Is torture acceptable? (6 Viewers)

[Enron]

Martin,

I think torture doesn't work. Therefore I also think it can't be justified, because it would basically be meaningless violence. But is this what you meant?

You can justify anything if you bullshit well enough.

 

Buy on AliExpress.com

[Seven]

How so? If torture doesn't even work, what possible goal could it serve?

 

[Martin]

I know what you mean and I agree with it, but it's irrelevant to why I voted the way I did. You're neglecting this tiny possibility, I'm saying it's nonzero but extremely small. Just accept the fact that I took this poll 100% literally.

I'm not neglecting it at all. First and foremost, because it's a manufactured scenario. You've seen it a thousand times in movies, because it makes good entertainment. But that doesn't mean it's real. Movie plots are not real.

But what if it was real? It comes down to this. The only honest morality is the morality that applies the same to everyone. If you were a suspect falsely accused, would you "be a team player" and agree to be tortured so that maybe next time when they catch the right guy they can get information out of him?

If you sign off on torture you sign off on your own torture. (And your kids', spouse's, family's etc.) It's as simple as that.

 

[Dinsdale]

I'm not neglecting it at all. First and foremost, because it's a manufactured scenario. You've seen it a thousand times in movies, because it makes good entertainment. But that doesn't mean it's real. Movie plots are not real.

The odds of one of those 'the bomb is about to detonate"-scenarios happening in reality aren't nonzero. That's why I took them into account when voting.

But what if it was real? It comes down to this. The only honest morality is the morality that applies the same to everyone. If you were a suspect falsely accused, would you "be a team player" and agree to be tortured so that maybe next time when they catch the right guy they can get information out of him?

If you sign off on torture you sign off on your own torture. (And your kids', spouse's, family's etc.) It's as simple as that.

Now you're assuming a methodical consistency that you didn't mention your poll. I was judging each situation completely independently. Taking into account unlikely situations doesn't mean you're choosing a certain policy.

 

[Martin]

Now you're assuming a methodical consistency that you didn't mention your poll. I was judging each situation completely independently. Taking into account unlikely situations doesn't mean you're choosing a certain policy.

Are you saying you would sanction torture for others but not yourself? How is that a moral choice?

 

[Dinsdale]

Are you saying you would sanction torture for others but not yourself? How is that a moral choice?

No. I would sanction torturing a bad guy if it's the only possible way left to gain extremely vital information. How is this linked to how I would judge in a different situation?

 

[Nenz]

Interesting topic of discussion.

How can a christian properly justify torture when Jesus himself was subject to it unjustifiably. Morally and ethically I would say a definite no. But hypothetically if you put say, Hitler in front of me, I'd water board the guy, pull each limb off and brand him 10 times over.
Does this make me a complete hypocrite? Yes. Am I a Zionist in choosing Hitler as my torturee of choice? No.

 

[Martin]

Interesting topic of discussion.

How can a christian properly justify torture when Jesus himself was subject to it unjustifiably. Morally and ethically I would say a definite no. But hypothetical if you put say, Hitler in front of me, I'd water board the guy, pull each limb off and brand him 10 times over.
Does this make me a complete hypocrite? Yes. Am I a Zionist in choosing Hitler as my torturee of choice? No.

But all humans are hypocrites, we cannot help it. It's healthy to admit it to ourselves at least.

 

[ßöмßäяðîëя]

How so? If torture doesn't even work, what possible goal could it serve?

First of all, it has to work in some instances. Second, if it never worked, it could serve as entertainment. ARE YOU NOT ENTERTAINED?

 

[Nenz]

But all humans are hypocrites, we cannot help it. It's healthy to admit it to ourselves at least.

I like to maintain my health. Through balanced diet, rigorous exercise and torturing evil authoritarian rulers from time to time.

 

[Martin]

No. I would sanction torturing a bad guy if it's the only possible way left to gain extremely vital information. How is this linked to how I would judge in a different situation?

I think you took a rather extreme and abstract interpretation of my question. "If there was a situation where I had to interrogate a bad guy and this was a singular event with no consequences to me or society, would I do it?" As you can imagine, I think that's a rather pointless question to ask.

I thought it was implicitly obvious that all questions about ethics and politics etc exist in our world and very likely have consequences and outcomes beyond the immediate future.

 

[Martin]

First of all, it has to work in some instances. Second, if it never worked, it could serve as entertainment. ARE YOU NOT ENTERTAINED?

Best justification yet.

 

[Martin]

I like to maintain my health. Through balanced diet, rigorous exercise and torturing evil authoritarian rulers from time to time.

Torture is not healthy. Owning your own faults is.

 

[swag]

Surprisingly, it does. But that's because you see more believers in certain regions and you also see more torture in those same regions. It doesn't necessarily mean however that they think torture is fine because they believe in God. This poll might help answer that question.

I still don't see your logic, Andries. Belief in God is not a determinant, nor is it necessary and sufficient. Why not belief in vegetarianism instead?

People favor or object to things like torture on different personal grounds. Religious belief is only one and a myriad of possibilities. By throwing God in the mix, you're cluttering it up. "Tainting the data", as we'd say in the scientific statistical analysis biz.

If this thread is yet another boorish axe for you to grind against religious beliefs, I suppose this logic makes sense. But in which case haven't we seen this ridiculous thread a hundred times before already?

 

[rounder]

Funny how Andy and Snake midget now believe in God and think torture is justified.

Anyway, on the topic itself. I don't think torture can be justified for any reason whatsoever. It's just 'wrong'.

Interestingly Martin, you've taken up a peculiar position here. You seem to agree with me on this that torture is by no means justifiable and positions that do support this position are morally wrong. Thus, would you not consider the slight possibility that perhaps an objective moral law does exist?

 

[Martin]

I still don't see your logic, Andries. Belief in God is not a determinant, nor is it necessary and sufficient. Why not belief in vegetarianism instead?

People favor or object to things like torture on different personal grounds. Religious belief is only one and a myriad of possibilities. By throwing God in the mix, you're cluttering it up. "Tainting the data", as we'd say in the scientific statistical analysis biz.

If this thread is yet another boorish axe for you to grind against religious beliefs, I suppose this logic makes sense. But in which case haven't we seen this ridiculous thread a hundred times before already?

Correlation is not causation, and yet it's a barrel of laughs.

 

[ßöмßäяðîëя]

Funny how Andy and Snake midget now believe in God and think torture is justified.

Anyway, on the topic itself. I don't think torture can be justified for any reason whatsoever. It's just 'wrong'.

Interestingly Martin, you've taken up a peculiar position here. You seem to agree with me on this that torture is by no means justifiable and positions that do support this position are morally wrong. Thus, would you not consider the slight possibility that perhaps an objective moral law does exist?

Andy never said he didn't believe in god, he just said that he hates major religions.

 

[Nenz]

Torture is not healthy. Owning your own faults is.

So my intentions were wrong. I'm still doomed.

 

[Dinsdale]

I think you took a rather extreme and abstract interpretation of my question. "If there was a situation where I had to interrogate a bad guy and this was a singular event with no consequences to me or society, would I do it?" As you can imagine, I think that's a rather pointless question to ask.

I thought it was implicitly obvious that all questions about ethics and politics etc exist in our world and very likely have consequences and outcomes beyond the immediate future.

That's what I've been trying to tell you the whole time goddamnit! I figured that "under all circumstances" was added for an important reason.

 

[Martin]

Funny how Andy and Snake midget now believe in God and think torture is justified.

Anyway, on the topic itself. I don't think torture can be justified for any reason whatsoever. It's just 'wrong'.

Interestingly Martin, you've taken up a peculiar position here. You seem to agree with me on this that torture is by no means justifiable and positions that do support this position are morally wrong. Thus, would you not consider the slight possibility that perhaps an objective moral law does exist?

Not exactly. It comes down to weighing the possible benefits of a confession under torture (which I consider minimal) against the harm to the victim and the expected repercussions I've mentioned (major). But that really is just a matter of choice. There are no facts (objectivity is based on facts I remind you) that determine which choice a person makes.