduce the chances of successfully averting the scenario through conventional (i.e., humane and effective) means of interrogation.

Torture as a means of punishment or retribution is even more blatantly immoral, since there's not even an implausible scenario in which it would be justified. That's just the sadistic infliction of harm based on some warped, "eye for an eye" notion of justice, and there's no circumstances in anything resembling the real world under which such an act could be justified.

edited 15th Oct '11 10:22:10 AM by Enthryn

Torture is only justified if you allow the tortured individual to end their own life as a means of escaping said torture.

And obviously not even then in many cases. But basically, for me, Right to Die trumps all other concerns. Yes, even for despots.