Happy Atheist Forum

The title sums it up. What are your views on the morality of torture? Is it always wrong? Is it justified in certain instances?

According to my personal values, it's always wrong, but I'm cheating. I know from my education in psychology that torture doesn't work (despite what the Bush administration might insist). It's a poor method of extracting actionable intelligence, being unreliable even under the best circumstances. Even if it did work, though, I would personally be against it because there's a certain point at which the cost of survival is higher than your being worthy of that survival. Surviving for survival's sake is pointless. It's not enough to survive, you have to be worthy of survival.

The only situations anyone can bring up that are even close to making torture a morally justifiable action, are not realistic. If it takes an unrealistic set of circumstances to morally justify an action, then the action is morally unjustifiable.

I suspect that torture is effective more often than some of us would like.  It certainly isn't consistently useful; the torturee will tell the torturer anything, true or false, to stop the pain, and often the torturee simply doesn't know what he's being asked, and will make something up.  

But if Guido wants you to tell him where your life savings are hidden, and he has a knife and icepick and blowtorch and all the time in the world, I suspect you'll be pleased to reveal the location.  So let's not minimize the effectiveness of excruciating pain in loosening one's tongue.  Try to imagine yourself as a guest in Guido's chamber and ask yourself if you would be able to hold out.

Information obtained by torture is unreliable and you can't assume it's true, but I'll bet that in cases where the prisoner actually knows the location of a bomb or the name of a colleague, torture would work, more often than not.

I feel that a lot of people overemphasize the unreliability of torture, because if they acknowledge that it is sometimes effective, they fear that it would open the floodgates and make torture popular.

I'm sure that there have been abuses at Gitmo and elsewhere, with more or less innocent people being tortured to obtain information that they weren't able to provide because they didn't know anything useful.  I'm certainly against that and almost all other torture.  Still ...

In another thread Davin and I discussed a hypothetical situation where a reliable informant tells us that a nuclear device is scheduled to detonate somewhere in Manhattan in 24 hours, and a person in custody is the only one who knows the location.  (Sounds like a season of "24") Davin said that he wouldn't approve torturing that individual in order to save a million New Yorkers (I know that New Yorkers aren't too popular across the country, but still ..) because we couldn't be sure that the information obtained would be accurate.  To me that's a crazy attitude.  It would be immoral to allow a nuclear bomb to explode in Manhattan if there was a chance you could stop it, even if that chance required torturing a terrorist.

I know that this exact situation is unlikely - this is a hypothetical scenario, after all - but maybe not as unlikely as all that.  And it's useful to do these thought experiments, just in case we are faced with an imminent terrorist attack in the future.

Some of us like our morality all neat and tidy and laid down in rules.  No killing, no torture, no stealing.  But morally valid exceptions are possible to most of our rules.  What I consider moral in the above hypothetical sitation is to balance the good of trying to save a million lives against the bad of torturing one terrorist.  To me it would be no contest.

Morality isn't the same as effectiveness.

One can argue that under some circumstances torture will lead to the extraction of inaccurate or false information. I would contend this is mainly down to torturing the wrong person e.g. they don't know what you think they know. Thus the person being interrogated tell lies to stop the pain. The British used very effective interrogation methods during WWII. One such example was to put prisoners together in a cell with a hidden microphone and listen to them. In due course remarkable amounts of information were obtained. The effect can be seen on Big Brother. Contestants start to become blasé about the cameras after a few days. The captured Germans, mostly aircrew were not even aware they were being listened too. Once they thought they had been interrogated and deemed of no interest they happily chatted about every thing. This allowed the British to create 'Trojan Prisoners' who were put into detention with the real prisoners and they would lead the conversation around to the subjects the British wanted to find out about. These were very brave men as if they were found out they would almost definitely come to a gruesome end.  

However if one is certain that an individual does poses the information required then torture is often effective. How effective is again determined by the amount you know the subject knows and if that 3rd party information allows one to verify what you expect the subject to know. There are a number of techniques that the SAS and Royal Marines are taught that are highly effective at encouraging individuals to tell them what they need to know, and they work. But the issue of accuracy will always be a balancing act. Even if the person knows what you think they know and they tell you what you want to know there is no guarantee that the interpretation of that information will be accurate. One example, although not related to torture, occurred during WWII when the Germans brought some radar jamming equipment to Sicily to disrupt the British radar on Malta. The British had expected this. When the jammers were switched on the British radar screens turned into an indecipherable field of static 'snow'. The operator went to switch off the system and the commander told him not to. Three days later the Germans switched off the jammers, they obviously hadn't worked as the British were still using the radar. The Germans stopped using that type of jammer completely as a result of its failure. The Germans failed because they didn't correctly interpret the information they had.

To my mind the behaviour of the security forces at Guantanamo Bay has everything to do with revenge and nothing to do with intelligence gathering. The use of boredom and Trojan Prisoners would have given the security services all they needed to know. Now this makes me very suspicious about the motivations of the security forces there. They are professional interrogators, they know about the effects of boredom and how to exploit human psychology.

So the effectiveness of torture as a method of extracting information is not 100%. It has to be used on the right person, the information has to be verifiable and it has to be correctly interpreted to be effective. In other words it's not a magic wand.

Now as to the morality of torture it's a classic numbers game. Does torturing one or a few individuals prevent something else happening that is worse for more people? That has to be dealt with on a case by case basis. On a personal level if I was 95% sure that torturing a person would definitely save the life of one of my kids and I knew I would go to prison for a very long time and probably never get out again as a result of my actions I would do what needed to be done to get the information. Would I do it to save somebody else's child? No I don't think so, but I wouldn't stop that parent from trying.Would I do it to save a number of children not including my own? Don't know, but I expect it would come down to how emotionally bound to the situation I was.

So to my mind the efficacy of torture is one thing, it does work but there are often better ways to get information. The morality is 'does the end justify the means?' and on a personal level under certain extremely specific circumstances I think torture is justifiable.

Now spreading the net wider is torture of terrorist suspects after the event of a terrorist act a reasonable thing to do? And by reasonable I would say does the action prevent more terrorism? Personally I do not think torture is justifiable as there are infinitely more effective ways to exploit a terrorist suspect than to lock them up and water-board them. Imprisoning them for a little while and really learning about them and then releasing them is far more effective as they become bait for others and their actions can be tracked, their connections to organisations, suppliers and other groups could be monitored and would give invaluable intelligence to security forces. They would act as 'activity markers'.

The human desire for revenge has really fucked up the so called 'war on terror'. You can't wage war on terrorists you have to trap them one by one in a painstaking exercise and at the same time erode their credibility as providers of the result they are attempting to gain. This is precisely how the British and Irish governments closed down the IRA, they removed their credibility as an organisation for providing the reunification of Ireland. Killing loads of Iraqis and Afghans has not removed the threat of terrorism and it never will. To truly stop a terrorist one has to remove their desire to kill. Killing them may win a battle but it does not win an ideological war.

Wilson:
Firstly,  by my morality, being purely subjective and based upon the Golden Rule, torture is always wrong.  I do not want a cattle-prod stuck upon my gonads.  I do not want a carbolic-acid emetic.  I do not want my fingernails plied out, nor do I want bamboo shoved underneath them.  I'm not overly fond of cigarette burn, and, though I've never had my wrists shackled behind my back and subsequently been hung from them, I am possessed of enough imagination to understand that that probably fucking hurts.

Also, I'd like for every advocate of torture who throws that "ticking bomb" crap out for discussion to do me a quick favor: please link me to three cases in the last 100 years where the torture of a man saved more lives than it cost.  If you cannot provide such data, spare me your rhetoric. In every case I've found, the torture was used to hunt down dissentients.  Every case.  I've amenable to correction.  Please bring your hard data.

Quote from: "Wilson"I suspect that torture is effective more often than some of us would like.  It certainly isn't consistently useful; the torturee will tell the torturer anything, true or false, to stop the pain, and often the torturee simply doesn't know what he's being asked, and will make something up.  

But if Guido wants you to tell him where your life savings are hidden, and he has a knife and icepick and blowtorch and all the time in the world, I suspect you'll be pleased to reveal the location.  So let's not minimize the effectiveness of excruciating pain in loosening one's tongue.  Try to imagine yourself as a guest in Guido's chamber and ask yourself if you would be able to hold out.

1) This is an appeal to fear, and not reason. On those grounds alone, your argument ought to be ignored.
2) You've yet to explain how Guido can know for certain you're telling the truth.  How's he gonna have "all the time in the world?"  I thought the fucking bomb was going off in an hour.  You torture proponents need to get together and straighten out your stories, heart-to-heart, buddy.  Is it an hour, or all the time in the world?  You cannot have it both ways.
3) There are plenty of examples of people surviving brutal torture because they had the strength of their own moral courage.  John McCain, and Hans Speidel, leap to mind immediately.

QuoteInformation obtained by torture is unreliable and you can't assume it's true, but I'll bet that in cases where the prisoner actually knows the location of a bomb or the name of a colleague, torture would work, more often than not.

This of course presumes that you're torturing someone in the know.  I'll bet that in cases where worms have machine guns, birds leave them the hell alone.

QuoteI feel that a lot of people overemphasize the unreliability of torture, because if they acknowledge that it is sometimes effective, they fear that it would open the floodgates and make torture popular.

Are you admitting then that supporters of torture are impervious to any sort of moral appeal?  I will tell you this, right now:  even if you showed me that torture was sometimes effective, I'd still abjure it, precisely because it is morally wrong to inflict cruelty onto another human, particularly if the infliction is not a punishment, but a goad for information you do not even know he has.  You are gambling another human being's physical, mental, and emotional well-being on the odds that they know what you don't -- but no matter how you dress it up, you cannot know that they know.  Furthermore, you cannot know that even if they do know, they are telling you the truth.

QuoteI'm sure that there have been abuses at Gitmo and elsewhere, with more or less innocent people being tortured to obtain information that they weren't able to provide because they didn't know anything useful.  I'm certainly against that and almost all other torture.  Still ...

Golly, what an inconvenience.  I wonder how they felt.

QuoteIn another thread Davin and I discussed a hypothetical situation where a reliable informant tells us that a nuclear device is scheduled to detonate somewhere in Manhattan in 24 hours, and a person in custody is the only one who knows the location.  (Sounds like a season of "24") Davin said that he wouldn't approve torturing that individual in order to save a million New Yorkers (I know that New Yorkers aren't too popular across the country, but still ..) because we couldn't be sure that the information obtained would be accurate.  To me that's a crazy attitude.  It would be immoral to allow a nuclear bomb to explode in Manhattan if there was a chance you could stop it, even if that chance required torturing a terrorist.

I know that this exact situation is unlikely - this is a hypothetical scenario, after all - but maybe not as unlikely as all that.  And it's useful to do these thought experiments, just in case we are faced with an imminent terrorist attack in the future.

Davin's response is not only correct, it is devastatingly so: if you must appeal to such an unlikely hypothetical to justify your actions, your actions are unjustifiable.

QuoteSome of us like our morality all neat and tidy and laid down in rules.  No killing, no torture, no stealing.  But morally valid exceptions are possible to most of our rules.  What I consider moral in the above hypothetical sitation is to balance the good of trying to save a million lives against the bad of torturing one terrorist.  To me it would be no contest.

I speak as an Air Force veteran: the torture of anyone under American custody is a blot on our honor, and you should be ashamed to be urging it forward.

And, Will the Mod, using your education in psychology isn't cheating.  Do you honestly think that the people who apply torture are not versed in the psychological?  Au contraire, mon frere: torture is probably the keenest expression of psychology in man's experience, perhaps, outside of love.

Quote from: "Thumpalumpacus"Also, I'd like for every advocate of torture who throws that "ticking bomb" crap out for discussion to do me a quick favor: please link me to three cases in the last 100 years where the torture of a man saved more lives than it cost.  If you cannot provide such data, spare me your rhetoric. In every case I've found, the torture was used to hunt down dissentients.  Every case.  I've amenable to correction.  Please bring your hard data.

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.  

About the Guido situation:

Quote1) This is an appeal to fear, and not reason. On those grounds alone, your argument ought to be ignored.
2) You've yet to explain how Guido can know for certain you're telling the truth.  How's he gonna have "all the time in the world?"  I thought the fucking bomb was going off in an hour.  You torture proponents need to get together and straighten out your stories, heart-to-heart, buddy.  Is it an hour, or all the time in the world?  You cannot have it both ways.
3) There are plenty of examples of people surviving brutal torture because they had the strength of their own moral courage.  John McCain, and Hans Speidel, leap to mind immediately.

1) An appeal to fear?  We're just talking here.  I'm not trying to frighten you.  See, there's this concept of hypothetical situations, which can be useful in figuring out where morality lies under certain circumstances.  And certainly there have been cases of people being tortured to reveal where the cash box is, even if I can't give you three examples of "hard data" on the subject.
2) How can Guido know for certain you're telling the truth?  Okay, here's Guido's clever strategy.  He looks where you tell him to look.  If it's not there, Guido knows you were lying, and resumes his blowtorch work until you give him the right answer.  That Guido is brilliant!  It's the exact same answer to my nuclear hypothetical.  You look where the terrorist says the bomb is.  Obviously, you're desperately searching for a hole in the scenario but failing and looking foolish.
3) Some people can hold out, most can't.  According to Wikipedia, "After four days (of severe torture), McCain made an anti-American propaganda "confession". He has always felt that his statement was dishonorable, but as he later wrote, "I had learned what we all learned over there: Every man has his breaking point. I had reached mine."  No blame attaches to McCain for being human; he resisted to the best of his ability.

Regarding Davin's refusal to torture a person who could reveal the location of the bomb in Manhattan, resulting in the death of one million New Yorkers:

QuoteDavin's response is not only correct, it is devastatingly so: if you must appeal to such an unlikely hypothetical to justify your actions, your actions are unjustifiable.

You and Davin lack subtlety in your thinking.   Everything is black and white.  No gray areas.  You seem to think that if there is an exception to a general rule, it invalidates the rule.  Nonsense.

Now you know that I said that I'm against torture except in exceptional circumstances.  And I gave a hypothetical example of such an exceptional circumstance.  And then you say that "if you must appeal to such an unlikely hypothetical to justify your actions, your actions are unjustifiable."  My actions?  What actions?  Are you accusing me of torturing someone?  You seem to be implying that I'm in favor of torture in general, when you know that's not true.  Please try to be more logical.  And honest.

QuoteI speak as an Air Force veteran: the torture of anyone under American custody is a blot on our honor, and you should be ashamed to be urging it forward.

And I speak as a Navy veteran: We must be smart enough to consider each case on its own merits.

Quote from: "LegendarySandwich"The title sums it up. What are your views on the morality of torture?

The morality of torture..?   It's immoral by the standards of most "reasonable" countries.

QuoteIs it always wrong?

Always is a strong word... Probably not.

QuoteIs it justified in certain instances?

Of course. You can justify anything you want. The real question is, how many others will accept your justification?

Quote from: "Wilson"

Quote from: "Thumpalumpacus"Also, I'd like for every advocate of torture who throws that "ticking bomb" crap out for discussion to do me a quick favor: please link me to three cases in the last 100 years where the torture of a man saved more lives than it cost.  If you cannot provide such data, spare me your rhetoric. In every case I've found, the torture was used to hunt down dissentients.  Every case.  I've amenable to correction.  Please bring your hard data.

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.

Without hard data, it's just speculation. I never accept any speculation as true without evidence that supports it. However you have every right to accept things as true without supporting evidence, but don't then go around trying to act like your conclusions based off of your mere speculations are true.

Quote from: "Wilson"About the Guido situation:

Quote1) This is an appeal to fear, and not reason. On those grounds alone, your argument ought to be ignored.
2) You've yet to explain how Guido can know for certain you're telling the truth.  How's he gonna have "all the time in the world?"  I thought the fucking bomb was going off in an hour.  You torture proponents need to get together and straighten out your stories, heart-to-heart, buddy.  Is it an hour, or all the time in the world?  You cannot have it both ways.
3) There are plenty of examples of people surviving brutal torture because they had the strength of their own moral courage.  John McCain, and Hans Speidel, leap to mind immediately.

1) An appeal to fear?  We're just talking here.  I'm not trying to frighten you.  See, there's this concept of hypothetical situations, which can be useful in figuring out where morality lies under certain circumstances.  And certainly there have been cases of people being tortured to reveal where the cash box is, even if I can't give you three examples of "hard data" on the subject.
2) How can Guido know for certain you're telling the truth?  Okay, here's Guido's clever strategy.  He looks where you tell him to look.  If it's not there, Guido knows you were lying, and resumes his blowtorch work until you give him the right answer.  That Guido is brilliant!  It's the exact same answer to my nuclear hypothetical.  You look where the terrorist says the bomb is.  Obviously, you're desperately searching for a hole in the scenario but failing and looking foolish.
3) Some people can hold out, most can't.  According to Wikipedia, "After four days (of severe torture), McCain made an anti-American propaganda "confession". He has always felt that his statement was dishonorable, but as he later wrote, "I had learned what we all learned over there: Every man has his breaking point. I had reached mine."  No blame attaches to McCain for being human; he resisted to the best of his ability.

Are you trying to advocate against torture with this example? If you're asking me to put myself in this situation, I don't think it goes well for your point for me to be in this situation. I don't feel pain like normal people do, it's very numb, like the sensation goes through a filter, I feel it, but it doesn't hurt, so yeah, I can last a very, very long time.

Now if you're trying to get most people to envision themselves as being the position of those who you're proposing are morally justifiable to torture in order to try and convince them how effective torture is: Most of us had not been trained to withstand torture, most of us do not believe that by sacrificing their lives to kill infidels that we'll get huge rewards in the afterlife and most of us won't plant a bomb to kill people in the first place. Now let's say it's basically the same situation, but instead of money being what the guy is after, it's you releasing sensitive information. If you release this information it will prevent your cause from saving your country from those who are trying to destroy it and everything you stand for and saving the souls of your family and everyone in your social group for all eternity. That is what they believe, and no one is going to convince them otherwise, especially not someone who's torturing them. If you're going to put yourself in their shoes, put them all the way on.

Quote from: "Wilson"Regarding Davin's refusal to torture a person who could reveal the location of the bomb in Manhattan, resulting in the death of one million New Yorkers:

QuoteDavin's response is not only correct, it is devastatingly so: if you must appeal to such an unlikely hypothetical to justify your actions, your actions are unjustifiable.

You and Davin lack subtlety in your thinking.   Everything is black and white.  No gray areas.  You seem to think that if there is an exception to a general rule, it invalidates the rule.  Nonsense.

I'd like to know where you get the basis for these assumptions, perhaps something I said. Nope, I never said that I think everything is black and white, because that is not what I hold to be true. Never have I said anything about there being no grey areas... not once, because I don't hold that to be true. We haven't even discussed enough issues for you to even have any idea about what I think about everything. Just baseless speculation. Please stop assuming things, just because someone disagrees with you, doesn't mean you get to make irrational statements about them.

While I agree with a lot of what Thumpalumpacus says, I doubt we're in the same boat, not even on this issue. What we are is in agreement of the facts, the hard data, the objective evidence. We also come to the same conclusion based off of that evidence that torture is essentially useless and a waste of time.

Another note on the extremely unlikely scenario that you brought forth: Torture takes longer than 24 hours in all accounts. It's days before people even start to bend. So even if you rely on torture, 24 hours isn't enough time and in your scenario a million people died because you chose to rely on something very unreliable that takes a lot longer than your given time frame to even acquire any information... which is very likely to be false information. Everyone who has used some pretty nasty interrogation techniques that has been interviewed, knows that once actual physical pain has been introduced, the subject is less willing to talk. The other more reliable option is psychological torture, which takes at least a week to even get the person to start talking... by start talking, it's useless information for the first several days of talking. Still yet in your scenario, a waste of time.

You're telling me that when a million lives are at stake that you're more willing to rely on something very unreliable over doing something much more reliable. So tell me which makes more sense. 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.

For evidence, look up Michael Koubi (http://www.theatlantic.com/past/docs/issues/2003/10/bowden.htm) 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.

I'm not just speaking from a moral standpoint, I'm also speaking about usefulness, I'm speaking from evidence. If it was at least reliable and useful, then there might be some case where it could be considered moral, but as yet, all the evidence points towards it's inefficiency. I don't want reality to be any certain way, it will be what it is regardless of my wants, I only want to know what reality is.

Quote from: "Wilson"Now you know that I said that I'm against torture except in exceptional circumstances.  And I gave a hypothetical example of such an exceptional circumstance.  And then you say that "if you must appeal to such an unlikely hypothetical to justify your actions, your actions are unjustifiable."  My actions?  What actions?  Are you accusing me of torturing someone?  You seem to be implying that I'm in favor of torture in general, when you know that's not true.  Please try to be more logical.  And honest.

If you stop assuming things and being irrational, I think people might take you appealing to others to be more logical more seriously. As it is, it's like the pot calling the sun black. Don't argue from baseless assertions then ask others to be more logical, it holds no weight if you're unwilling to do so as well.

Quote from: "Wilson"

QuoteI speak as an Air Force veteran: the torture of anyone under American custody is a blot on our honor, and you should be ashamed to be urging it forward.

And I speak as a Navy veteran: We must be smart enough to consider each case on its own merits.

Then bring up a case where it might be moral. The ticking time bomb hypothetical is not only unrealistic, it also doesn't make torture useful, let alone moral.

Davin wrote, "Torture takes longer than 24 hours in all accounts."

I did not know that.

I don't think you know that, either.

Listen.  None of us is an expert on torture, far as I know.  None of us is likely to torture anybody, or - Allah willing - be tortured.  I doubt that most torture is documented.  If a successful two hour torture saved Cleveland last year, the details probably wouldn't be Googlable.  That stuff happens in the shadows and most of it isn't committed to official record.  It just seems logical that excruciating pain and plausible threats of chopping off body parts and such would drive almost anybody to divulge what they know to stop the suffering.  I'm sure that some people could resist almost anything, but most couldn't.  I'll bet a Salvadorean drug cartel could get you to reveal your social security number in spite of your hypesthesia.

To be honest, what irritates me here is the refusal by you and Thumper to acknowledge something that's obvious - that there could come a circumstance where torture would be the best option.  You essentially told me that you would prefer sacrificing a million New Yorkers to dirtying your hands by approving torture.  I know, I know, you say that there are more effective ways of getting that information, but a committed terrorist?  Very unrealistic in anything like a short time frame.  Deep down, you know that.

Do we really think that it's impossible that an Islamic extremist could get an atomic weapon into the US?  Maybe from North Korea?  And just as a lot of terrorist plots have been foiled by informants, it's not impossible (though very unlikely) that the scenario I posted could happen.  I pray that it won't, and I'm an atheist!  

I think it's a mistake to rely on strict rules as your sole guide to morality.  Thou shalt not kill.  Even in self-defense?  Thou shalt not steal.  Even if baby is hungry?  Thou shalt not go to war.  Even if Hitler is killing the Jews?  Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's wife.  No matter how hot?  Thou shalt not torture.  Even if it might save New York City?

I'll use a less loaded word: corporal punishment.  Using that word allows me to speak of a less drastic scenario than has been suggested thus far.  

Twenty years ago, I experimented with corporal punishment as a method of behavior modification.  I was a parent trying to get my young daugters to behave as expected in public places.  When they weren't doing as expected, I would threaten a slap to the thigh.  I employed a single slap to the meatiest, most cushioned part of the body, the thigh.  My older daugher received slaps on three separate occasions and never needed to be slapped again, as the mere threat sufficed.  She had made the calculation that getting her way wasn't worth the slap.  Soon even the threat wasn't needed.  My younger daughter received slaps on six separate occasions, and I could tell she was never going to submit.  She had made the calculation that avoiding the slaps wasn't worth submission.  I stopped slapping her and stopped even threatening her, as ineffectual corporal punishment was, in my estimation, brutality.

From the foregoing experiment I gleaned the following principles with respect to corporal punishment:

1. Don't use it unless the strategic objective is mandatory, rather than merely nice to have.

2. Don't use it unless it's the most effective method available.

3. Don't use it unless it's the most efficient method available, or unless extreme effectiveness outweighs the inefficiency.

4. Don't employ the actual punishment if the mere threat will suffice to curb misbehavior.

5. Don't threaten if renewed instruction will suffice to curb misbehavior.

Quote from: "Wilson"Davin wrote, "Torture takes longer than 24 hours in all accounts."

I did not know that.

I don't think you know that, either.

You're right, all I have is the evidence that is available and the interviews of those that have used various interrogation tactics. What do you have?

Quote from: "Wilson"Listen.  None of us is an expert on torture, far as I know. None of us is likely to torture anybody, or - Allah willing - be tortured.  I doubt that most torture is documented.  If a successful two hour torture saved Cleveland last year, the details probably wouldn't be Googlable.  That stuff happens in the shadows and most of it isn't committed to official record.

Ah, the classic "neither one of is an expert therefore throw away all the evidence you've come across" tactic. Not a very effective one, nor a very reasonable one. Your doubt and your speculated probabilities do not a compelling argument make.

Quote from: "Wilson"It just seems logical that excruciating pain and plausible threats of chopping off body parts and such would drive almost anybody to divulge what they know to stop the suffering.  I'm sure that some people could resist almost anything, but most couldn't.  I'll bet a Salvadorean drug cartel could get you to reveal your social security number in spite of your hypesthesia.

I would probably give the person my social security number at just the threat, it's not important to me, so this is still a false analogy. Refer back to the example I gave:

Most of us had not been trained to withstand torture, most of us do not believe that by sacrificing their lives to kill infidels that we'll get huge rewards in the afterlife and most of us won't plant a bomb to kill people in the first place. Now let's say it's basically the same situation, but instead of money being what the guy is after, it's you releasing sensitive information. If you release this information it will prevent your cause from saving your country from those who are trying to destroy it and everything you stand for and saving the souls of your family and everyone in your social group for all eternity. That is what they believe, and no one is going to convince them otherwise, especially not someone who's torturing them. If you're going to put yourself in their shoes, put them all the way on.

Quote from: "Wilson"To be honest, what irritates me here is the refusal by you and Thumper to acknowledge something that's obvious - that there could come a circumstance where torture would be the best option.

If it's obvious, then you can provide an obvious example. As yet, I have not seen a single example where torture would be the best option.

Quote from: "Wilson"You essentially told me that you would prefer sacrificing a million New Yorkers to dirtying your hands by approving torture.

No I did not, I said I would use far more reliable resources. You're the one who states that you would use an extremely unreliable resource when a million lives are on the line.

Quote from: "Wilson"I know, I know, you say that there are more effective ways of getting that information, but a committed terrorist?  Very unrealistic in anything like a short time frame.

If you're going to state that it's unrealistic, do you have real evidence to back up that claim? I have seen a tremendous amount of evidence and presented some evidence that torturing someone for information in a short time frame is unrealistic. Should I trust your judgment or where the evidence leads to? I'll do what I always do and go where the evidence leads.

Quote from: "Wilson"Deep down, you know that.

And your basis for this assumption?

Quote from: "Wilson"Do we really think that it's impossible that an Islamic extremist could get an atomic weapon into the US?  Maybe from North Korea?  And just as a lot of terrorist plots have been foiled by informants, it's not impossible (though very unlikely) that the scenario I posted could happen.  I pray that it won't, and I'm an atheist!

Impossible for an atomic weapon to be planted in the U.S. by religious extremists? No, not impossible. The rest of your example is unrealistic. Trying to only cover a small portion of your example as being possible then trying to attach the rest of it onto that is dirty pool.

Quote from: "Wilson"I think it's a mistake to rely on strict rules as your sole guide to morality.  Thou shalt not kill.  Even in self-defense?  Thou shalt not steal.  Even if baby is hungry?  Thou shalt not go to war.  Even if Hitler is killing the Jews?  Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's wife.  No matter how hot?  Thou shalt not torture.  Even if it might save New York City?

Once again, it's not strict rules on morality, it's cold hard logic and objective evidence. You keep trying to bring up some kind of strict moral code as if that's why I'm not agreeing with you, but the honest truth is that the evidence simply doesn't support your claim.

Davin, you don't seem to have much common sense.  This back and forth is worthless.  Over and out.

I'm not an expert and I've never tortured, but I may be the closes thing to a reliable source you're going to find so I might as well share what it is I know. 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. Torture exists as a method of exacting aggression for the torturer or a method of inflicting physical and psychological harm on the tortured. It serves no other purpose.

One will gladly give up false information if it meant ending the significant physical or psychological pain or discomfort of torture, perhaps even regardless of the consequences. I would do or say anything to make it stop, and so would you. Most of the time, that means confirming what answer the torturer is leading you towards, regardless of whether it's true or not. Even with the aid of narcotics, torture will not yield intelligence of actionable reliability.

Quote from: "Will"I would do or say anything to make it stop, and so would you. Most of the time, that means confirming what answer the torturer is leading you towards, regardless of whether it's true or not. Even with the aid of narcotics, torture will not yield intelligence of actionable reliability.

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?

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.

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.

Quote from: "Wilson"Davin, you don't seem to have much common sense. This back and forth is worthless.  Over and out.

Have fun.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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?

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.

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?

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.

Quote from: "Will"That's an interesting thought. When I ask myself why we punish, it's for reasons like deterrence and correction.

Is it acceptable to punish because we want revenge or vengeance for the subject's bad behavior?  Or must we do so only for the protection of society - that is, deterrence and correction?

Which of the following would you say most closely approximates why you are opposed to hurting kids?
a) Reason: "If everyone killed children, there would not be enough capacity in the graveyards and there would be a public health issue"
b) Emotion: "Children are sweet, kind, and helpless--who would bully such a person?"
c) Conscience: "It is wrong to hurt kids (unless there is some MUCH larger good that can come of it)"

How about: D) All of the above.

Plus, I hate seeing kids get hurt. It might have something to do with the fact that I was abused as a kid, but I'm not a shrink.

I'm so sorry to hear that, man, it makes total sense that you'd be opposed to kids going through what you did.  If you do believe that conscience is a part of that perspective, why do you think that is?  What is it about humans that constitutes a conscience, a sense of right and wrong that transcends subjective upbringing and culture?

Uprbinging and culture certainly play a role in devolpment, however from what I can tell it's mostly working on stuff that's already there. Instinctual drive, genetic cumplusion, the human spirit, or whatever.

My point is that who we are has about as much to do with our hardware, as it does are software. There's no one thing that makes us who we are, it's a lot of things and nothing in particular.

Quote from: "Wilson"Is it acceptable to punish because we want revenge or vengeance for the subject's bad behavior?  Or must we do so only for the protection of society - that is, deterrence and correction?

Revenge is not appropriate for the justice system. Justice is restorative whereas vengeance is harmful.

The justice system is not about what's right or wrong on an idividual basis, it's about national and cultural morality.

Quote from: "Will"Revenge is not appropriate for the justice system. Justice is restorative whereas vengeance is harmful.

Are you saying that if someone murdered your spouse or child, you wouldn't want him punished unless if would protect society?

Quote from: "bandit4god"What is it about humans that constitutes a conscience, a sense of right and wrong that transcends subjective upbringing and culture?

I believe that we developed a conscience as part of the group evolution during hunter-gatherer times that allowed us to cooperate in order to have a better chance at survival.  Empathy, altruism, guilt, sense of right and wrong, and so on.  Cultural norms were grafted onto those genetic brain and personality traits.  The flip side is that it was of survival value to exclude from compassion people in competing groups or tribes - deny them your food, for example, so that your group will be more likely to survive.  So each of us has a dividing line between "us" and "them", which has been the root cause of wars, prejudice, etc.  As we get more sophisticated and became more familiar with "them", we see that they aren't so different from "us", and shift the line that divides "us" from "them".  But we still have that core drive within us.  In times of war we place the enemy on the other side of that line.  Personally I instinctively put mass murderers and most sociopaths on the other side of my dividing line, and my sympathy is limited for them - even though I understand that the way they developed is in some sense beyond their control.

Quote from: "Wilson"

Quote from: "Will"Revenge is not appropriate for the justice system. Justice is restorative whereas vengeance is harmful.

Are you saying that if someone murdered your spouse or child, you wouldn't want him punished unless if would protect society?

"Want" and "should" are two totally different things. Revenge does not belong in a justice system.

Ideally something as uncouth and irrational as revenge shouldn't be a part of anything, but vengance does have a part in the justice system. If it didn't then the perps would be given help instead of locked up or killed.

Quote from: "Wilson"Are you saying that if someone murdered your spouse or child, you wouldn't want him punished unless if would protect society?

I'm not sure. Thinking about it now, with a clear mind, I would want him rehabilitated and helped by mental health professionals. If I were in the heat of fury, I might want to torture and slaughter him and anyone he's ever cared about. You see why vengeance does not a good justice system make?

Quote from: "LegendarySandwich"Revenge does not belong in a justice system.

And why is that?

Quote from: "Will"Thinking about it now, with a clear mind, I would want him rehabilitated and helped by mental health professionals. If I were in the heat of fury, I might want to torture and slaughter him and anyone he's ever cared about. You see why vengeance does not a good justice system make?

Hurting his innocent loved ones would be barbaric and evil, by my sense of right and wrong.  Wanting to kill him would be appropriate, by my sense of right and wrong.

In my opinion, vengeance is an appropriate part of a justice system.  I can't prove that it's morally acceptable, and I don't believe anyone can prove that it's not.  It feels right to me, though not to you.  Forgiveness is a great quality, but absolute forgiveness is not, by my sense of right and wrong.

How about this?  Bernie Maddoff.  Putting him in jail won't protect society from him.  His reputation is such that I'm sure he would never engage in shady activity again, and if he has enough money left, he would never work again, anyway.  He is not rehabilitatable.  He knows what he did and probably regrets it.  So .. turn him free?

I know con artists, most of them are small time people with small time goals. Bernie is like the Lex Luther of conmen.

I wouldn't be surprised if he was conning someone right now.

Quote from: "Wilson"Hurting his innocent loved ones would be barbaric and evil, by my sense of right and wrong.  Wanting to kill him would be appropriate, by my sense of right and wrong.

Both are, Wilson.
(https://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fupload.wikimedia.org%2Fwikipedia%2Fcommons%2Fthumb%2F8%2F80%2FDeath_Penalty_World_Map.svg%2F600px-Death_Penalty_World_Map.svg.png&hash=f54d9b4da327a3856f38712bf7ab932c78cc0051)
Blue have abolished the death penalty altogether, green have abolished the death penalty for all crimes not committed in exceptional circumstances, and orange have abolished in practice. Only red represents countries where it's legal. Saudi Arabia, Iran, China, Pakistan, Nigeria, Sudan, and the United States. Here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Use_of_capital_punishment_by_nation) is a link to all the countries. Of the red, I challenge you to find one other than the United States you wouldn't characterize as having a barbaric or tyrannical government.

Quote from: "Wilson"How about this?  Bernie Maddoff.  Putting him in jail won't protect society from him.  His reputation is such that I'm sure he would never engage in shady activity again, and if he has enough money left, he would never work again, anyway.  He is not rehabilitatable.  He knows what he did and probably regrets it.  So .. turn him free?

You can't demonstrate that Bernie Maddoff can't be rehabilitated.

Will, you obviously have way more faith in the ability of jail to rehabilitate than I.

Quote from: "Wilson"Will, you obviously have way more faith in the ability of jail to rehabilitate than I.

Jail can rehabilitate when those who run and fund jails prioritize rehabilitation. The problem is that many jails, especially private jails, have no motive to rehabilitate, but rather simply to imprison and then release dangerous criminals back into the general public. The ability to rehabilitate can be seen in prison systems in other countries (Norway comes to mind) but it's simply not utilized often in countries like the United States.

Going back for just a moment, though, did you go through the list of countries which have the death penalty? If so, have you formed any conclusions about what these states generally have in common? Has that impacted your beliefs about the death penalty?

Japan has the death penalty, so does India.

Quote from: "Will"Jail can rehabilitate when those who run and fund jails prioritize rehabilitation. The problem is that many jails, especially private jails, have no motive to rehabilitate, but rather simply to imprison and then release dangerous criminals back into the general public. The ability to rehabilitate can be seen in prison systems in other countries (Norway comes to mind) but it's simply not utilized often in countries like the United States.

Going back for just a moment, though, did you go through the list of countries which have the death penalty? If so, have you formed any conclusions about what these states generally have in common? Has that impacted your beliefs about the death penalty?

I repeat: You have more faith in rehabilitation than I do, and not only for Bernie.  Most of the people in jail are sociopaths, and the only way you can "rehabilitate" them is to convince them that it's in their best interest to follow the rules - and most sociopaths aren't amenable to that message.  The kind of people who end up in jail, for the most part, sure aren't going to be receptive to any moral arguments.  If they are taught a trade, that will make a difference for some.

I would be okay with abolishing the death penalty in favor of life without parole, but I have no moral objection to having the state kill a really evil murderer.  As far as the countries that allow the death penalty, there are about 50 of them.  Most of them aren't exactly leading lights in the morality department, true.  Should we go by majority rule?  Majority rule in the US favors the death penalty.  Maybe I'm just patriotic, but it seems like our criminals are nastier than those in most Western countries.  They are certainly more deadly.

One of the differences between our views on this whole subject is that you see offenders as just like the rest of us, except that they were placed in bad circumstances.  There but for the grace of God ..  But I see most of those in jail as defective in morals - lacking in empathy - lacking in concern for others - dangerous, with poor impulse control.  It's not just that they made bad decisions, their brains are different from most of us, in a way that isn't fixable.  They got that way because of bad childhoods, mostly, and maybe it's partly genetic in some of them.  Not entirely their fault, in a way, but we have to protect society from them unless they behave.

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.  

This would actually be the history of torture, not the science of it.  But to be honest, if you won't bother informing yourself, what makes you qualified to inform anyone else?  My morality won't be swayed by a "guess".

QuoteAbout the Guido situation:

1) An appeal to fear?  We're just talking here.  I'm not trying to frighten you.  See, there's this concept of hypothetical situations, which can be useful in figuring out where morality lies under certain circumstances.  And certainly there have been cases of people being tortured to reveal where the cash box is, even if I can't give you three examples of "hard data" on the subject.

Firstly, shitcan the sarcasm.  If you wish to have a discussion, discuss without being insulting.  Otherwise, don't whimper when you get repaid in kind ... because you will.  Secondly, if you cannot give me examples, you have no right to use the word "certainly", because that indicates specific knowledge, not "guessing."

Quote2) How can Guido know for certain you're telling the truth?  Okay, here's Guido's clever strategy.  He looks where you tell him to look.  If it's not there, Guido knows you were lying, and resumes his blowtorch work until you give him the right answer.  That Guido is brilliant!  It's the exact same answer to my nuclear hypothetical.  You look where the terrorist says the bomb is.  Obviously, you're desperately searching for a hole in the scenario but failing and looking foolish.

Unfortunately for you, this answer is silly.  Remember, the scenario is 24 hrs.  Now, what if the terrorist is smart enough to say, "Well, it's buried beneath Manhattan in a tunnel which we then refilled."  What are you going to do?  Spend 48 hours digging a tunnel?  That suits Joe Terrorist just fine.  Bomb goes off, infidels die, and he gets martyred.  But wait.  You don't believe him?  What if he's right?

You see, in a torture scenario, the tortured holds the high ground.  He can send you anywhere he wishes; you must disbelieve him at your own risk.  Or, as the example of Dr Speidel shows, he can hold out for seven months (against the Gestapo!)  And if you torture him too hard, he can die before you get the info.

Quote3) Some people can hold out, most can't.  According to Wikipedia, "After four days (of severe torture), McCain made an anti-American propaganda "confession". He has always felt that his statement was dishonorable, but as he later wrote, "I had learned what we all learned over there: Every man has his breaking point. I had reached mine."  No blame attaches to McCain for being human; he resisted to the best of his ability.

I'm sure that nuclear fuses act faster than four days.

QuoteRegarding Davin's refusal to torture a person who could reveal the location of the bomb in Manhattan, resulting in the death of one million New Yorkers:

QuoteDavin's response is not only correct, it is devastatingly so: if you must appeal to such an unlikely hypothetical to justify your actions, your actions are unjustifiable.

You and Davin lack subtlety in your thinking.   Everything is black and white.  No gray areas.  You seem to think that if there is an exception to a general rule, it invalidates the rule.  Nonsense.

Firstly, you have yet to establish any "general rule"; therefore, this is an inappropriate appeal to authority.  Secondly, it is a fact that this is an unlikely hypothetical.  Not only have no nukes ever been set off in New York, not only have no nukes ever been used in an act of terrorism, not only has a non-state nuke ever been constructed -- to our knowledge, not one act of terrorism has ever been stopped by torture.

QuoteNow you know that I said that I'm against torture except in exceptional circumstances.  And I gave a hypothetical example of such an exceptional circumstance.  And then you say that "if you must appeal to such an unlikely hypothetical to justify your actions, your actions are unjustifiable."  My actions?  What actions?  Are you accusing me of torturing someone?  You seem to be implying that I'm in favor of torture in general, when you know that's not true.  Please try to be more logical.  And honest.

That wasn't "dishonest"; that was the use of the general second-person pronoun, as in, "If you've had five vodkas, you're drunk."  It should be pretty obvious I'm not saying you're drunk-posting.  You shouldn't get so butthurt over what is, after all, a common English usage.  Believe me, if I thought you did something wrong, I will say so, directly, explicitly, and I will make perfectly, painfully clear what I'm getting at.

Just in case you haven't understood what I've said so far: I don't think you yourself have blood on your hands from the torture of human beings.

I will grant you the benefit of the doubt and assume that this was an honest mistake, this time.

Also, let me make clear to everyone that I'm not implying anything about your view on torture: I am merely restating that you are, in some circumstances, in favor of the torture of human beings.  Why does that put such a bee in your bonnet?

QuoteI speak as an Air Force veteran: the torture of anyone under American custody is a blot on our honor, and you should be ashamed to be urging it forward.

QuoteAnd I speak as a Navy veteran: We must be smart enough to consider each case on its own merits.

I take it, then, that you won't mind our fellow brothers-in-arms being tortured to reveal unit locations, strengths, and statuses?

QuoteTo be honest, what irritates me here is the refusal by you and Thumper to acknowledge something that's obvious....

If it's so obvious, ought you not be able to present evidence, instead of naked assertions bereft of support?  It's more than irritating to be lectured from someone who acknowledges not only being ignorant of the facts, but being uninterested in finding them ("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.") -- yet this same person expects me to receive his view as wisdom.

I'll take facts for $500, Alex.

Quote from: "Wilson"I repeat: You have more faith in rehabilitation than I do, and not only for Bernie.  Most of the people in jail are sociopaths, and the only way you can "rehabilitate" them is to convince them that it's in their best interest to follow the rules - and most sociopaths aren't amenable to that message.  The kind of people who end up in jail, for the most part, sure aren't going to be receptive to any moral arguments.  If they are taught a trade, that will make a difference for some.

Sociopathy isn't a thing anymore. Some people in prisons suffer from narcissistic personality disorder or antisocial personality disorder or something similar, but those disorders can actually be treated and there's a chance at being able to live with lessened or even no symptoms. Most people in prison, however, probably don't have a diagnosable disorder. They've ended up in jail not because of a neuronal problem or because they were molested, but rather because they grew up in a system which sets them up to fail. How many thieves or pot dealers in prison would you characterize as sociopaths? It's not like prisons are just for serial killers and child molesters, after all.

What the American prison system needs is to concentrate on rehabilitation. We need an army of mental health professionals to come in and deal with the prisoners in small groups and one-on-one. We need psychologists and sociologists to put in place systems which are designed to correct problems instead of just locking them away. We can actually see other countries have seen success with engaging prisoners and rehabilitating them (like Norway, which has a truly revolutionary system). The American prison system as it exists right now is in violation of human rights laws both nationally and internationally. Prisoners are regularly starved, beaten, put in solitary, raped, and otherwise abused in ways that are entirely inexcusable and that only serve to damage people more before releasing them again. It's like the Lord of the Flies, and the reason it exists is because our system isn't set up to rehabilitate. The torture of prisoners is meant to make them repeat offenders, which means more money for private prisons. It's the profit motive gone terribly wrong.

Quote from: "Wilson"I would be okay with abolishing the death penalty in favor of life without parole, but I have no moral objection to having the state kill a really evil murderer.  As far as the countries that allow the death penalty, there are about 50 of them.  Most of them aren't exactly leading lights in the morality department, true.  Should we go by majority rule?  Majority rule in the US favors the death penalty.  Maybe I'm just patriotic, but it seems like our criminals are nastier than those in most Western countries.  They are certainly more deadly.

Why is it okay to kill someone guilty of killing? Also, why do you think American criminals are nastier than those in other Western countries? I'm not saying I disagree necessarily, but if it's true why do you think it is?

Quote from: "Wilson"One of the differences between our views on this whole subject is that you see offenders as just like the rest of us, except that they were placed in bad circumstances.  There but for the grace of God ..  But I see most of those in jail as defective in morals - lacking in empathy - lacking in concern for others - dangerous, with poor impulse control.  It's not just that they made bad decisions, their brains are different from most of us, in a way that isn't fixable.  They got that way because of bad childhoods, mostly, and maybe it's partly genetic in some of them.  Not entirely their fault, in a way, but we have to protect society from them unless they behave.

According to the FBI, the most common crime committed my American prisoners is property crimes like burglary & larceny. These are nonviolent crimes. I think you may have the wrong idea about who your average prisoner is.

Quote from: "Byronazriel"Japan has the death penalty, so does India.

Indeed, and I noted Poland as well.  I wouldn't classify any of them as "tyrannical" or "barbaric".

Quote from: "Will"Sociopathy isn't a thing anymore. Some people in prisons suffer from narcissistic personality disorder or antisocial personality disorder or something similar, but those disorders can actually be treated and there's a chance at being able to live with lessened or even no symptoms. Most people in prison, however, probably don't have a diagnosable disorder. They've ended up in jail not because of a neuronal problem or because they were molested, but rather because they grew up in a system which sets them up to fail. How many thieves or pot dealers in prison would you characterize as sociopaths? It's not like prisons are just for serial killers and child molesters, after all.

There may have been a change in nomenclature - who cares? - but the basic defect remains: inability to feel empathy.  Mostly, in my opinion, because they did not experience the milk of human kindness as a young child.  And lack of empathy is not curable.  The best you can do is appeal to their reason (self-interest), because appealing to their better nature won't work.  Of course there are all degrees of severity, and somebody can be unable to feel empathy, but smart enough to follow the rules.  There are prominent people in many walks of life - lawyers and politicians in particular - who fall into that category.

I've actually done some work in a minimum security prison, so I know that most of the people there are not serial killers and child molesters.  But most of them have sociopathic tendencies and try to work the system.  And yes, thieves and drug dealers are sociopaths for the most part, by the classic definition.  I'm not against legalizing pot, though it's a close call, and I do think too many people are getting put in jail for drug offenses.  The nonviolent offenders who should be in jail, in my opinion, are career criminals - chronic offenders.  If somebody is arrested for burglary several times, you know he'll burgle homes when he gets out until he's caught again, and we have no choice to protect ourselves by putting him behind bars for an extended stay.

They grew up in a system which sets them up to fail?  Ah, it's society that's to blame!  Nobody's bad, it's society's fault.  There are no good and bad people, only people.  Newsflash: There are some nasty folks out there.  I think you're naive.

The question is, is the tendency to recidivate inherent in the criminal, inculcated by the survival-first environment of proson, or both?

While I generally agree that repeat criminals need to be held personally accountable, be careful not to confuse correlation and causation.

Also, I completely reject ByronAzriel's contention that torture is appropriate as punishment.  I could not conceive of a surer way to guarantee the alienation of the criminal from society in a complete and final manner.

Quote from: "Wilson"There may have been a change in nomenclature - who cares?

Connotation matters. Here are two sentences:
"That guy is a sociopath."
"That guy suffers from antisocial personality disorder."
When you label someone a sociopath, you're removing an element of humanity from them, thus excusing abusing them. The reality, however, is that antisocial personality disorder may be caused by biological factors entirely out of the control of the person diagnosed.  Do you see how significant that difference is, between sociopathy and antisocial personality disorder? Executing a sociopath can be excused by saying that the person is essentially a monster, deserving of death. Executing someone diagnosed with a mental disorder, however, is more akin to killing someone with a mental deficiency. I see this as significant.

Quote from: "Wilson"- but the basic defect remains: inability to feel empathy.  Mostly, in my opinion, because they did not experience the milk of human kindness as a young child.  And lack of empathy is not curable.  The best you can do is appeal to their reason (self-interest), because appealing to their better nature won't work.  Of course there are all degrees of severity, and somebody can be unable to feel empathy, but smart enough to follow the rules.  There are prominent people in many walks of life - lawyers and politicians in particular - who fall into that category.

Lack of empathy can be treated in many cases. I'm not sure where you're getting your information from. Cognitive behavioral therapy has a decent track record among teenagers and young adults who have antisocial personality disorder and even narcissistic personality disorder. There are also medications that enjoy success with people diagnosed with antisocial personality disorder.

Quote from: "Wilson"I've actually done some work in a minimum security prison, so I know that most of the people there are not serial killers and child molesters.  But most of them have sociopathic tendencies and try to work the system.

If you were in prison, you wouldn't try to "work the system"? I certainly would, and I'm capable of empathy. Desperate times call for drastic measures. If I were under threat of rape and torture every day, I can imagine myself, while still maintaining my ability to feel empathy, moving well outside of my moral comfort zone for the sake of simple self-defense.

Quote from: "Wilson"They grew up in a system which sets them up to fail?  Ah, it's society that's to blame!  Nobody's bad, it's society's fault.  There are no good and bad people, only people.  Newsflash: There are some nasty folks out there.  I think you're naive.

I'm not talking about blame, I'm trying to explain the cause.

Quote from: "Thumpalumpacus"Also, I completely reject ByronAzriel's contention that torture is appropriate as punishment.  I could not conceive of a surer way to guarantee the alienation of the criminal from society in a complete and final manner.

What about lobotomies?

Quote from: "Will"Connotation matters. Here re two sentences:
"That guy is a sociopath."
"That guy suffers from antisocial personality disorder."
When you label someone a sociopath, you're removing an element of humanity from them, thus excusing abusing them. The reality, however, is that antisocial personality disorder may be caused by biological factors entirely out of the control of the person diagnosed.  Do you see how significant that difference is, between sociopathy and antisocial personality disorder? Executing a sociopath can be excused by saying that the person is essentially a monster, deserving of death. Executing someone diagnosed with a mental disorder, however, is more akin to killing someone with a mental deficiency. I see this as significant.j

I think there is a problem with the terms used to describe this condition.  I wish there was a term for lacking empathy.  Because as I said before, not everyone who lacks empathy and compassion is a danger to society.  In fact, in some professions a lack of compassion might be useful.  The word "sociopath" seems to imply some pathology of socialization, "psychopath" is the more extreme version, and "antisocial personality disorder" includes both.  I certainly wouldn't want to punish someone because of his personality, only for his actions.

QuoteLack of empathy can be treated in many cases. I'm not sure where you're getting your information from. Cognitive behavioral therapy has a decent track record among teenagers and young adults who have antisocial personality disorder and even narcissistic personality disorder. There are also medications that enjoy success with people diagnosed with antisocial personality disorder.

I've always read that treatment doesn't work for sociopaths, except, as I said before, to appeal to their own self interest, which sometimes works.  Remember that just because something it treatable is doesn't necessarily mean that the treatment is effective.  This is from Wikipedia:

According to Christopher J. Patrick in his 'Handbook of Psychopathy' clinicians generally believe that there is neither a cure nor any effective treatment for psychopathy; there are no medications that can instill empathy, while psychopaths who undergo traditional talk therapy only become more adept at manipulating others.[7] However, other researchers suggest that psychopaths may benefit as much as others from psychological treatment, at least in terms of effect on behavior.[8] According to Hare, the consensus among researchers in this area is that psychopathy stems from a specific neurological disorder which is biological in origin and present from birth[9] although this was not what was reported by a 2008 review which instead indicated multiple causes and variation between individuals.[10] Hare estimates that about one percent of the population are psychopaths.[11]

Things got a little heated.  Sorry if I've been rude to you.

Quote from: "Wilson"I think there is a problem with the terms used to describe this condition.  I wish there was a term for lacking empathy.  Because as I said before, not everyone who lacks empathy and compassion is a danger to society.  In fact, in some professions a lack of compassion might be useful.  The word "sociopath" seems to imply some pathology of socialization, "psychopath" is the more extreme version, and "antisocial personality disorder" includes both.  I certainly wouldn't want to punish someone because of his personality, only for his actions.

Maybe we should just say "lacking empathy" from here on.

Quote from: "Wilson"I've always read that treatment doesn't work for sociopaths, except, as I said before, to appeal to their own self interest, which sometimes works.  Remember that just because something it treatable is doesn't necessarily mean that the treatment is effective.

Treatment for APD can be very difficult, but it's not impossible. I've been out of school for a few years and I didn't go into a career in psychology, but of what I remember, the best way to treat someone like this is to connect a person's actions and their emotions. Emotions are the key to treating someone who has trouble connecting their emotions to their actions. A counselor or therapist would work to build a healthy, trusting relationship with the client and use that as a way to teach associating emotion with actions that involve other people. Very basically, the therapist would include statements like "how do you think that makes me feel?" when discussing the hypothetical or previous behavior of the client. It's fairly complicated, but I don't think it's fair to characterize it as impossible or nearly impossible. Successful treatment of individuals with empathy problems happens and they can result in happy, healthy, productive members of society capable of the empathy necessary to feel connected to those around them whether on an individual level or a societal level.

Regarding wikipedia, far be it from me to dismiss wikipedia outright as there's a lot of good information there, but on issues like this the limited scope of information and lack of scientific and clinical context doesn't serve the reader. If a person's inability to empathize is biological in nature, prescriptions can help and there also may be ways of bypassing the problem. While there are 'hopeless', they're decreasing in numbers as the sciences of psychology and neurology grow.

Quote from: "Wilson"Things got a little heated. Sorry if I've been rude to you.

No worries. Due to my years of experience debating creationists, I've earned +5 objectivity, +10 manna, and +50 patience. I very rarely get angry on the internet and I generally don't begrudge others allowing themselves to become passionate so long as they're respectful and don't break forum rules.

Quote from: "Tank"Morality isn't the same as effectiveness.

One can argue that under some circumstances torture will lead to the extraction of inaccurate or false information. I would contend this is mainly down to torturing the wrong person e.g. they don't know what you think they know. Thus the person being interrogated tell lies to stop the pain. The British used very effective interrogation methods during WWII. One such example was to put prisoners together in a cell with a hidden microphone and listen to them. In due course remarkable amounts of information were obtained. The effect can be seen on Big Brother. Contestants start to become blasé about the cameras after a few days. The captured Germans, mostly aircrew were not even aware they were being listened too. Once they thought they had been interrogated and deemed of no interest they happily chatted about every thing. This allowed the British to create 'Trojan Prisoners' who were put into detention with the real prisoners and they would lead the conversation around to the subjects the British wanted to find out about. These were very brave men as if they were found out they would almost definitely come to a gruesome end.  

However if one is certain that an individual does poses the information required then torture is often effective. How effective is again determined by the amount you know the subject knows and if that 3rd party information allows one to verify what you expect the subject to know. There are a number of techniques that the SAS and Royal Marines are taught that are highly effective at encouraging individuals to tell them what they need to know, and they work. But the issue of accuracy will always be a balancing act. Even if the person knows what you think they know and they tell you what you want to know there is no guarantee that the interpretation of that information will be accurate. One example, although not related to torture, occurred during WWII when the Germans brought some radar jamming equipment to Sicily to disrupt the British radar on Malta. The British had expected this. When the jammers were switched on the British radar screens turned into an indecipherable field of static 'snow'. The operator went to switch off the system and the commander told him not to. Three days later the Germans switched off the jammers, they obviously hadn't worked as the British were still using the radar. The Germans stopped using that type of jammer completely as a result of its failure. The Germans failed because they didn't correctly interpret the information they had.

To my mind the behaviour of the security forces at Guantanamo Bay has everything to do with revenge and nothing to do with intelligence gathering. The use of boredom and Trojan Prisoners would have given the security services all they needed to know. Now this makes me very suspicious about the motivations of the security forces there. They are professional interrogators, they know about the effects of boredom and how to exploit human psychology.

So the effectiveness of torture as a method of extracting information is not 100%. It has to be used on the right person, the information has to be verifiable and it has to be correctly interpreted to be effective. In other words it's not a magic wand.

Now as to the morality of torture it's a classic numbers game. Does torturing one or a few individuals prevent something else happening that is worse for more people? That has to be dealt with on a case by case basis. On a personal level if I was 95% sure that torturing a person would definitely save the life of one of my kids and I knew I would go to prison for a very long time and probably never get out again as a result of my actions I would do what needed to be done to get the information. Would I do it to save somebody else's child? No I don't think so, but I wouldn't stop that parent from trying.Would I do it to save a number of children not including my own? Don't know, but I expect it would come down to how emotionally bound to the situation I was.

So to my mind the efficacy of torture is one thing, it does work but there are often better ways to get information. The morality is 'does the end justify the means?' and on a personal level under certain extremely specific circumstances I think torture is justifiable.

Now spreading the net wider is torture of terrorist suspects after the event of a terrorist act a reasonable thing to do? And by reasonable I would say does the action prevent more terrorism? Personally I do not think torture is justifiable as there are infinitely more effective ways to exploit a terrorist suspect than to lock them up and water-board them. Imprisoning them for a little while and really learning about them and then releasing them is far more effective as they become bait for others and their actions can be tracked, their connections to organisations, suppliers and other groups could be monitored and would give invaluable intelligence to security forces. They would act as 'activity markers'.

The human desire for revenge has really fucked up the so called 'war on terror'. You can't wage war on terrorists you have to trap them one by one in a painstaking exercise and at the same time erode their credibility as providers of the result they are attempting to gain. This is precisely how the British and Irish governments closed down the IRA, they removed their credibility as an organisation for providing the reunification of Ireland. Killing loads of Iraqis and Afghans has not removed the threat of terrorism and it never will. To truly stop a terrorist one has to remove their desire to kill. Killing them may win a battle but it does not win an ideological war.

Well said.