News:

Actually sport it is a narrative

Main Menu

The Morality of Torture

Started by LegendarySandwich, November 28, 2010, 02:07:44 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

Sophus

Quote from: "Will"The data is there and it's unquestionable: torture absolutely, positively does not work. Under no circumstances, ticking time bomb or not, is torture a viable method for retrieving reliable or even quasi-reliable information from a subject.

There's a scene in Goya's Ghost when Brother Lorenzo confesses to be ‘the bastard son of a chimpanzee’ after his own Inquisition torture methods are used against him.
‎"Christian doesn't necessarily just mean good. It just means better." - John Oliver

Will

Quote from: "Wilson"Will: If a torturee would do or say anything to make it stop, wouldn't he tell the truth, if he knew it?
The tortured will say what he (or she) thinks the torturer/interrogator wants. Whether it's the truth or not can't be discerned because of the methods. All you're doing is relying on the tortured person's interpretation of what the interrogator thinks, which obviously is not reliable enough to risk lives over. If it's the truth, it might as well be accidental truth.

Let's say the CIA has captured an active member of al Qaeda from Pakistan. According to the source which provided the information leading to the capture, this individual has plans about another attack on Mumbai. The CIA interrogator is briefed on the intelligence and is tasked with extracting information. After 72 hours of waterboarding, beatings, sleep deprivation, humiliation, and other common torture techniques utilized by US military and intelligence personnel, the member of al Qaeda has provided some information on an attack. No one else, other than the informant with no direct knowledge of the attack, has provided any evidence there will be another attack. Is the intelligence actionable?

The answer is, of course, no. Based on all available evidence and the science of psychology, torture is not a viable method of extracting reliable information. Moreover, those in the intelligence community, especially those left over from the Cold War, all know torture cannot yield reliable intelligence. Even in World War 2, Winston Churchill's chief interrogator refused to torture because it was a waste of captured Nazi officers.
I want bad people to look forward to and celebrate the day I die, because if they don't, I'm not living up to my potential.

Davin

Quote from: "Wilson"Davin, you don't seem to have much common sense. This back and forth is worthless.  Over and out.
Have fun.
Always question all authorities because the authority you don't question is the most dangerous... except me, never question me.

Inevitable Droid

OK.  After reading the logic and data provided on this thread and elsewhere on the web, I'm willing to grant that torture is utterly unreliable as a source of knowledge, and therefore ineffective toward achieving its ends.  I therefore would never torture under any circumstances, because (1) ineffectual corporal punishment is brutality; (2) doing something ineffectual is stupid; and (3) trusting the word of a torture victim offends my epistemological conscience.

If we set the OP question aside, there's still the underlying ethical question to consider - a more general one.  Generalize the OP question and we get, "Is there anything you wouldn't do to win and shorten a war?"

I think many people who argue in favor of torture are really, and in fact primarily, arguing that there isn't anything they wouldn't do to both win and shorten a war.  That's the moral point they're making.  Because that's their moral point, they tend to brush aside the question of whether X would be effective or not.  Replace X with Y or Z or A, and their moral point would still be put forward, unchanged - and putting forward that point is what they mostly want to do in the discussion.

So let's just assume that one answer to the more general question is, "Yes, I wouldn't do something that I knew was ineffectual."  We can assume that, because anyone who would do something they knew was ineffectual is plain stupid.  So then we modify the question to read, "Is there anything known to be effective that you wouldn't do to win and shorten a war?"

The underlined conjunction is important.  Shortening a war means saving lives on at least one side, perhaps both sides.  Winning a war means preserving your country's way of life and system of government.  Is there anything known to be effective that you wouldn't do to achieve both ends - not just one, but both ends?
Oppose Abraham.

[Missing image]

In the face of mystery, do science, not theology.

Wilson

Quote from: "Will"
Quote from: "Wilson"Will: If a torturee would do or say anything to make it stop, wouldn't he tell the truth, if he knew it?
The tortured will say what he (or she) thinks the torturer/interrogator wants. Whether it's the truth or not can't be discerned because of the methods. All you're doing is relying on the tortured person's interpretation of what the interrogator thinks, which obviously is not reliable enough to risk lives over. If it's the truth, it might as well be accidental truth.

In general I agree with that, but you're avoiding the question.  In a situation where there is specific information we need, such as the hypothetical situation I posed - the location of the bomb - isn't it logical that torture might yield that information?  Remember, we can check quickly to find out if the bomb is there, and resume torture until the correct response is obtained.  Isn't that simple common sense?  Am I crazy here?  In order to save a million Noo Yawkers, might we not try something that isn't a sure thing but could be our best hope?

I guess it's more common than I realized for people, even on sites such as this where participants tend to be bright and thoughtful, to go into hunker down mode when arguing a point.  Me, I like to concede valid points that my opponent hits me with.  Intellectual honesty is the way to go if we're going to figure some of this complicated stuff out.

Will

Quote from: "Wilson"In general I agree with that, but you're avoiding the question.  In a situation where there is specific information we need, such as the hypothetical situation I posed - the location of the bomb - isn't it logical that torture might yield that information?
It's logical that torture might yield the correct location just as it's logical that torture might yield the incorrect location. The problem is that there are tried and true methods of extracting reliable intelligence which are demonstrably superior to torture. What happens when you choose torture over a superior method of gaining information and you send the bomb squad to the wrong place? You've wasted the opportunity to save lives because you've chosen a method which you know to be unreliable.
Quote from: "Wilson"I guess it's more common than I realized for people, even on sites such as this where participants tend to be bright and thoughtful, to go into hunker down mode when arguing a point.  Me, I like to concede valid points that my opponent hits me with.  Intellectual honesty is the way to go if we're going to figure some of this complicated stuff out.
I welcome you to demonstrate that I'm guilty of intellectual dishonesty on this topic.
I want bad people to look forward to and celebrate the day I die, because if they don't, I'm not living up to my potential.

Davin

Quote from: "Wilson"I guess it's more common than I realized for people, even on sites such as this where participants tend to be bright and thoughtful, to go into hunker down mode when arguing a point.  Me, I like to concede valid points that my opponent hits me with.  Intellectual honesty is the way to go if we're going to figure some of this complicated stuff out.
Speaking of intellectual dishonesty here are a few definitions of it and how you seem to be matching them:

Quotethe advocacy of a position which the advocate knows or believes to be false or misleading
Nothing I can point out here, I have no way of knowing whether you consider your position false or not.


Quotethe advocacy of a position which the advocate does not know to be true, and has not performed rigorous due diligence to ensure the truthfulness of the position
Quote from: "Wilson"Hard data? I'm not a student of torture science. My guess is that there have been many such incidents, but I have no direct knowledge, and no desire to spend time searching for them.
Your own admission that not only have you not found the evidence to support your claim, but that you're unwilling to.


Quotethe conscious omission of aspects of the truth known or believed to be relevant in the particular context.
In response to this:
Quote from: "Davin"For evidence, look up Michael Koubi the former chief interrogator for Israel's General Security Services when you have time. This is a man who has decades of experience extracting information and has no qualms against abusing prisoners. Yet because his goal is to get information, he doesn't need to use extreme physical and psychological torture on suspects to get that information from them. For most of the people he interrogated, there is no permanent physical or psychological damage, but is still very effective to get information.
You completely ignored it.


QuoteIntellectual dishonesty is the advocacy of a position known to be false. An argument which is misused to advance an agenda or to reinforce one's deeply held beliefs in the face of overwhelming evidence contrary.
Quote from: "Will"First, in 2008, the American Psychological Association, the largest and most respected psychologist association in the world, went so far as to ban any members from being involved directly or indirectly with inhumane or torture situations. The decision was based, among other things, on The Trauma of Psychological Torture a seminal work on the psychological facts about torture.

The data is there and it's unquestionable: torture absolutely, positively does not work. Under no circumstances, ticking time bomb or not, is torture a viable method for retrieving reliable or even quasi-reliable information from a subject.
Quote from: "Wilson"Will: If a torturee would do or say anything to make it stop, wouldn't he tell the truth, if he knew it? I suspect that the practical problem with most torture is that the guy doesn't know anything useful, and lies to make it stop. But in the specific situation where the prisoner actually knows the location of a bomb or the name of an associate, don't you think he would give it up? Seems to me that he would, in many cases. As John McCain said, we all have our breaking point. Is it possible that your blanket denial that torture ever works is based more on disgust at the procedure than on logic?
In spite of the evidence showing that torture is ineffective, you continue to argue that it could be. Then you say things to imply that everyone who's following the evidence is not being honest, not being logical and being intellectually dishonest.


You have also clearly misrepresented things I've said:
Quote from: "Davin"Because if I'm the one who has to make a choice that may save a million lives, I'm going to rely on things with a much higher success rate that take far less time.
To which you responded:
Quote from: "Wilson"You essentially told me that you would prefer sacrificing a million New Yorkers to dirtying your hands by approving torture.

There are more examples, I decided to keep my post relatively short. Quid pro quo, do demonstrate how anyone here other than you has been intellectually dishonest.
Always question all authorities because the authority you don't question is the most dangerous... except me, never question me.

Byronazriel

I am actually not opposed to torture in general, or in and of itself. I am however opposed to its use as an interrogation technique.

Torture can be very useful, as a punishment. People shouldn't torture people to get information, that's doing it ass-backwords. They should torture them if they don't give information, or if they give incorrect information, or just at random. Also the torture used should vary, and shouldn't last longer than a few hours at most. Mix it up a little, and tailor it to the individual.

No one thing is totally good, or totally evil. Things are just things, it's the people that are good or evil.
"You are trying to understand madness with logic. This is not unlike searching for darkness with a torch." -Jervis Tetch

Will

Quote from: "Byronazriel"Torture can be very useful, as a punishment.
That's an interesting thought. When I ask myself why we punish, it's for reasons like deterrence and correction.

As far as deterrence goes, though, when the authority uses cruel and unusual punishment like torture, they run the risk of increasing animosity and even blowback. The Eighth Amendment to the US Constitution was created for precisely this reason, to prevent judicial punishment from being too great for any crime committed and to maintain the trust of the people in the system. The moment you cross the line and start handing out punishments that are greater than any crime, the system loses credibility and support and invites spite and even attack. I'm fairly sure that a few decades from now we'll be seeing Iraqi and/or Afghani terrorist attacks against the west because of our use of torture. We  may even see domestic terror.

As far as correction, I don't think torture is the most efficient or humane way of reforming criminals. We have methods of torture in the correctional system now, including solitary confinement, and the success rate is very, very low.
I want bad people to look forward to and celebrate the day I die, because if they don't, I'm not living up to my potential.

bandit4god

Quote from: "Byronazriel"No one thing is totally good, or totally evil. Things are just things, it's the people that are good or evil.

Interesting discussion... where does the designation "good" or "evil" come from?  If there are moral truth values we can assign to people and/or their actions, as you assert, what is the means of determining them?

Byronazriel

I was never really a fan of the legal system, though it does work to a certain extent. I suppose nothing is perfect, I still don't like any system that'll punish people for ignorance.

Innocent people get thrown in jail all the time, and I've yet to come across a punishment that is appropriate for the crime. for the most part this is just an opinion of mine, but every time a person who urinates behind a K-mart gets shafted and a serial rapist gets a slap on the wrist reaffirms my belief in an unjust justice system.

Even the best system is a dangerous balancing act. If they're too lenient then they lose their edge over criminals, and if they're too hard then it pushes criminals to even greater levels of douchery because if they're going to be shafted then they might as well pull out all stops.

In a perfect system insane people would get the help they need, evil people would get isolated for their protection as well as ours, and innocents would be free to go about their business as usual. It's unrealistic to expect this to play out, at least anytime soon, but the closer we get to that sort of thing the better.

However, my stance on torture has little to do with the government. I don't trust them enough to give them that sort of power, but then again they have nukes and haven't killed everyone yet... so what the hell.

Torture should rightfully be a last resort option, like a self destruct button, it shouldn't be used lightly.

Good and evil exist as the ultimate ends of a spectrum of neutrality. Rather like masculine and feminine, or law and chaos.

Good and evil are subjective, and it's very hard to tell exactly where people fall when they're in the grey area, but it's useful in gauging where a person stands compared to the extremes.

Ultimately it's like using the sun as a guide for what time it is, you can tell with great certainty whether it's noon, night, or dawn... but it kind of falls flat if you need anything more specific than that.

In other words, "good" and "evil" are basically just names that people give to a part of the human condition. If we weren't here, then it wouldn'y exist. An alien race could call them epok and rapnahr and apply it to themselves based on their culture and beliefs, but they're describing the same thing. It's like colour, or music in that way.
"You are trying to understand madness with logic. This is not unlike searching for darkness with a torch." -Jervis Tetch

bandit4god

Thanks, appreciate the thorough response.  What's especially engaging is that you ascribed to moral truths the same degree of "realness" as times of day, color, and music.  What I would love to explore is where you derive the "extremes" you mentioned as it pertains to moral truths.  Times of day have observable extremes of sunrise and sunset, color has the colors at the boundaries of the visible light spectrum, and music has a range of audible frequencies.  My question: with what "sense" to you observe moral truths?  How do you "know" that hurting toddlers is jacked up?

Byronazriel

I explained that, it's subjective and has a cultural basis. Also one doesn't really know anything.

Also I've explained that I don't believe that actions are good or evil, it's the people that are good or evil.

I'll admit that killing innocents is unpleasant, and that it would require a very good justification, but it is also unrealistic to say that there are no justifications for doing so. It pains me to say this, but killing twelve kids to save the world isn't a hard decision morally. Whether you, or I could actually go through with it is a different discussion entirely.
"You are trying to understand madness with logic. This is not unlike searching for darkness with a torch." -Jervis Tetch

bandit4god

Quote from: "Byronazriel"It pains me to say this...

What is the "it" you refer to above?  What inner sense is it that makes you have a tough time deliberating that tradeoff?

Byronazriel

Killing children is not somethign that I'd take great joy in doing, or at least I'd suppose as I have never killed children before. At any rate, I'm opposed to the killing of children. I do however realize that it is possible that an even less favourable situation could be avoided if children are killed. This situation, though unlikely, is possible.
"You are trying to understand madness with logic. This is not unlike searching for darkness with a torch." -Jervis Tetch