Torture is never “moral”, but it can be useful in some situations. If you mean torturing someone for fun, then no, it’s very unacceptable; and a person who does that needs to be taken out.
Torture is always immoral, in my view. The usual reason given for torture is to extract information. And it has been shown that it is a lousy way to get reliable information. If the idea is to punish someone, then that’s even worse. The only valid reason for using punishment, in my view, is to modify behavior, as with a child or an animal. Torture is both ineffective and far too severe to be used to behavior modification. That leaves only retribution, which is never moral.
I think that we could build a scenario that would say that yes, there may be instances where it could be moral to torture but it would have to include known facts to the torturer and a damned good justification for doing so.
Let me see. A criminal has hidden an A bomb in your city that will go off in less time than it takes to evacuate a million people. He admits this to his torturer.
I think it may be morally justified then to try to torture the information out of him.
The good of the many in this case would need to be placed above the good of the one to be tortured and even above the good mental health of the one doing the torturing.
Do you agree or is it more moral not to try to save a million people?
The problem with your reasoning is, again, it has been shown that torture seldom if ever produces good information.
Many people do think that some deserve to go to hell. And almost everyone thinks that some, at least, deserve bad stuff to happen to them.
If free will is an illusion, then no one “deserves” anything, good or bad.
Was it Einstein who said that even a murderer does not deserve punishment but that we would still lock him up for self-protection?
He would be right I think as we all contribute to creating murderers. None of us live in a vacuum and all effect each other.
I never said we should not lock up murderers. Protecting society from people who wish to do harm is acceptable and moral. It’s not about punishing them, hurting them, or giving them what they deserve. It’s the best method we have come up with so far to keep the rest of us safe.
Torture is never “moral”, but it can be useful in some situations. If you mean torturing someone for fun, then no, it’s very unacceptable; and a person who does that needs to be taken out.
Thanks for this.
Would you like to have a go at the question in post 15?
Torture is always immoral, in my view. The usual reason given for torture is to extract information. And it has been shown that it is a lousy way to get reliable information. If the idea is to punish someone, then that’s even worse. The only valid reason for using punishment, in my view, is to modify behavior, as with a child or an animal. Torture is both ineffective and far too severe to be used to behavior modification. That leaves only retribution, which is never moral.
I think that we could build a scenario that would say that yes, there may be instances where it could be moral to torture but it would have to include known facts to the torturer and a damned good justification for doing so.
Let me see. A criminal has hidden an A bomb in your city that will go off in less time than it takes to evacuate a million people. He admits this to his torturer.
I think it may be morally justified then to try to torture the information out of him.
The good of the many in this case would need to be placed above the good of the one to be tortured and even above the good mental health of the one doing the torturing.
Do you agree or is it more moral not to try to save a million people?
The problem with your reasoning is, again, it has been shown that torture seldom if ever produces good information.
Ducking out on putting your morals on the line are you?
We are not discusing the efficacy of torture. I am asking if even a failed attemp should be made to save a million people?
Many people do think that some deserve to go to hell. And almost everyone thinks that some, at least, deserve bad stuff to happen to them.
If free will is an illusion, then no one “deserves” anything, good or bad.
Was it Einstein who said that even a murderer does not deserve punishment but that we would still lock him up for self-protection?
He would be right I think as we all contribute to creating murderers. None of us live in a vacuum and all effect each other.
I never said we should not lock up murderers. Protecting society from people who wish to do harm is acceptable and moral. It’s not about punishing them, hurting them, or giving them what they deserve. It’s the best method we have come up with so far to keep the rest of us safe.
I did not mean to insinuate that you had said anything.
I was just showing how Einstein would agree with us on no one deserving what we give in terms of punishment.
Torture is always immoral, in my view. The usual reason given for torture is to extract information. And it has been shown that it is a lousy way to get reliable information. If the idea is to punish someone, then that’s even worse. The only valid reason for using punishment, in my view, is to modify behavior, as with a child or an animal. Torture is both ineffective and far too severe to be used to behavior modification. That leaves only retribution, which is never moral.
I think that we could build a scenario that would say that yes, there may be instances where it could be moral to torture but it would have to include known facts to the torturer and a damned good justification for doing so.
Let me see. A criminal has hidden an A bomb in your city that will go off in less time than it takes to evacuate a million people. He admits this to his torturer.
I think it may be morally justified then to try to torture the information out of him.
The good of the many in this case would need to be placed above the good of the one to be tortured and even above the good mental health of the one doing the torturing.
Do you agree or is it more moral not to try to save a million people?
Regards
DL
I think a scenario like that would call for torture. You would need someone that could evaluate the perpetrator well, and from there estimate if they can be ‘broken’. However, just having some people commit torture simply to get revenge on the individual for planting the bomb - that would be counterproductive.
Torture is always immoral, in my view. The usual reason given for torture is to extract information. And it has been shown that it is a lousy way to get reliable information. If the idea is to punish someone, then that’s even worse. The only valid reason for using punishment, in my view, is to modify behavior, as with a child or an animal. Torture is both ineffective and far too severe to be used to behavior modification. That leaves only retribution, which is never moral.
I think that we could build a scenario that would say that yes, there may be instances where it could be moral to torture but it would have to include known facts to the torturer and a damned good justification for doing so.
Let me see. A criminal has hidden an A bomb in your city that will go off in less time than it takes to evacuate a million people. He admits this to his torturer.
I think it may be morally justified then to try to torture the information out of him.
The good of the many in this case would need to be placed above the good of the one to be tortured and even above the good mental health of the one doing the torturing.
Do you agree or is it more moral not to try to save a million people?
Regards
DL
I think a scenario like that would call for torture. You would need someone that could evaluate the perpetrator well, and from there estimate if they can be ‘broken’. However, just having some people commit torture simply to get revenge on the individual for planting the bomb - that would be counterproductive.
I don’t. Torture has never been shown to be more effective than good police work. It would just be pointless torture. We did not get one piece of substantively useful information out of any of the water boarding sessions in Guantanamo.
Torture is always immoral, in my view. The usual reason given for torture is to extract information. And it has been shown that it is a lousy way to get reliable information. If the idea is to punish someone, then that’s even worse. The only valid reason for using punishment, in my view, is to modify behavior, as with a child or an animal. Torture is both ineffective and far too severe to be used to behavior modification. That leaves only retribution, which is never moral.
I think that we could build a scenario that would say that yes, there may be instances where it could be moral to torture but it would have to include known facts to the torturer and a damned good justification for doing so.
Let me see. A criminal has hidden an A bomb in your city that will go off in less time than it takes to evacuate a million people. He admits this to his torturer.
I think it may be morally justified then to try to torture the information out of him.
The good of the many in this case would need to be placed above the good of the one to be tortured and even above the good mental health of the one doing the torturing.
Do you agree or is it more moral not to try to save a million people?
Regards
DL
I think a scenario like that would call for torture. You would need someone that could evaluate the perpetrator well, and from there estimate if they can be ‘broken’. However, just having some people commit torture simply to get revenge on the individual for planting the bomb - that would be counterproductive.
