On the Morality of Torture

[FoolKiller]

That would make for an interesting story line for a Sci-Fi film...

Or an episode of Lost.

 

[niky]

In regards to the Hitler question I think everyone forgets one thing, on top of what Omnis already pointed out.

If you kill Hitler before his actions lead to the holocaust you are punishing him for something he has not done. That alone steps on very shaky moral ground, even if you know that you can alter events. But then, as Omnis points out, you still can't be sure that you do alter events.

Punishing someone in advance of punishable actions is immoral simply for the fact that they haven't done anything. These what-if scenarios, like Hitler, require either time travel or psychic vision. They are not realistic.

I understand we are trying to create moral dilemmas with these what ifs for the sake of debate, but these aren't even physically plausible what-ifs. We are stepping outside the bounds of reality to get a realistic answer.

But if you want my answer to your moral dilemma: Killing Hitler before World War II, because of the holocaust, is killing an innocent man.

There's also the question (way OT) of whether you'll be preventing the Holocaust at the expense of creating a more powerful Nazi party and a more protracted World War II by killing the man. While Hitler's leadership and paranoia helped shape the Nazi party's policies, it's also his arrogance and poor tactical decision-making in the latter half of the war that helped them lose it.

Who's to say that Hitler won't be replaced in the Nazi party by a more anti-Semitic, more tactically brilliant, more ruthless madman?

 

[mindwise]

If you kill Hitler before his actions lead to the holocaust you are punishing him for something he has not done. That alone steps on very shaky moral ground, even if you know that you can alter events. ... .
But if you want my answer to your moral dilemma: Killing Hitler before World War II, because of the holocaust, is killing an innocent man.

Well put, i fully concede you are correct here, no 'buts or ifs.

I understand we are trying to create moral dilemmas with these what ifs for the sake of debate

That was the idea, which i now see would never work, thanks

Who's to say that Hitler won't be replaced in the Nazi party by a more anti-Semitic, more tactically brilliant, more ruthless madman?

Who's to say indeed, i doubt it though, Hitler basically was the NSDAP at that point, and it cannot be denied his rhetoric skills are not matched by many, if any, and that's what basically got him into power of course, not his idea's.

 

[Joel]

Who defines morals? Who decides what is acceptable? Who decides that something is a right? Who gets to choose what's right and wrong?

For example, I'll use our old favourite in this forum, Health Care.

Canada thinks it's a right. The US doesn't (well, at the moment). Who's right? Who's decision is moral?


Let's go back to the Hitler thing. Is he evil? I would argue that, because he only killed the Jews for the "good" of the world, he isn't evil. (Of course i don't agree that killing the Jews is good for the world, but he did).

 

[Public'sTwin]

Let's go back to the Hitler thing. Is he evil? I would argue that, because he only killed the Jews for the "good" of the world, he isn't evil. (Of course i don't agree that killing the Jews is good for the world, but he did).

Hitler:
Did Hitler act on a moral conscious to do the "good" thing?
Maybe.
Was the outcome good?
Certainly not.
But was he acting according to his duties?
No.

So that's 2/3 against. He was not good.

Healthcare:
Is Canada acting on the moral conscious to do the "good" (right) thing?
Yes.
Has the outcome been good?
Generally.
Was Canada acting according to its' duties?
Yes.

Basically 0/3, ergo Canada's HC is "good". Now consider:

Torture:
Is America acting on the moral conscious to do the "good" thing?
Maybe.
Has the outcome been good?
Maybe.
Was America acting according to its' duties?
Not really.

It's very murky, because so many cause>effect arguments can be made about the first 2 points without any real observational data to back it up; similarly, extraordinary rendition and torture weren't explicitly or expressly denied as methods of obtaining information.

If Healthcare were something more akin to "finish off old folks and harvest their organs for the younger, stronger, but more compromised ones to get ahead and be productive", you'd have a clearer analogy.

 

[Joel]

Did he do the "good thing"? Yes.

Was the outcome good? Well, if you don't count him losing the war, it was "good"

Was he acting according to his duties? Yes, In his mind, he was acting on behalf of his country.

Now, before anyone says it, I don't want to be defending the holocaust. I think it was horrible. But Hitler thought it was the right thing to do.

 

[Public'sTwin]

Did he do the "good thing"? Yes. (Be careful not to conflate "doing" the good thing with having a good thing be the outcome or intent. When the intent and outcome conflict, one has "done" neither. -Greg)

No. Observably not. He tortured people without reason, subjected his own men to inscrutably brutal conditions, and forced humiliation upon his victims.

Was the outcome good?

Did he win?
No.
Did he kill all the jews?
No.
Did he keep democratic process for it?
No.
Did anyone benefit primarily or secondarily for it?
...not really.
Are the jews any better off?
No. And they were brainwashed by some British blokes into thinking Israel is/was "their" homeland, too, because nobody wanted to take them in during the exile/explusion/exodus. And now Israel wants to bomb anything knocking on its' door.
Are the Germans any better off?
LOL jkz

Was he acting according to his duties?

Does it say he's obligated to kill the jews?
No.
Do the jews have inalienable rights to life?
Sure.
Did he honor that?
No.
Were they a demonstratable detriment to German society?
No.
Were they an "eminent and realistic threat" to German society?
No.
Did his duties involve torturing them and gays?
No.

My point is, there are some generally objective ways of determining right and wrong. (For this reason, the "generally" part seems to conflict with Canadians and Americans who have different charters/constitutions regarding Healthcare and their interpretations thus.)

Now, before anyone says it, I don't want to be defending the holocaust. I think it was horrible. But Hitler thought it was the right thing to do.

No-one was accusing you of it; rest fairly assured that, until you come under scrutiny, you won't be suspected of it.

Now, I think Hitler didn't think it was the right thing to do—rather, it was popular to the working "victims" of Jews who, historically, have been wealthier and often the employers of the lower class. It came down to power, influence, recognition, and an appeal to greed. Turning it into a nationalist issue was only natural; noone wants to not support their country (lest ye be shot for treason!).

 

[Joel]

No. Observably not. He tortured people without reason, subjected his own men to inscrutably brutal conditions, and forced humiliation upon his victims.


Did he win?
No. I won't argue here, he didn't win
Did he kill all the jews?
No. He damn near did, and he wiped the Jewish "threat" away
Did he keep democratic process for it?
No. Well, Hitler was great at making everyone agree with him, so it's safe to say public opinion was with him
Did anyone benefit primarily or secondarily for it?
...not really. Again, In his mind, people did
Are the jews any better off?
No. And they were brainwashed by some British blokes into thinking Israel is/was "their" homeland, too, because nobody wanted to take them in during the exile/explusion/exodus. And now Israel wants to bomb anything knocking on its' door.
Are the Germans any better off? I'm also not going to argue with you on this one
LOL jkz


Does it say he's obligated to kill the jews?
No. He believed his obligation to serve his country included this
Do the jews have inalienable rights to life?
Sure. Well, who defines this right? Who comes up with it?
Did he honor that?
No. He didn't honour a right, because he didn't believe it was there
Were they a demonstratable detriment to German society?
No. In his mind, they were
Were they an "eminent and realistic threat" to German society?
No. Again, In his mind.
Did his duties involve torturing them and gays?
No. In his mind, they did

My point is that while in our mind, the holocaust was the ultimate evil, In his mind it was justified. So we can't call him evil. I am a firm subjective moralist, because cultures accept different things. For example, in some parts of the word, they eat Dogs. In our part of the world, we eat cows. Who's justified?


If i recall correctly, you are from Canada as well, correct? Just making sure.

 

[Public'sTwin]

My point is that while in our mind, the holocaust was the ultimate evil, In his mind it was justified.

It doesn't matter what was in his mind, because of that conflict which I pointed out ealrier which exists between intent and outcome. And his intent, however justified—was frequently heinous, by both our standards & definitions, and to those as defined by his predecessors as well. Notice that I said "demonstratably"—he demonstrated nothing, giving no justified impetus for his actions, whatever his thoughts, which as a president, are beholden to the democratic process—one which he circumvented and abolished entirely.

So we can't call him evil.

Of course we can, and I already explained why.

I am a firm subjective moralist, because cultures accept different things.

Yes, customs vary. . .

For example, in some parts of the word, they eat Dogs. In our part of the world, we eat cows. Who's justified?

. . . But:

Noone. Everyone. Both are animals. Both are made of meat. There is no conflict, only personal sentimentalisations bestowed upon the cute and fuzzyness of one, vs. the practical eating and feeding of another. (Similarly, we used to eat chicken, but not some parts of it: it was 'gross'. Other cultures readily ate chickens' beaks, feet and necks; only in the last couple generations has western society seen chicken wings as awesome bar food. Like I said, it's all relative: relatively meaningless.)

If i recall correctly, you are from Canada as well, correct? Just making sure.

Do I suddenly make more sense or carry more influence now? Good.

 

[Joel]

Hahaha, Of course you make more sense! Nah, I was just confused because you have a US flag as an avatar.

However, I think the thing we are missing here is just how messed in the head Hitler was. Hitler came in, convinced an entire country he was right, and threw out all of the processes in place, and nobody took any objection. His book, Mein Kampf, demonstrates his thoughts perfectly.

I'll quote a few of his little nuggets of knowledge from said book.


(He wrongly called the Germans Aryans, but that's moot)

"On this planet of ours human culture and civilization are indissolubly bound up with the presence of the Aryan. If he should be exterminated or subjugated, then the dark shroud of a new barbarian era would enfold the earth."

So he thought the Germans should rule the world. Everyone knows that, let's continue.

"Jewish youth lies in wait for hours on end satanically glaring at and spying on the unconscious girl whom he plans to seduce, adulterating her blood with the ultimate idea of bastardizing the white race which they hate and thus lowering its cultural and political level so that the Jew might dominate."

So we see that he thinks that Jews lower the political level of the "pure" Germans.


We all would agree that Hitler didn't like Communism, right? Well, he claimed that 75% of all Communists were Jews.

Hitler also claimed they lost WW1 because of the Jews, and many other ridiculous things. I feel this demonstrates that he was frankly, a sick 🤬.

 

[Public'sTwin]

*stuff*

Not to dismiss what you've said, but to the subject at hand—the morality of torture, and by extension the rights of those subjected to it, and by extension the rights of others subject to other forms of torture (including corruption of sovereign rights)—is very much linked to the issue which arises, inevitably questioning Who can determine what is moral or not?

To alienate the rights of anyone, regardless of "culture", is a crime: universal rights exist within this world, and other, more extensive and particular rights, exist within nations. He violated both of these. In a national context, he committed many violations which were as fundamental as those laid out in the Magna Carta; that he saw this as a morally just action is indefensible because he didn't seek democratic approval of his actions, and so circumvented a sacred right which the minority is supposed to be protected by. Any way you look at it, he has consciously violated a number of moral standards.

To write him off as sick in the head regarding jews may be valid, but to obfuscate the matter of his heinous actions with excuses of mental derangement is to fly in the face of his rise to, and obvious quest for, power—which, as we all know, France couldn't even stop. And it takes a very analytical, critical mind to accomplish a couple of those things. (As well as a charismatic, manipulative one, at that.)

PS- The only thing worse than Mein Kampf was Twilight, which was least humorous, if unintentionally.

 

[Famine]

Well, who defines this right? Who comes up with it?

There is a single fundamental truth. "I am".

Given that this is fundamental truth, it may not be denied. That is "I am" may not become "I am not" (though, given time, it becomes "you are not"). "I am" defines your existence, "I am not" defines your lack of existence - that is your life and your death. It is not the domain of any individual to move you from life to death - thus you have a right to life.

Using your own life as a basis, you can extrapolate that other people also have an "I am". If they didn't, who is it that can - but may not - cause your death? So, similarly, they have a right to life also.

Your existence means that everyone has a right to life.

(note that the right to life means that alone. You may exist because you do exist)

From this you can also deduce other rights. The right not to be harmed for instance (your existence is confined to your physical body, so you and you alone have domain over it), or the right to property (you own things by sale of your existence/body, or at the behest of others who have sold their existence/body). However the list is quite short and doesn't contain the right to kill (which denies the first truth) or the right to any life-prolonging substances (which have to be made/provided by someone else's sale of their body; they determine the price of the sale, you do not).


Where the problems arise is when people seek to deny others' rights, either individually (criminals) or collectively (law - the irony!). Hitler's actions were criminal - as he personally sought to deny the rights of people - and legal - as laws were passed in that country which permitted him to do so. The actions of north Atlantic countries during the Slave Trade era were criminal - individuals denied the rights of their slaves - and legal - as laws were in place that allowed them to do so. It's not hard to come up with examples of laws even today, even in our own countries, which ultimately deny "I am" (though these are often subject to debate regarding the necessity of a societal "we are" above a personal "I am", which I would reject). Just because something is legal doesn't mean it is right (or a right) or moral - and vice versa.


Criminals are tougher to deal with. Does someone who kills (right to life), assaults (right to self) or steals (right to property) give up all his own rights? Do they give up any? Is it moral to take from a thief, assault an attacker or kill a killer? Is it moral for policemen to shoot dead a man who just shot a colleague, or should that man's right to life be preserved?

And that's the point of the thread

 

[Joel]

Thanks for clearing up the "right to self" stuff. I am just no where near the calibre of debate that you guys are .

 

[FoolKiller]

My point is that while in our mind, the holocaust was the ultimate evil, In his mind it was justified. So we can't call him evil. I am a firm subjective moralist, because cultures accept different things.

Serial killers and pedophiles are usually mentally unhealthy and do not see what they do as a problem. Would you say we shouldn't lock them away for their actions because they don't see a problem with it?

For example, in some parts of the word, they eat Dogs. In our part of the world, we eat cows. Who's justified?

Animal rights are not human rights. This has zero bearing on this conversation unless you are someone that thinks animals should have equal rights to humans. Dogs and cows are all animals, thus potential food.

 

[Joel]

Serial killers and pedophiles are usually mentally unhealthy and do not see what they do as a problem. Would you say we shouldn't lock them away for their actions because they don't see a problem with it?


Animal rights are not human rights. This has zero bearing on this conversation unless you are someone that thinks animals should have equal rights to humans. Dogs and cows are all animals, thus potential food.

Ok, the animal rights was an analogy, and a bad one at that. I'm not someone who thinks they should have equal rights. I actually had a burger for lunch today .

And you raise a good point about the mental health issue. I never said that i don't think they should be locked up, I am trying to say we shouldn't call them evil people.

 

[FoolKiller]

And you raise a good point about the mental health issue. I never said that i don't think they should be locked up, I am trying to say we shouldn't call them evil people.

Unless you want to argue Hitler had a mental instability, he implemented genocide as a political move. I call that evil. He purposely attempted to kill an entire group of innocent people in order to improve the economic status of the country and his political position.

 

[niky]

Actually... Hitler was certifiably insane. If he wasn't, it wouldn't have been so easy for the Allies to win at the end of the war... (relatively easy, anyway)...

Serial killers and pedophiles are usually mentally unhealthy and do not see what they do as a problem. Would you say we shouldn't lock them away for their actions because they don't see a problem with it?

Any human whose view of other humans are as objects instead of people (and this, psychologically, is the issue with serial killers... they don't view other people as sentient beings... merely as objects with no inherent human rights) denies himself/herself of the right to be viewed as a human being... whether it's their fault or not.

Animal rights are not human rights. This has zero bearing on this conversation unless you are someone that thinks animals should have equal rights to humans. Dogs and cows are all animals, thus potential food.

Dogs taste like dirt. I still don't understand why some people would rather eat them than a nice, buttery slice of goat.

 

[Dotini]

"According to polls, Americans support torture, a violation of both US and international law, and Americans don't mind that their government violates the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act and spies on them without obtaining warrants from a court. Apparently, the brave citizens of the "sole remaining superpower" are so afraid of terrorists that they are content to give up liberty for safety, an impossible feat.

With stunning insouciance, Americans have given up the rule of law that protected their liberty. The silence of law schools and bar associations indicates that the age of liberty has passed. In short, the American people support tyranny. And that's where they are headed."
http://www.rense.com/general88/amrs.htm

 

[Sureboss]

"Sole remaining superpower"? Lolwut?

 

[Gil]

There is no simple answer to the torture question.
It may be more "noble" of us to accord enemies that have declared "holy war" on us the "comforts" of the Geneva Convention.
(Cover your heads, this is where I throw in the can of worms)

But keep in mind, they didn't agree to do the same for us.
I find it strangely paradoxical that the same people in our government that renounce the Bible and it's principles, want to "turn the other cheek", and extend the fruit of human kindness to our enemies. They want us to be nicer and more accepting in the hopes of being accepted.

Wake up westerners! We are considered infidels, with our scantily clad women, sexual perversions, lack of religious discipline, etc.
As such we are to be either converted, or destroyed.
In Afganistan, if our soldiers are captured, they are not imprisoned and treated like "semi-esteemed guests that can't leave". They are beaten, starved, and tortured. Not for information, but so that they can be heard screaming across the field of battle to demoralize the troops that they are fighting against.

The mistake that we make over and over is imagining that our enemies think like we do.
Giving our POW's the comforts of home shows us as weak in their eyes.
Crime and Punishment in the west is VERY different than in the middle East.

Here a thief gets jail time, then is released eventually. Likely to steal again.
In the middle east a thief loses his right hand. The cultural significance of that being the remaning hand is considered the hand that is worthy only for self hygiene (wiping one's ass) and that person can no longer even eat in public. Plus he is visibly marked as a thief.
A woman caught in adultery is taken out and stoned to death. (That is, she is stood in a shallow pit and rocks are viciously throw at her till she dies from the trauma)

The point is, in a country where the punishment for a crime is pretty much torture, how are we supposed to make any forward progress in "winning" the war, if we are weak, sniveling cowards in the eyes of the enemy.

They don't fear being captured by us, cause their lives get markedly easier in captivity. However, even our toughest troops would rather die than be captured....

Just a little something to think about.

 

[hambone8611]

I beleve there are reasons that justafy torture but punishment is not amung them

 

[DK]

If you could torture a brutal dictator who has killed millions, you would probably consider it.

 

[CraftyLandShark]

The point is, in a country where the punishment for a crime is pretty much torture, how are we supposed to make any forward progress in "winning" the war, if we are weak, sniveling cowards in the eyes of the enemy.

They don't fear being captured by us, cause their lives get markedly easier in captivity. However, even our toughest troops would rather die than be captured....

Just a little something to think about.

I'll concede that the debate becomes somewhat dodgy when it's reduced to the point of lifeboat ethics - in this case a "terrorist with codes to disarm a ticking bomb" scenario. That, however, (A) isn't reality and (B) doesn't change the fact that institutionalized torture is observably contrary to the principles of a civilized democratic nation.

Your entire argument boils down to this: "They do it to us, why shouldn't we do it to them?"

If we're fighting for democratic principles for which we hold sacrosanct respect, where is the morality in compromising those principles to defend them?

You say, with some noticeable derision, in your first paragraph that it might be more 'noble' to follow the Geneva convention with regards to captured terrorists. If 'nobility' is how you define civilized behavior, then yes, I argue that it's extremely 'noble' to maintain one's principles, particularly when they're challenged.

Likewise, I fail to see how the enemy viewing us as "weak, sniveling cowards" should concern us too terribly much, especially in light of your own description of how justice functions in their society. One does not make justifiable progress in war (a war of tactics OR a war of ideas) by embracing methods used by the enemy that directly compromise what one knows to be morally right. I'm certain you wouldn't think it a moral decision for Russian soldiers to murder villages full of Afgan women and children, despite that fact that in the process they might be killing a few combatants? Or for that matter, map the same analogy onto the U.S. presence in Vietnam, where exactly the same thing happened for precisely the same reasons.

For that matter, let's use a more directly applicable lesson from history. Was it contextually moral for the Catholic church to torture thousands of innocents for heresy, despite the fact that it had the 'positive' effect of quashing dissent for a time?

Broadly stated, one of the primary goals of Islamic fundamentalism is to make US more like THEM. I think it's fairly simple to conclude that engaging in torture would not only be a moral failing on our part, but would be a victory for them.

 

[Dotini]

Broadly stated, one of the primary goals of Islamic fundamentalism is to make US more like THEM. [/I].

Very nice post, CraftyLandShark, and I closely agree. However, I have to somewhat question whether Islamic fundamentalists are into proselytizing like fundamentalist Christians are. I have to believe they would greatly prefer that our troops not occupy their lands, that our government not support so many corrupt, apostate torturing Arab dictators, and that US policy vis-a-vis Israel and Palestine were slightly more evenhanded.

Respectfully yours,
Dotini

 

[Gil]

Crafty,
If it was possible to win 'em over with kindness, I'd opt for that option every time!

But you will note that one of the smallest countries in the middle east is surrounded by nations that want to wipe them from the face of earth. (That would be Isreal).

But it is known that when you take one of theirs, or kill one busful with a suicide bomb, They will find out who was responsible, and take out the ENTIRE neighborhood where he is if neccessary to kill him.

As a result, many are somewhat circumspect in their attacks on Isreal.

I don't condone the use of torture wholesale. Obviously, neither does the government, or they wouldn't try so hard to keep it secret.

Frankly, the use of torture to obtain information is pretty flawed as a tactic.
There are so many better ways to obtain information that is much more likely to be truthful....

 

[Sam48]

What would rather do, torture someone, or let thousands of people die?... I think I'll torture someone.

 

[Dotini]

What would rather do, torture someone, or let thousands of people die?... I think I'll torture someone.

I think you have a problem.

 

[hambone8611]

If you could torture a brutal dictator who has killed millions, you would probably consider it.

I would not have to consider anything I would do it without hesatatian. puting the video on utube is the part that requires consideration as pink floyd wrote [a warning to anyone still in comand]

 

[Sam48]

I think you have a problem.

So you'd rather have thousands of people die?

 

[Tired Tyres]

So you'd rather have thousands of people die?

Would you be happy if someone mistakenly thought you were going to be responsible for killing thousands of people and therefore decided it was alright to torture you?

Or to put it another way don't do to others what you wouldn't want them to do to you.