Torturing terrorists to save innocent lives...

[sandandfoam]

If I could save my family by dropping a nuclear bomb on London would I?
There is nothing constructive to be drawn from either proposition.
Torture is wrong. Always wrong. It is corrupting and no civilized state should have any hand in it.

 

[3.14]

so then why do some country's still have jury duty

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

This is not about how accurate or reliable torture is.

Of course it is.

This is assuming that it is very reliable and and that your family's lives are in real danger.

IOW, you've assumed false things about torture in order to frame the question the way you want, which is just what I said: a false dilemma, and therefore a fallacy. You want us to assume things that no prospective torturer could actually know.

Let's back up for a minute: your family have been kidnapped. You've captured someone you believe to be involved, and you hope he knows where they've been taken. If you torture him, one of a few things will happen:

Your version

- he might know the truth, might tell you, and you might use this information to save your family. The camera pulls out in a crane shot to show you and your family dirty but okay, wrapped in blankets and surrounded by police cars. Fade to the credits.

The other (slightly) more realistic possibilities

- he knows the truth and tells you it under torture, but later on, you find out that if you kept going with your line of investigation that you had been following before you went to town on the guy, you would've gotten to your family in time anyhow. The torture was completely unnecessary.

- he might know the truth but feed you a lie. Maybe the place he tells you to go is actually set with explosives and as soon as you go in, you and with you are killed (which is a possibility worth considering, since we're apparently playing the "action movie outlandish scenario" game).

- he might not know where your family is at all, either because he wasn't trusted with that information or he's just some poor unfortunate soul who really doesn't have anything to do with your family's kidnapping. However, tells you something to stop you from torturing him. While you're off pursuing a wild goose chase, your family dies.

Why isn't it credible? I'm not saying that if you agree with me on the "save you family" proposition then you must be completely for torture. I myself would not vote for torture if I had the chance to do so today. Its just that in some situations, I would not even have to think twice about being for it.

It's so remote a possibility that it doesn't really have a bearing on the morality of torture in general. It's also an example of misleading vividness and appeal to fear, which are both also logical fallacy.

By my count, you just got a hat trick.

If your family's lives were in true danger and if torturing a person (who could save them, but is refusing to) could save them, would you say no to torturing them, after all other options have been exhausted or if you were running out of time?

If there were such a thing as magic beanstalks and if there was a giant who lived in the clouds with a huge pile of treasure, would you trade your cow for a handful of beans?

 

[HoldemDB9]

Of course it is.

No it isn't.

IOW, you've assumed false things about torture in order to frame the question the way you want, which is just what I said: a false dilemma, and therefore a fallacy. You want us to assume things that no prospective torturer could actually know.

Let's back up for a minute: your family have been kidnapped. You've captured someone you believe to be involved, and you hope he knows where they've been taken. If you torture him, one of a few things will happen:

Your version

- he might know the truth, might tell you, and you might use this information to save your family. The camera pulls out in a crane shot to show you and your family dirty but okay, wrapped in blankets and surrounded by police cars. Fade to the credits.

The other (slightly) more realistic possibilities

- he knows the truth and tells you it under torture, but later on, you find out that if you kept going with your line of investigation that you had been following before you went to town on the guy, you would've gotten to your family in time anyhow. The torture was completely unnecessary.

- he might know the truth but feed you a lie. Maybe the place he tells you to go is actually set with explosives and as soon as you go in, you and with you are killed (which is a possibility worth considering, since we're apparently playing the "action movie outlandish scenario" game).

- he might not know where your family is at all, either because he wasn't trusted with that information or he's just some poor unfortunate soul who really doesn't have anything to do with your family's kidnapping. However, tells you something to stop you from torturing him. While you're off pursuing a wild goose chase, your family dies.

Like I said, this is not about whether or not torture is effective. If I wanted to know that then Id do some research on it. This whole thread is assuming that torture is effective.

It's so remote a possibility that it doesn't really have a bearing on the morality of torture in general. It's also an example of misleading vividness and appeal to fear, which are both also logical fallacy.

By my count, you just got a hat trick.

Ok then, it may be a remote possibility, but Im asking about if that remote possibility were to happen.

If there were such a thing as magic beanstalks and if there was a giant who lived in the clouds with a huge pile of treasure, would you trade your cow for a handful of beans?

Yes just like this, its still a question.

 

[HoldemDB9]

If I could save my family by dropping a nuclear bomb on London would I?

Some people probably would. I wouldn't though. But there is an astronomical difference between putting someone through pain and killing god knows how many people. How about this: If someone was planning to drop a nuclear bomb on London would you agree to torture them if they held information that you needed to stop it?

There is nothing constructive to be drawn from either proposition.
Torture is wrong. Always wrong. It is corrupting and no civilized state should have any hand in it.

I just cannot believe that you are so against the idea of torture that you would allow your own family to die, just so the person who is responsible for their deaths, does not go through any pain. That is saying that you do value a terrorists well being/feelings over the lives of your family. I just find that insane.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

No it isn't.

Pragmatically, whether or not something is effective has a direct bearing on its morality.

Like I said, this is not about whether or not torture is effective. If I wanted to know that then Id do some research on it. This whole thread is assuming that torture is effective.

And thereby assuming that torture is not torture. In the real world, torture is ineffective.

Ok then, it may be a remote possibility, but Im asking about if that remote possibility were to happen.

To what end?

Yes just like this, its still a question.

And your question and mine are just as relevant to the real world. The difference is that one question doesn't pretend to have any bearing on reality.

Some people probably would. I wouldn't though. But there is an astronomical difference between putting someone through pain and killing god knows how many people. How about this: If someone was planning to drop a nuclear bomb on London would you agree to torture them if they held information that you needed to stop it?

I'd personally prefer to try to find and defuse the bomb, or maybe evacuate the city.

I just cannot believe that you are so against the idea of torture that you would allow your own family to die, just so the person who is responsible for their deaths, does not go through any pain. That is saying that you do value a terrorists well being/feelings over the lives of your family. I just find that insane.

No, it doesn't say that. It's not about the well-being of the terrorist; it's about keeping a moral principle intact.

 

[McBell]

From this thread:

Imagine this is a realistic scenario: you can either spare your family from doom, resulting in the death of 6 billion people, or you can kill your family and spare the human race. If you refuse to kill, everyone will be killed, excluding you.

Which would you chose?

To everyone who is not family:

Nice knowing you.
​

 

[HoldemDB9]

I'd personally prefer to try to find and defuse the bomb, or maybe evacuate the city.

So would I - I've said that torture would be a very last resort. If you did not have enough time to defuse the bomb or to evacuate the city and if you had reason to believe that torturing the person behind the attack would be effective, would you be for or against it?

Yes there is a lot of ifs there. Yes its a fairly unrealistic situation. But I'm asking about it. If you think its a stupid or pointless question then I don't see why you cannot answer it, plenty of people in this thread have.

No, it doesn't say that. It's not about the well-being of the terrorist; it's about keeping a moral principle intact.

Ok then, so do you value a moral principle more than you value your family's lives?

There has been quite a bit of discussion on the TV lately about torture. About how effective it is and about whether or not it can be justified in certain situations. Why would people like the CIA use weatherboarding if they did not believe it was reliable? I don't believe I'm being as unrealistic as you say I am. Even if torture was 100% proved to be unreliable, I still don't see the problem with say "If it was reliable, would you be for it?"

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

So would I - I've said that torture would be a very last resort.

There's no such thing. There's always one more option to try if you think hard enough.

If you did not have enough time to defuse the bomb or to evacuate the city

Defusing the bomb may be an either/or proposition, but evacuating the city wouldn't be. Whatever number of people get out of range (or are blocked from coming in) is better than none. A couple minutes might mean the difference between getting some MPs and generals into a bunker somewhere (and therefore continue to have a functioning government and military) or not.

and if you had reason to believe that torturing the person behind the attack would be effective,

Effective in what way? You just said that there wasn't time to defuse the bomb.

would you be for or against it?

No. If I didn't have enough time to evacuate the city, I'd do what I could to evacuate whatever small number I could, or stop the flights into Heathrow, or start whatever process would be needed to evacuate all the towns downwind... or just make my best guess at where the bomb might be and go there to stop it.

Yes there is a lot of ifs there. Yes its a fairly unrealistic situation. But I'm asking about it. If you think its a stupid or pointless question then I don't see why you cannot answer it, plenty of people in this thread have.

The thing is this: far-fetched scenarios like yours are used in the debate on torture in real life. I don't know if that's where you're going with this, but it's following a very familiar formula.

Ok then, so do you value a moral principle more than you value your family's lives?

I'm not sure. There are definitely things that I value more than my own life. There are fewer that I might value more than my family's lives, but I suppose they might exist.

There has been quite a bit of discussion on the TV lately about torture. About how effective it is and about whether or not it can be justified in certain situations. Why would people like the CIA use weatherboarding if they did not believe it was reliable? I don't believe I'm being as unrealistic as you say I am.

I personally think that things like waterboarding and the other torture techniques used by the CIA are more about punishing people they believe to be criminals than about eliciting information.

Even if torture was 100% proved to be unreliable, I still don't see the problem with say "If it was reliable, would you be for it?"

I do, because questions like this are used to frame the debate about actual torture and the laws and policies surrounding it.

 

[HoldemDB9]

There's no such thing. There's always one more option to try if you think hard enough.

What if you are running out of time? Which is certainly the case with many terrorist problems.

Defusing the bomb may be an either/or proposition, but evacuating the city wouldn't be. Whatever number of people get out of range (or are blocked from coming in) is better than none. A couple minutes might mean the difference between getting some MPs and generals into a bunker somewhere (and therefore continue to have a functioning government and military) or not.

I agree, the more people we can save the better.

Effective in what way? You just said that there wasn't time to defuse the bomb.

Effective in the way that we get the information we need to defuse the bomb. Effective in the way that by torturing this terrorist, NOBODY will die.

No. If I didn't have enough time to evacuate the city, I'd do what I could to evacuate whatever small number I could, or stop the flights into Heathrow, or start whatever process would be needed to evacuate all the towns downwind... or just make my best guess at where the bomb might be and go there to stop it.

I honestly do not understand this. I just don't understand how you would rather have a terrorist go without torture and have thousands of people die, over having the terrorist tortured and having those thousands of people live. Do you honestly think that letting thousands of innocent people die is more morally good than torturing the person who is behind the attack?

I'm not sure. There are definitely things that I value more than my own life. There are fewer that I might value more than my family's lives, but I suppose they might exist.

But "do not torture a terrorist" is a principle that is not worth breaking if thousands of innocent lives would be saved by breaking it? Really?

I do, because questions like this are used to frame the debate about actual torture and the laws and policies surrounding it.

I do see what you mean. But this is not really about the whole picture of torture. If it was actually being debated then obviously all of the ifs would be examined and my question wouldn't really mean anything. I'm just curious as to how far people go with he whole "do not torture" thing. I'm not saying that if you agree that there are some situations where you would be for torture, then you must be completely for it.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

What if you are running out of time? Which is certainly the case with many terrorist problems.

Then you'll have lots of options but not enough time to try them all. You'll still have avenues open to you other than torture.

Effective in the way that we get the information we need to defuse the bomb. Effective in the way that by torturing this terrorist, NOBODY will die.

So there is time to defuse the bomb. I got confused when you said there wasn't.

To back up a bit:

- I've got a suspected (or even confirmed) terrorist in my clutches. I can do whatever I want to him to stop the city blowing up/my family being executed/Goldfinger stealing all the gold from Fort Knox/what-have-you.
- I know for certain (how, I don't know) that he knows how to stop the bomb/the killers/Goldfinger's squadron of gas-carrying planes/etc.
- I also know that he's uncooperative enough that normal interrogation isn't working.
- I have to choose between torturing him to try to extract the information or not. As a rational person, I realize that he may do one of two things:

1. Tell the truth and lead me to the bomb/killers/gas planes
2. Lie and send me on a wild goose chase, allowing the terrorists/killers/Goldfinger to succeed in their dastardly plan.

Now... you've said before that in this special case, torture would be 100% effective. Here's the $64,000 question: how would I know this with certainty while I make my decision... i.e. before I torture the guy?

In reality, the possibilities are that he's telling the truth, he's deliberately trying to mislead me, or he just doesn't know and is trying to get the torture to stop. When he says "Stop! Stop! The bomb's in ______", what possible way do I have to know that going there is a better strategy than just throwing a dart at a map of the city?

I honestly do not understand this. I just don't understand how you would rather have a terrorist go without torture and have thousands of people die, over having the terrorist tortured and having those thousands of people live. Do you honestly think that letting thousands of innocent people die is more morally good than torturing the person who is behind the attack?

No, I honestly think that while the proverbial bomb is ticking, anyone telling me that torturing the guy in front of me is 100% certain to be effective is either lying to me or doesn't know what he's talking about.

But "do not torture a terrorist" is a principle that is not worth breaking if thousands of innocent lives would be saved by breaking it? Really?

This is still a false dilemma. Even if you happened to be in the one situation where torture was 100% effective, you wouldn't know it except in hindsight afterward.

I do see what you mean. But this is not really about the whole picture of torture.

Right, and in that regard, it's a mischaracterization.

If it was actually being debated then obviously all of the ifs would be examined and my question wouldn't really mean anything. I'm just curious as to how far people go with he whole "do not torture" thing. I'm not saying that if you agree that there are some situations where you would be for torture, then you must be completely for it.

But since the situation you describe can never happen, it's completely irrelevant.

 

[HoldemDB9]

So there is time to defuse the bomb. I got confused when you said there wasn't.

To back up a bit:

- I've got a suspected (or even confirmed) terrorist in my clutches. I can do whatever I want to him to stop the city blowing up/my family being executed/Goldfinger stealing all the gold from Fort Knox/what-have-you.
- I know for certain (how, I don't know) that he knows how to stop the bomb/the killers/Goldfinger's squadron of gas-carrying planes/etc.
- I also know that he's uncooperative enough that normal interrogation isn't working.
- I have to choose between torturing him to try to extract the information or not. As a rational person, I realize that he may do one of two things:

1. Tell the truth and lead me to the bomb/killers/gas planes
2. Lie and send me on a wild goose chase, allowing the terrorists/killers/Goldfinger to succeed in their dastardly plan.

Now... you've said before that in this special case, torture would be 100% effective. Here's the $64,000 question: how would I know this with certainty while I make my decision... i.e. before I torture the guy?

In reality, the possibilities are that he's telling the truth, he's deliberately trying to mislead me, or he just doesn't know and is trying to get the torture to stop. When he says "Stop! Stop! The bomb's in ______", what possible way do I have to know that going there is a better strategy than just throwing a dart at a map of the city?

Again this is not about how effective and reliable torture is. I'M ASSUMING that it is proven to be effective. And I don't think that saying torture can be effective is that far fetched. The people doing the torturing would be professionals, it would not just be normal folk like us doing it, where we just have to hope that we have been told the truth. All of what you've said is irrelevant because I'm assuming that torture works and is accurate - and yes, I know at the moment that it has not been proved.

No, I honestly think that while the proverbial bomb is ticking, anyone telling me that torturing the guy in front of me is 100% certain to be effective is either lying to me or doesn't know what he's talking about.

This is still a false dilemma. Even if you happened to be in the one situation where torture was 100% effective, you wouldn't know it except in hindsight afterward.

See the above comments.

Just please imagine that torture would save your family if used. All other known options have been exhausted. Torture is the only thing you can think of that has a good chance of working and you have very little time left. Would you allow it to be used on the terrorist behind the attack, or would you decide to not use torture and have your family die? Yes, I know its a very unrealistic example, but you can still answer.

But since the situation you describe can never happen, it's completely irrelevant.

I disagree that it could never happen. I even disagree that it would be rare. But that is not what this thread is about.

 

[tumbleweed41]

I believe the personal use of torture (what would you do to save your family?) is far different from the Government endorsed form of torture used to start this thread.
What a person would do to save those close to him/her constitutes a personal morality on how far you would go.
As has been seen in the past, when the Government endorses torture, or any form of violation of a persons human rights, abuses are bound to happen. The abuse of a potential innocent or ignorant captive, in the hopes that lives MAY be saved, not assured, should never be justified. And the belief that "this guy knows something" does not ensure that he does, or that torture will yield truthful results.
NO form of any violation of human rights should be endorsed by any government that want to survive another 200 years.

 

[-anonymous-]

The simple fact is that 'terrorism' is a paradox. America has played a part in its own problem be provoking said terrorists. "If you believe in your cause, you are not a terrorist. If this is not true, war is terrorism."- Vladimir Lenin. Torture is unethical, and should not even be barely legal.