Would Reliable Truth Detection Make Torture More Ethical

Honestly, I think there is a big disconnect between what people think they know about questioning and what actually happens to people in questioning.

My dad has told me some very interesting accounts from before his retirement. Sometimes criminals would be spilling their guts in the back of the patrol car before they even made it in because they were too scared of what they tought would happen. Sometimes dad would split people up, tell one guy his buddy was telling the police everything and blaming him for it, tell the same thing to the other. Amazing how fast people will turn on each other.

In Afghanistan, I've had multiple vets tell me when their prisoners didn't want to talk, all they did was pull in the Spanish speaking soliders to talk in front of them and inspect them. Spanish would freak the hell out of the natives and that inspired some to talk.

Hell. My dad used his mind games on us kids growing up. Got to the point at least I would just fess up because I knew he would "just know" anyway. If my dad, being a well experienced police officer could do all he can, I can only imagine the skill of a CIA or other professional information specialist.

I've read accounts from Russian, American, German, and my native Irish sources the most aside from my cadet training. It's pretty cool what these guys can make people do as well as how a well trained individual can counter some measures.

"Psssh. Even if you could catch a miracle on a picture any person would probably delete it to make space for more porn." - Aszur

Hey, that's the prisoner's dilemma.

I guess the opposition to torture here is not what you would gain out of it, but what harm you would be causing. In the end, you have to think if the information is really worth causing pain and grief to persons. If you think the answer is yes, if it's that important, then you're going to try it with that hope, even if it's not always reliable.

Indeed, President Bush said "I'd do it again to save lives", referring to waterboarding. The critics of this approach were opposed to it mainly because it's unethical and not because it's unreliable. From that point of view, making it more reliable wouldn't help make it more ethical.

Agreed. Torture, even if it works, is repugnant. Interrogation is vastly superior to it in pretty much all ways.

Happiness is zero-gee with a sinus cold.

You guys are still making the same mistake:

This topic is NOT about replacing ordinary interrogation techniques with torture. It's about if torture, on TOP of those options (such as a last resort) is more ethical if reliable information can be extracted from it.

Please stop making the "Interrogation works, why use torture" statements. Because that's NOT what this about.

It's like saying "hospitals exist—why use field dressing?"

Your hospital analogy would work except due to what we know about torture and it's effectiveness, it should be closer to:

Why use antidepressants when we have lobotomies?

(Torture being the lobotomy in case my sarcasm wasn't clear.)

"Oh wait. She doesn't have a... Forget what I said, don't catch the preggo. Just wear her hat." - Question Marc

Zeal, the topic is "If torture could be relied on to get truthful information, would it be more ethical to use it?" The question "If torture could be relied on to get truthful information, would more people use it?" is closely related, and therefore a legitimate topic for the thread. And there's nothing in either of those questions that requires torture be a last resort.

edited 15th Oct '12 5:43:18 AM by Madrugada

...if you don’t love you’re dead, and if you do, they’ll kill you for it.

Except that in your analogy, the purpose is to help the person—thus the welfare of the person is significant. Torture, in interrogation scenarios, doesn't require that you care one whit about the victim, particularly in scenarios where the information is more important.

No, the second question is tangential at best. This isn't about the amount of use torture receives. Widespread use doesn't make torture any more ethical than it made chattel slavery more ethical.

Also, I didn't say it was required to be a last resort. The problem is that people keep dismissing it as a whole because of "better" options. Better options does not exclude something from being an option; it just makes it not the desired option.

edited 15th Oct '12 5:54:43 AM by KingZeal

I also think that the issue of torture effectiveness is entirely separated from the issue of torture ethics.

As I understand it, torture is not "doubly wrong" because it is ineffective; it is wrong because it hurts people, and it is stupid because it is ineffective (and therefore, it would be pointless to use even for one who cares not about moral behaviour).

The hypothetical scenario described in the opening post would dismiss the second concern, but it would not affect the first in the least.

edited 15th Oct '12 6:01:32 AM by Carciofus

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

Well, that's a matter of opinion. In my view, it is sometimes necessary for agents of the state to cause harm in order to prevent a greater harm. In that case, the hypothetical effectiveness of torture is a central issue, because it helps determine to what degree torture might be successful in preventing harm. If we are tying to prevent a bomb from going off, then we do what we have to do in order to save those lives.

Ironically, I have often argued against using such methods, not because they are inherently wrong, but because they yeild a low probability of success. As several posters have noted, there are other techniques which IRL are more effective. But the OP removed that circumstance. As long as protecting the lives of the general public is the highest priority, then the supposed effectiveness of torture helps determine hoe ethical it is.

Zeal, you're not getting my sarcasm. Burning down a house to kill a spider is effective, kinda. Trying to make someone not feel depressed by shoving an icepick in their frontal lobe technically works, but now they can't feel anything. Using a sledgehammer to drive a nail could be possible, but consider all the damage it will do?

I could also point out hospitals and field dressings are also supposed to save lives and ease pain, not harm people.

Torture is not an effective tool for information gathering. It's that simple. Why throw a brick in my car window to unlock the door when I have the key in my hand?

I'm all about getting results. But if the method isn't effective, pick a different method. Considering the success rates we have with our current, and certainly more humane methods, I can see how knowing the target couldn't lie would be even more amazing in getting results on the condition that people didn't know they couldn't lie as Gabrael pointed out.

If they knew they couldn't lie, well. People in my field love the challenge.

"Oh wait. She doesn't have a... Forget what I said, don't catch the preggo. Just wear her hat." - Question Marc

No, I got it. I'm just not responding to it.

Again. The existence of doctors doesn't make field dressing useless.

No one is arguing that there aren't "better" methods of getting information, but we're talking about torture in and of itself. Your comparisons about bricks through windows and sledgehammers through nails are still missing the component about not giving a damn about the thing you're harming. If you want to drive in a nail and don't care about the damage, or if you want to get into a car and don't care about its condition, the overkill approach works just fine.

The same is true of torture in an interrogation context. If information is what you want and you don't give a shit about the condition of the person you're interrogating, the existence of better options doesn't remove torture from being an option.

edited 15th Oct '12 7:45:31 AM by KingZeal

Torture also backfires in a rather important way: those you torture will have links to other people, regardless of those people's involvement in whatever you're looking for. Whether or not they might wish revenge for the torture of their loved one/ friend/ colleague... you've just lost hearts and minds and could well push them into becoming part of whatever you're fighting.

Interrogation techniques that leave no scars and a minimal amount of lasting psychological damage are a small price to pay to limit creating new targets for later torture, don't you think? As, even with a guaranteed gain of truthful information, you don't lose the actual damage done to the individuals you question. It's also a little late to say sorry (no hard feelings, right?), if they turn out to genuinely know nothing, after you've almost killed them several times.

Knock-on effects: that Butterfly of Doom is something to be wary of. <winces>

edited 15th Oct '12 7:48:29 AM by Euodiachloris

Meh. That's a very circumstantial Appeal to Consequences. At best, it's a consideration to make before going to torture as an option, but again it depends on whether the information gained outweighs the consequences.

Circumstantial? You kidding me? I know of people who became active in the ANC movement precisely because the South African government tortured family members and that polarised their views.

It's happened time and again, mate. For every person you intimidate to never go against you using torture, you create a chance you make a monster who'll come after you, instead. And, it probably won't be the person you tortured, but nothing says it can't be, either.

Seriously: it's what Central African Militia groups are founded on: getting back at those that hurt you and yours (never mind you're creating people who'll do the same to you).

I dunno. It seems to me that this sort of argument could be used to justify pretty much everything — any action, no matter how horrible or unethical, could be easily rationalized as "the only possible way to prevent <insert thing here>".

Personally, I prefer the point of view according to which there are things that are not to be allowed under any circumstance, not even to save humankind (if in some hypothetical scenario they were the only available means). Practical consequences are not the only thing that matters, I believe; there are such things as honor and justice, and they are not to be forsaken no matter the result.

If — let's say — someone tortured a terrorist in order to find a way to save my life, they would insult me greatly. Even if they succeeded.*

edited 15th Oct '12 7:59:34 AM by Carciofus

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

You should always give a damn about how you got something and what that effect is on people.

As soon as you loose sight of your target's humanity, you loose your own too.

Why is causing pain to another person, even if it is to gain life saving information, so important to you despite it's not effective?

Euo is right. Violence is cyclic and torture creates a culture very paranoid and extreme. Consider the Arab Spring countries who had dictators who candidly ordered torture.

edited 15th Oct '12 8:01:05 AM by Polarstern

"Oh wait. She doesn't have a... Forget what I said, don't catch the preggo. Just wear her hat." - Question Marc

You're talking about torture as intimidation which would remain wrong even under the scenario I presented in the OP. This is about interrogation-based torture. In which case, the consequences you describe are circumstantial. It assumes the victim (1) has people who care about his/her well-being (2) know about the torture (3) have the means/desire to seek retribution.

I'm not saying that it wouldn't happen or couldn't happen or that it wouldn't happen enough to avoid consideration. As I said, it's a very valid consideration, but it's also one that someone could deem acceptable if the information gathered was more valuable.

No, I'm afraid the If You Kill Him, You Will Be Just Like Him! mentality is, quite often, a Perfect Solution Fallacy and/or a Slippery Slope Fallacy. There's plenty of scenarios where expendiency and/or accuracy greatly outweighs other concerns.

It seems I didn't make this clear in my OP.

It's not important to me at all. I'm playing Devil's Advocate specifically because I want this to be defeated under sound logical arguments and not appeals to emotion or false assumptions.

If I have to save a truckload of women from sex slavery by torturing a mafioso, I'd do it in a heartbeat.

It'd probably destroy me as a person to have done it, but it would an acceptable sacrifice.

edited 15th Oct '12 8:10:31 AM by KingZeal

But, that's the thing: torture isn't just an interrogation technique. It's also a message: go against us, and this is what you'll get. Whether or not you mean torture as such a tool, that is how it will be viewed by others, regardless. <shrugs>

It's also not conducive to others coming forward to volunteer information, either, if there's a chance they'll wind up suffering it, should it be decided they know more than they're saying.

Even in the case of that sex-industry mogul... I'd still not advocate torture. There are better ways to break him and get an in to the organisation. Ways that would mean that later infiltrations will go better, as people will give you the information you're after, when they realise they won't wind up hurt for it.

edited 15th Oct '12 8:21:43 AM by Euodiachloris

I'm not arguing either of those points. In fact, that's a very good point.

Torture would be limited in that you would have to have specific information that you need verified or revealed. Known Unknowns. It's useless, however, for getting people to reveal Unknown Unknowns. In such a case, humane interrogation would be far more effective.

*facepalm* Again, "there are better ways" is not an argument. It also ignores that methods tend to have individual weaknesses.

edited 15th Oct '12 8:25:20 AM by KingZeal

And what if you accidently torture an innocent person? Or even if they are telling the truth, and you don't believe them?

What good has been done there? Technically nothing is to stop Gabrael's example of beating someone just to keep them talking from happening. Especially if they are an especially notorious figure considered for multiple offences.

"Oh wait. She doesn't have a... Forget what I said, don't catch the preggo. Just wear her hat." - Question Marc

Again, we have to assume truth-detection is 100% accurate, practical and available or else we can't begin to discuss this topic.

If it is, then harming an innocent person would be next to impossible unless the questions themselves were inept. In which case, any form of investigation (including those that don't involve torture) would still be shot in the foot.

You are really operating under the presumption that with perfect truth detection, only guilty people would be tortured? That's a wee bit idealistic, don't you think?

edited 15th Oct '12 8:42:17 AM by Fighteer

"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"

Of course not. Mistakes and malevolence could and would still occur. One hundred percent accurate truth detection would make it harder to occur (but by extension, harder to refute if mistakes DO occur).

Again, I'm not advocating such a system. I'm figuring out legitimate positives/negatives.

Zeal, your entire argument so far has been based on the unstated premise that the only reason torture is used is in the search for information, and your question is predicated on that unstated premise.

A further unstated premise is the corollary: that torture would not be used if there were a better way to get the information needed.

A third unstated premise is that only guilty people are ever tortured and it's opposite, that no innocent is ever tortured. You finally state that here:

Further, you are tying the ethics of torture with the effectiveness of it. They're two separate and unrelated aspects: torture is not unethical because it isn't effective. Its effectiveness has no bearing on it ethicality.

Once those premises are stated, and that tie is recognized as non-existent, there's really only one answer to your question: No, making it more effective does not make it any more ethical.

I'm seeing what appears to be a disturbing purpose in this thread: you appear to be trying to back the other posters into agreeing that under certain (nearly impossible to attain) circumstances, torture is ethical.

edited 15th Oct '12 8:58:06 AM by Madrugada

...if you don’t love you’re dead, and if you do, they’ll kill you for it.

The person asking the questions needs to be examined as well. We are all human and there are more than enough instances of even the most educated and disciplined professional loosing their mind or doing something horrible.

Such as using this against someone who is accused of cheating or personal grievances. What if I wanted to ask a man if he's ever had gay fantasies or any other irrelevant or personal information?

What if the enemy got a hold of this technology and used it against our people?

I would assume this technology couldn't be released all willy-nilly for just anyone to use. But with that restricted access, who gets dibs to use it? Can a city police officer bring in a suspect? Is say only a CIA or their equalivant agent allowed to use it? Would our allies be exempt or could we put SAS agents under it? (Assuming it's an American thing.) Makes jurisdiction all sorts of crazy.

"Oh wait. She doesn't have a... Forget what I said, don't catch the preggo. Just wear her hat." - Question Marc