Reopening the Torture Debate

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I also think the person doing the torturing (willingly) should face the legal consequences, and know beforehand that this will happen. This is a form of personal sacrifice.


[/ QUOTE ]

I just find this position so bizarre. If torturing is the correct moral action (IYO) why would you want to create a situation that disincentives that action?

[/ QUOTE ]
Its not totally bizarre as only a trial of some sort can determine whether it was acceptable or not.

Given a fast legal system with good juries and a sane judge then it could be the best way to deal with it. In current day reality it would be a disaster.

chez

[RJT]

I realize that we at 2+2 are trying to develop a perfect society. But hasn’t this question already been addressed by the Geneva Convention? I think that has to do with only war stuff, but I don’t think we can get away with making everyday laws contrary to the GC.

And yes, it most definitely was decided by Dirty Harry. (Borodog, it still is a great movie - you said “It was a great movie.”) Clockwork Orange comes to mind, too.

[Woolygimp]

I'm all for fair treatment of members of an opposing army such as in WWII, however historically armed militants engaging in guerilla tactics have always been scorned, mistreated and are not subject to the same rules and privileges afforded to a soldier.

This isn't just the case of Iraq, or Vietnam but every conflict including one such as the Revolutionary War had the opposing army hold those not in uniform with disregard.

Someone wants to use a chlorine carbomb to kill dozens of civilians? I see no reason not to use any means necessary to prevent any future incidents.

Soldiers don't knowingly target civilians.

Also, to the poster who said the reason the Iranians didn't torture the British was because the British don't use torture: You're an idiot, please quit these forums. If those British soldiers were harmed then it would've been Iran vs. NATO. If the Iranians had abducted Americans? Probably instant war, but even if that wasn't the case the American abducted would be treated the same as the British because the consequences would be the same.

If given Jus ad bellum or just cause for war you'd see half the world rally behind America or Britain against Iran.

[PLOlover]

[ QUOTE ]
Also, to the poster who said the reason the Iranians didn't torture the British was because the British don't use torture: You're an idiot, please quit these forums.

[/ QUOTE ]

What I meant was that if torture was the norm, then the british would have been tortured. I mean, they could have had information about an imminent invasion! We(iranians) must torture now! to get information that might save countless iranian lives. ..

[Bill Haywood]

[ QUOTE ]
If torturing is the correct moral action (IYO) why would you want to create a situation that disincentives that action?

[/ QUOTE ]

Because permitting torture is so damaging to a society. There are no simple answers here.

[Gregatron]

[ QUOTE ]
I just find this position so bizarre. If torturing is the correct moral action (IYO) why would you want to create a situation that disincentives that action?

[/ QUOTE ]
Because if we constantly just "looked the other way" then we would start ignoring our own laws. Laws have to mean something. Letting the torture happen and making the person who committed it pay the price means there were still consequences. It would have to be such an outrageous situation that someone would have to willing to step forward and KNOW they are going to be punished for doing the right thing, yet do it anyway.

In this situation maintaining a society that does not sacrifice its principles and doing the right thing in Sklansky's contrived situation mean that someone has to go down. It's called personal sacrifice.

I also respect the position that the woman must be sacrificed for the greater good, but I think the more moral thing to do is the position I outlined.

[Duke]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I just find this position so bizarre. If torturing is the correct moral action (IYO) why would you want to create a situation that disincentives that action?

[/ QUOTE ]
Because if we constantly just "looked the other way" then we would start ignoring our own laws. Laws have to mean something. Letting the torture happen and making the person who committed it pay the price means there were still consequences. It would have to be such an outrageous situation that someone would have to willing to step forward and KNOW they are going to be punished for doing the right thing, yet do it anyway.

In this situation maintaining a society that does not sacrifice its principles and doing the right thing in Sklansky's contrived situation mean that someone has to go down. It's called personal sacrifice.

I also respect the position that the woman must be sacrificed for the greater good, but I think the more moral thing to do is the position I outlined.

[/ QUOTE ]

Having laws exist that need to be broken to do the right thing marginalizes the rest of the laws.

[gumpzilla]

While having axiomatic logical debates about all of this stuff is well and good, this seems like a situation where examining the truth of the premises is important. Does such a high success torture method exist? If it doesn't - as I believe the conventional wisdom asserts - the whole discussion seems kind of pointless.

To forestall another argument: yes, it's conceivable that even if torture is mostly ineffective, you might still come up with a case where the stakes are so high that even the slightest improvement in your chances of information gathering is worth the tradeoff, and so you can still have this argument if you want. Fine, but if we're going to make statistical, EV arguments like that one, then it's worth pointing out that such situations are presumably very rare, and so on balance the negatives of legalizing torture probably still outweigh all of the positives.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I just find this position so bizarre. If torturing is the correct moral action (IYO) why would you want to create a situation that disincentives that action?

[/ QUOTE ]
Because if we constantly just "looked the other way" then we would start ignoring our own laws. Laws have to mean something. Letting the torture happen and making the person who committed it pay the price means there were still consequences. It would have to be such an outrageous situation that someone would have to willing to step forward and KNOW they are going to be punished for doing the right thing, yet do it anyway.

In this situation maintaining a society that does not sacrifice its principles and doing the right thing in Sklansky's contrived situation mean that someone has to go down. It's called personal sacrifice.

I also respect the position that the woman must be sacrificed for the greater good, but I think the more moral thing to do is the position I outlined.

[/ QUOTE ]

Having laws exist that need to be broken to do the right thing marginalizes the rest of the laws.

[/ QUOTE ]
Just about all laws that exist need to be broken at times. nothing wrong with that as long as these cases are extreme.

Laws are far too rigid to only have ones that should never be broken.

chez

[Hoi Polloi]

[ QUOTE ]
I have actually discussed this with some of the classes I teach.

My own position is that torture should not be legal. However, what is legal and what is moral do not overlap perfectly. IMO, the moral thing to do is to save the woman's life. Therefore, I propose breaking the law and torturing in this situation. I also think the person doing the torturing (willingly) should face the legal consequences, and know beforehand that this will happen. This is a form of personal sacrifice.

[/ QUOTE ]

How will this altruistic sacrificer learn the *almost* fool-proof torture technique? Oh, he's Jack Bauer.

That's not how torture works.