Is torture ever an option?

[Papsak]

Of course, we are all told a absolutely not.

But what if a person had place a bomb in a city, you know he's done it and it's going to go off in a couple of hours and many people would be killed and maimed.

Is it ok then?

 

[profeet]

What is right and what is wrong; is it nothing but perspective?

 

[Mortymoose]

Yes!

 

[profeet]

Yes!

You need more salad and less flesh of the animal sir :erm:

 

[Cray]

Of course, we are all told a absolutely not.

But what if a person had place a bomb in a city, you know he's done it and it's going to go off in a couple of hours and many people would be killed and maimed.

Is it ok then?

In the real world you would never be absolutely sure of guilt and could never be absolutely sure that the person isn't lying to you to make the torture stop. The ethics of torture are one thing, the effectiveness is entirely another as people will make up all kinds of thing to make the torture stop.

 

[profeet]

Of course, we are all told a absolutely not.

But what if a person had place a bomb in a city, you know he's done it and it's going to go off in a couple of hours and many people would be killed and maimed.

Is it ok then?

Oh I know this one

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/appeal-to-emotion


appeal to emotion

You attempted to manipulate an emotional response in place of a valid or compelling argument.


Appeals to emotion include appeals to fear, envy, hatred, pity, pride, and more. It's important to note that sometimes a logically coherent argument may inspire emotion or have an emotional aspect, but the problem and fallacy occurs when emotion is used instead of a logical argument, or to obscure the fact that no compelling rational reason exists for one's position. Everyone, bar sociopaths, is affected by emotion, and so appeals to emotion are a very common and effective argument tactic, but they're ultimately flawed, dishonest, and tend to make one's opponents justifiably emotional.


Example: Luke didn't want to eat his sheep's brains with chopped liver and brussel sprouts, but his father told him to think about the poor, starving children in a third world country who weren't fortunate enough to have any food at all.

 

[Hamster]

In the real world you would never be absolutely sure of guilt and could never be absolutely sure that the person isn't lying to you to make the torture stop. The ethics of torture are one thing, the effectiveness is entirely another as people will make up all kinds of thing to make the torture stop.

If said baddie told you "I planted a bomb MWHAHAHAHAA!!!" then you'd be absolutely sure.

 

[Cray]

If said baddie told you "I planted a bomb MWHAHAHAHAA!!!" then you'd be absolutely sure.

Or said "baddie" could have mental problems and no bomb actually exists? Hypothetical scenarios are very easy to answer if you don't have to deal with messy, real world situations. If you take up a stance that torture is a valid means to gather information, sooner or later you are going to have to accept that an innocent person, who know nothing, will get tortured.

 

[saor]

In the real world you would never be absolutely sure of guilt and could never be absolutely sure that the person isn't lying to you to make the torture stop. The ethics of torture are one thing, the effectiveness is entirely another as people will make up all kinds of thing to make the torture stop.

What other alternatives exist though? Physical pain is probably one of the few ways in which to bypass whatever conscious choice the bomber made not to disclose the whereabouts of the bomb.

 

[Cray]

What other alternatives exist though? Physical pain is probably one of the few ways in which to bypass whatever conscious choice the bomber made not to disclose the whereabouts of the bomb.

Or pain may override whatever rational thoughts he has -why do you assume that a person under pain of torture would automatically tell the truth?

 

[falcon786]

sooner or later you are going to have to accept that an innocent person, who know nothing, will get tortured.

This,I'm all for torture if you could be absolutely sure but unfortunately you can't always be.

 

[saor]

Or pain may override whatever rational thoughts he has -why do you assume that a person under pain of torture would automatically tell the truth?

The pain is intermittent though - and during the respite from that intolerable pain I'd imagine most thinking beings would do whatever necessary to avoid going through that ordeal again. Unless they've been specifically trained to endure pain, I don't see any reason why the inflicting of such pain would cause a person to act irrationally & lie about the whereabouts of the bomb. Lying moves them closer to pain, not further from it; truth is the only avenue available to the cessation of pain (if the torturer is to be believed).

 

[Mortymoose]

You need more salad and less flesh of the animal sir :erm:

Just for that, I am going home this afternoon and waterboarding a few Brussel Sprouts on my stove!

 

[koeksGHT]

Why not just sodium thiopental

 

[Ho3n3r]

If someone raped and killed my wife, and I find him, you can be sure I won't just be playing chess with him, no matter how wrong it is.

 

[LazyLion]

Torture is always an option, just not a very good one...

 

[Alan]

Of course, we are all told a absolutely not.

But what if a person had place a bomb in a city, you know he's done it and it's going to go off in a couple of hours and many people would be killed and maimed.

Is it ok then?

Yes of course. There are though people who would rather risk millions being killed by say a nuclear suitcase bomb then be complicit in torturing someone. Just so long as their hands are clean.

 

[C4Cat]

Of course, we are all told a absolutely not.

But what if a person had place a bomb in a city, you know he's done it and it's going to go off in a couple of hours and many people would be killed and maimed.

Is it ok then?

No. The use of torture in the situation you describe is not plausible.

Torture has worked before but experts agree that generally it's more likely ineffective and it's difficult to know when the victim is being truthful.
Plus, do you really want torturers in your organisation? They are unlikely to be mentally stable.

 

[dabean]

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0914863/

 

[saor]

No. The use of torture in the situation you describe is not plausible.

Torture has worked before but experts agree that generally it's more likely ineffective and it's difficult to know when the victim is being truthful.
Plus, do you really want torturers in your organisation? They are unlikely to be mentally stable.

Surely this is the most plausible scenario for the use of torture? We have agents on the ground who can confirm a confession as to the bombs whereabouts within minutes anywhere in the city. If they lie - the torture resumes. It might be a blunt instrument, but what else are we gonna hit them with?