The Morality of Torture

Discussion in 'Serious Chat' started by The Fortunate One, Jul 12, 2013.

  1. #1
    The Fortunate One

    The Fortunate One Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2011
    Messages:
    900
    Likes Received:
    0



    I have been doing a lot of thinking lately about an issue that keeps popping up in my head. This is basically a philosophical question: Is it ever appropriate to use torture to solicit information from a captive terrorist, information which could save hundreds of lives, or turn out to be false? First of all I would like to give a basic definition of torture. According to the Online Dictionary [Wikipedia], torture is defined as; " The practice or act of deliberately inflicting severe physical pain and possibly injury on a person". However, notice that the ambiguity of the phrase "severe physical pain" leaves much to interpretation and provides some wiggle-room. First of all, what can be objectively classified as "severe physical pain"? Almost anyone would disagree with causing unnecessary pain, but what qualifies as excessive and sadistic can be subject to personal opinion, and if causing pain to a captive is acceptable in principle, at what point does it become excessive? Where are such lines drawn?

    To illustrate this point, I will bring to memory the recent water-boarding debacle. The Bush administration has on numerous occasions defended water-boarding as a legitimate practice and distinct from torture because it did not meet a somewhat arbitrary definition of "excessive and prolonged" use. So the Bush administration's main contention is that water-boarding is a form of coercive interrogation, not torture. On one level, I am inclined to agree. While coercive interrogation is often regarded as a euphemism for torture or barbaric treatment, I will point out that this is a common logical error in which a simple term is automatically assumed to be synonymous with a compound term. A good analogy is sex and adultery. Sex can sometimes be adultery, if performed extra-maritally, but the mere act of sexual intercourse does not necessarily constitute to adultery. Given this distinction, one may legitimately assume that under certain restrictions, the use of physical pain to obtain information is appropriate. On another level, however, the claim that water-boarding does not cause excessive discomfort is shallow. I know a military veteran who considered it worse than having your fingers pounded with a hammer till they went mush. While this is an anecdote, it does show the difficulty in objectively defining torture.

    Leaving the efficacy of torture aside, since it can be argued that not all physical discomfort is necessarily excessive (Imprisonment, Minimal Sleep Deprivation, etc) is the accepting the difference between moderate pain and discomfort versus sadistic and inhumane treatment a risk for a slippery slope, is the distinction merely a question of semantics? Is it okay to tread on a guy's foot with steel-toed boots when you need first hand information in minutes, but wrong to dislocate a man's shoulder for the same purpose or is it relevant to whatever force is necessary to break the subject's resolve with any extra force being severe? My belief is that coercive interrogation is acceptable under certain constraints. I would liken it to the 'Use of Force Continuum' scale most Military and Police units use to evaluate threat levels:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Use_of_force_continuum

    Perhaps, the same system may be used to differentiate between legitimate and excessive coercion. Thoughts?
     
    Last edited: Jul 12, 2013
  2. #2
    Juliet

    Juliet Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 15, 2012
    Messages:
    88
    Likes Received:
    0



    I personally think what it all comes down to is that using torture is a risky method. If people are scared of harm coming to them, you can't trust that their always gonna give you correct information. That's not, I guess what you can call, the "proper" way to interrogate people to get answers. No matter what kind of thing you've done to people, no matter how evil you are, you still have rights as a human. Isn't that the whole purpose of the Geneva convention? But as you mentioned, it's because of these loopholes in definitions that they can get away with this stuff. If it means bringing suffering, harm, or severe mental stress to a person, then I define that as torture. So really, I don't see any morality in it. It's barbaric.
     
  3. #3
    lime treacle

    lime treacle You are not alone Über Member

    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2011
    Messages:
    10,907
    Likes Received:
    115



    I approve the justification in the Saw films.
     
  4. #4
    The Fortunate One

    The Fortunate One Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2011
    Messages:
    900
    Likes Received:
    0



    :puke:

    24 more like it?
     
  5. #5
    travz21

    travz21 Muscle Museum LPA Super Member

    Joined:
    Sep 9, 2010
    Messages:
    4,000
    Likes Received:
    1



    Torture doesn't yield accurate information anyways.
     
  6. #6
    $pvcxGhxztCasey

    $pvcxGhxztCasey meanwhile... LPA Addicted VIP

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2003
    Messages:
    15,888
    Likes Received:
    26



    You can't have these two together. End of story.
     
  7. #7
    Qwerty19

    Qwerty19 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2011
    Messages:
    2,200
    Likes Received:
    184



    Agreed.

    However, when morality means loosing informations that could save hundreds of lives in the name of some sacred principles, I'm not sure it's the best way around.

    That's a difficult problem though. Because there is always the risk of autority making abuse of his "torture power". Or using it against innocent people. Or torture leading to false information.
     
    Last edited: Jul 14, 2013
  8. #8
    The Fortunate One

    The Fortunate One Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2011
    Messages:
    900
    Likes Received:
    0



    Well, the jury's out on this one. Yes, it is not especially reliable but I doubt it has never produced credible information ever.

    This is another one of those ethical dilemmas I raised. However, if it can be argued that one can use force against a prisoner without torturing him, then it may be possible to have it both ways. A U.S Army interrogator who decried water-boarding stated that other coercive methods (putting a prisoner in stress positions, etc) can unnerve and disorient the captive without constituting inhuman treatment.
     

Share This Page