Follow TV Tropes

Following

Would Reliable Truth Detection Make Torture More Ethical

Go To

LoniJay from Australia Since: Dec, 2009 Relationship Status: Pining for the fjords
#126: Oct 15th 2012 at 7:17:48 PM

Sometimes it seems like people are always trying to find some situation where a morally abhorrent action is right. I'm not sure that there's really much point to these - they tend to get into the "But what if you had to rape people to prevent the apocalypse? What then? It'd be moral then, right?" territory. You know, where increasingly strange and unlikely situations are invented to make the bad thing good. It's just creepy and pointless because such situations are not likely to happen.

Is it at all likely that such a situation will come to pass with enough frequency that we as a society need to make allowances for it and leave morally wrong options on the table 'just in case'?

Even if you could find the odd instance where there genuinely is no other way to save the bus full of women from sex slavery, I don't see why we should use that as an excuse to keep the option of torture as a valid one for organisations (like countries) to use.

edited 15th Oct '12 7:19:08 PM by LoniJay

Be not afraid...
TuefelHundenIV Night Clerk of the Apacalypse. from Doomsday Facility Corner Store. Since: Aug, 2009 Relationship Status: I'd need a PowerPoint presentation
Night Clerk of the Apacalypse.
#127: Oct 15th 2012 at 7:49:31 PM

My take on this is that if you have a device that can detect the truth and lies with effeciency and accuracy; why bother with torture when conventional methods would now be much more accurate thanks to the device.

I don't think it will make torture more practical if you have play multiple rounds of 20 questions to get even a small accurate answer.

As someone else pointed out the device only detects truthful answers not answers that you need. Someone screaming their name and that they are being tortured would certainly be true in that circumstance.

Who watches the watchmen?
KingZeal Since: Oct, 2009
#128: Oct 15th 2012 at 9:21:41 PM

[up][up][up] I don't "believe" anything. I didn't create the topic to state my own opinions about the ethicality of torture. I'm genuinely interested in what other people have to say about it, but many persons who participate keep side-stepping the question being asked just to reaffirm "torture is bad".

For example: [up][up] & [up]

Neither of those posts actually answer the question posed. Even if Loni is right, and the chances that a ridiculously convoluted situation that would make torture ethical is 0.0000000001%, that still means that if that situation happens, torture would be apparently ethical. A statistical fallacy is arguing that because something is statistically impossible or unlikely it is therefore actually impossible rather than just that it's only possible in that 0.0000000001 percent case.

And Tuefel once again makes the "there's a better way, therefore this is wrong" fallacy. As I said before, that's not an argument either, because it's like saying that because hospitals exist, field dressing is automatically wrong no matter what. The only two persons who actually made any attempt to qualify that argument are Polar, who stated that torture would still be wrong because of practical problems in how the human body works and Euo, who argued that it would still be wrong because it does not help you figure out Unknown Unknowns. I acknowledged both of those arguments.

But as long as people keep bringing up the SAME fallacies without anything else to corroborate their arguments, I have to continue playing Devil's Advocate look like I'm trying to railroad people into a particular answer.

Polarstern from United States Since: Nov, 2011 Relationship Status: 700 wives and 300 concubines
#129: Oct 15th 2012 at 9:38:37 PM

You don't have to do anything. This is an internet forum, not a congressional hearing or a credited class.

And calling other options aside from torture fallacys is stupid. I get your a logic nazi, but let's be real. No one is going to condone something like torture, even in your OP, when it's not needed.

You are railroading people when you're sitting there demanding their answers be false by your logic just because it isn't the answer you want.

I respect your zeal, but your living up to your moniker a little too tightly man.

I think this thread is past beating a dead horse. I for one have never cared for the smell of dogfood, so I'm outs.

"Oh wait. She doesn't have a... Forget what I said, don't catch the preggo. Just wear her hat." - Question Marc
Ekuran Since: Feb, 2010 Relationship Status: watch?v=dQw4w9WgXcQ
#130: Oct 15th 2012 at 9:40:43 PM

X can be Y given Z(s). In this particular case, Z(s) is(are) apparently possible, therefore X can be Y.

Fill in letters. Question answered.

KingZeal Since: Oct, 2009
#131: Oct 15th 2012 at 9:44:36 PM

And calling other options aside from torture fallacys is stupid. I get your a logic nazi, but let's be real. No one is going to condone something like torture, even in your OP, when it's not needed.

You are railroading people when you're sitting there demanding their answers be false by your logic just because it isn't the answer you want.

Except not only am I explaining WHY I disagree with the logic, I've acknowledged several (including yours) as being sound.

For that matter, it's disingenuous to accuse me of being a railroading logic nazi while at the same time saying "no one's gonna condone this". Again, this is an attempt to discuss ethics, not just regurgitate an opinion. Hell, Best Of, in the very second post asked people NOT to do that.

But whatever. Bye.

edited 15th Oct '12 9:46:45 PM by KingZeal

Madrugada Zzzzzzzzzz Since: Jan, 2001 Relationship Status: In season
Zzzzzzzzzz
#132: Oct 15th 2012 at 9:58:16 PM

Well, this turned out badly. Locking.

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

Total posts: 132
Top