On the Morality of Torture

[bass264]

I'm against it but in this period in time the majority of people are humanitarian like...

 

[Sam48]

I agree that using torture as a punishment is an inhumane thing to do.

So according to you, presumably, we should have never even sent our troops over after 9/11.

 

[dylansan]

If torturing one person for information could spare many more people of misery, then it would theoretically be moral. However, that assumes torture actually works, and that there aren't better ways of getting that information or preventing misery, which I don't believe is true.

 

[CSLACR]

Reports have surfaced that the US has engaged in waterboarding interrogation of captured terrorist organization leaders to obtain information about upcoming attacks. Many people (including Sheppard Smith at Fox news) are outraged by the notion that the US engages in anything considered torture.

Some would argue that we have to torture because the ends justify the means. They would say that if we have to torture one person to save the lives of millions, it is worthwhile. I disagree wholeheartedly with this position. The ends do not justify the means, the beginnings do.

To take the opinion that torture of any kind is never acceptable is to take the position that human beings always have a right not to be tortured - regardless of their actions. This is a pretty strong statement, and it misunderstands the nature of human rights.

Rights exist in part because they are reciprocal. In order to ask me to observe your rights, you must observe mine. The instant you violate my rights, you forfeit some of your own. This simply must be true - due to the nature of rights. The reason rights exist is because human beings cannot be considered objectively superior to one another. But to allow one person to violate the rights of another, and then continue to protect that person's rights is to consider him objectively superior. If one man is legitimately allowed to violate anyone else's rights, but everyone else is still required to observe his - that man is being considered morally superior - which invalidates rights entirely.

So human rights must be reciprocal, which means no rights are exempt from forfeit. If someone tortures you, and you have not violated anyone's rights, that person is open to torture himself. I wholly reject the notion that any rights exist that cannot be forfeit (including torture). For this to be the case is to invalidate rights altogether.

For that reason, and perhaps that reason alone, torture can be a legitimate practice. Used against those who have attempted to, or have succeeded in killing thousands of innocent people, torture can be a legitimate and useful practice.


Your thoughts...

I...I...I think I just gained two IQ points.
I may be two some years late to the party, but this couldn't be more correct.

I've always struggled with whether or not "the ends can ever justify the means", and I don't think there's a clear answer for that, but this is just brilliant.

Please, anyone who just clicked "last page", please do give this a thorough reading, it's very deserving.

 

[Bram Turismo]

So according to you, presumably, we should have never even sent our troops over after 9/11.

Huh? I'm dearly hoping I just misread your post entirely.

"Hey, this one guy sent his most crazy extremists on a terrorist attack. Let's send our troops and torture whatever human we can possibly classify as a terrorist to try and extract something which won't solve anything."

That's as equally evil as murder.

 

[Danoff]

I...I...I think I just gained two IQ points.
I may be two some years late to the party, but this couldn't be more correct.

I've always struggled with whether or not "the ends can ever justify the means", and I don't think there's a clear answer for that, but this is just brilliant.

Please, anyone who just clicked "last page", please do give this a thorough reading, it's very deserving.

Thanks for the kind words.

 

[Sam48]

Huh? I'm dearly hoping I just misread your post entirely.

"Hey, this one guy sent his most crazy extremists on a terrorist attack. Let's send our troops and torture whatever human we can possibly classify as a terrorist to try and extract something which won't solve anything."

That's as equally evil as murder.

So what do you believe we should do then?

First of all, TankAss95, who I originally responded to, is against torture. I asked then if he believes that sending our troops over in order to defend our country is a good thing. Apparently, you think not. So, let me start by saying we didn't just "torture whatever human we could possibly classify as a terrorist". We tortured terrorists who were either suspected of being involved in the planning of future attacks (Or 9/11), or terrorists who were certainly known to be involved in the 9/11 attack.

And no, it's not equally as evil as murder. Murder ends someone's life forever, torture might leave you with a permanent bruise or two (Basically your average day waltzing around the ghettos)

 

[Ibonibo]

Thanks for the kind words.

I just read what csl quoted.

I disagree, rofl.

I agree with you to a certain extent, and the rest is probably due to cultural differences.
I agree that a human which violates rights of other, looses some of his. But their are basic human rights (un, Eu, Us,...),( I think It's you who completely estimates the Un declarat. not good enough, but that is an other subject), like
" No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment."
that shouldn't be broken but that doesn't mean that he should not loose some of his rights.
I think everyone has the right to a correct trial (not some quick one) and than the sentence should be in accordance to his infractions.

That is my intellectual opinion.

Now if it would concern me directly like someone straps a bomb to a beloved one and torture would be the only reason to get to disarm it, I would do it.
People In Belgium also rather would love that Dutroux would be dead than imprissoned on their taxes.
Or a family where the daughter was raped and killed, also would kile to see to combat fire with fire.
Or other exemples,...

That is why the people concerned by the crime should never be allowed to make the sentence.
because they are too much involved personnally and don't have their point of view outside.


A great exemple of humanity in this regard is the Iranian woman (think it is Iran) who got her eyes burnt my acide from cousin, and had the right to do the same to the cousin. And she wanted to do it.
The day before the punishement she decided not to.

 

[Kent]

For a second I thought I might come in and help out with reasonable views. After reading the first post...
I see I am not needed here and the thread is in good hands.
Keep up the extremely reasonable and logical replies, they give me hope!

Reports have surfaced that the US has engaged in waterboarding interrogation of captured terrorist organization leaders to obtain information about upcoming attacks. Many people (including Sheppard Smith at Fox news) are outraged by the notion that the US engages in anything considered torture.

Some would argue that we have to torture because the ends justify the means. They would say that if we have to torture one person to save the lives of millions, it is worthwhile. I disagree wholeheartedly with this position. The ends do not justify the means, the beginnings do.

To take the opinion that torture of any kind is never acceptable is to take the position that human beings always have a right not to be tortured - regardless of their actions. This is a pretty strong statement, and it misunderstands the nature of human rights.

Rights exist in part because they are reciprocal. In order to ask me to observe your rights, you must observe mine. The instant you violate my rights, you forfeit some of your own. This simply must be true - due to the nature of rights. The reason rights exist is because human beings cannot be considered objectively superior to one another. But to allow one person to violate the rights of another, and then continue to protect that person's rights is to consider him objectively superior. If one man is legitimately allowed to violate anyone else's rights, but everyone else is still required to observe his - that man is being considered morally superior - which invalidates rights entirely.

So human rights must be reciprocal, which means no rights are exempt from forfeit. If someone tortures you, and you have not violated anyone's rights, that person is open to torture himself. I wholly reject the notion that any rights exist that cannot be forfeit (including torture). For this to be the case is to invalidate rights altogether.

For that reason, and perhaps that reason alone, torture can be a legitimate practice. Used against those who have attempted to, or have succeeded in killing thousands of innocent people, torture can be a legitimate and useful practice.


Your thoughts...

 

[Hun200kmh]

There will always exist justification for torturing others. It's only a question of assessing a few things first:

1 - We are the good guys, they are the bad guys (the "moral grounds" rule)

2 - If we don't torture the baddies we get, they'll do even more of their bad stuff. (the
"ends justify the means" rule)

3 - They torture us so why wouldn't we act the same (the "retribution" rule)

These 3 very simple rules allowed just about EVERYONE in the history of mankind to torture their own enemies. I suspect torture is an integral part of war and no treaty, even within the supposedly civilized nations, will put an end to it.

And I have no problems with it. But please ... don't try to be "moral" about it. Just realize you are referring to the 3 rules.

Of course you think you are the good guy.
Of course you will save good guys by torturing bad guys.
Of course they do it also.

And ... of course they think exactly the same as you do about this, they also apply the 3 rules, and they'll torture you if they get their hands on you.

Can you handle the truth?

 

[Danoff]

I just read what csl quoted.

I disagree, rofl.

I agree with you to a certain extent, and the rest is probably due to cultural differences.
I agree that a human which violates rights of other, looses some of his. But their are basic human rights (un, Eu, Us,...),( I think It's you who completely estimates the Un declarat. not good enough, but that is an other subject), like
" No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment."
that shouldn't be broken but that doesn't mean that he should not loose some of his rights.

That's not reciprocal though. Requiring individuals to observe the rights of those who do not observe theirs violates the fundamental assumption behind rights that all human beings are equal.

I think everyone has the right to a correct trial (not some quick one) and than the sentence should be in accordance to his infractions.

Until you've been tried and convicted, you haven't forfeit anything.

A great exemple of humanity in this regard is the Iranian woman (think it is Iran) who got her eyes burnt my acide from cousin, and had the right to do the same to the cousin. And she wanted to do it.
The day before the punishement she decided not to.

That's compassion, something that exists outside of rights.

Edit: Ok here's the deal. You can have a country that outlaws torture, but you have to be aware that you're treating some people better than their victims. Maybe you're fine with that, but you're elevating someone's right above what pure rationality requires. Again, this is a fine policy for a country to have, it is legislated compassion. But compassion is not what dictates human rights.

And I have no problems with it. But please ... don't try to be "moral" about it. Just realize you are referring to the 3 rules.

Which one of those am I doing?

 

[tribolik]

That guy killed 100p in a terrorist attack and knows when the next one will be... lets torture him...

One month later, Im afraid we tortured the wrong guy before...

 

[Danoff]

Not particularly relevant. Whether or not you can determine innocence or guilt is a separate problem from determining morality.

 

[Hun200kmh]

Which one of those am I doing?

If I understand your post correctly, you are basing the "morality" of torture on the "retribution rule". If they use it, so will you. You think that by not practising torture in a war against people that use it you would be to consider "them" objectively superior.

Since all sides in all wars claim the other side uses torture ... that makes the "morality issue" you are raising very simple.

 

[Danoff]

If I understand your post correctly, you are basing the "morality" of torture on the "retribution rule". If they use it, so will you. You think that by not practising torture in a war against people that use it you would be to consider "them" objectively superior.

Since all sides in all wars claim the other side uses torture ... that makes the "morality issue" you are raising very simple.

I'm actually not basing anything on the country's actions. If Iran is torturing one of our soldiers, that does not give us the right to torture one of theirs. The person actually being tortured needs to be guilty of something that requires forfeiture of his rights.

So it's not that we "think" they'd torture us, or that they do torture our soldiers, it's that this man we're about to torture has committed heinous crimes and has through his own actions forfeit his rights.

 

[Kent]

I love seeing people who understand someone like Rand applying the thought process, especially on the net.

 

[A2K78]

Anybody who support torture should be subjected to this form barbarism..let them see what its really like.

 

[TankAss95]

I'm actually not basing anything on the country's actions. If Iran is torturing one of our soldiers, that does not give us the right to torture one of theirs. The person actually being tortured needs to be guilty of something that requires forfeiture of his rights.

So it's not that we "think" they'd torture us, or that they do torture our soldiers, it's that this man we're about to torture has committed heinous crimes and has through his own actions forfeit his rights.

So you believe it is moral to use torture as a punishment? Obviously one cannot "prove" whether an action is moral or immoral, and I can understand if you think such an action can be justifiable. I would just be grateful if you could confirm your stance on such matter.

 

[Kent]

Anybody who support torture should be subjected to this form barbarism..let them see what its really like.

Now you are guilty of the retalliation rule, see how that works?

Btw, danoffs stance seems clear to me but that could just be the years of university classes and professional continuing education on ethics coming into play.

 

[Danoff]

So you believe it is moral to use torture as a punishment?

Yes, provided that the punishment fits the crime. I'm not necessarily saying that a country HAS to use torture as punishment, or that it's a good idea to use torture as punishment, only that it is not a violation of human rights if it fits the crime.

 

[Tired Tyres]

Yes, provided that the punishment fits the crime. I'm not necessarily saying that a country HAS to use torture as punishment, or that it's a good idea to use torture as punishment, only that it is not a violation of human rights if it fits the crime.

I cannot except that any form of civilised human being can take that stance. I do not care what someone does as a crime. There can never be any justification in sinking to their level to administer a so-called punishment. It is inhuman.

 

[Famine]

I cannot except that any form of civilised human being can take that stance. I do not care what someone does as a crime. There can never be any justification in sinking to their level to administer a so-called punishment. It is inhuman.

Taking what was pointed out in the NYC protest thread, the three basic human rights are life, liberty and property. Here's you're drawing the line at removing one right - one derived from the right to life - in response to a criminal act. Would you object to removing one fundamental right - liberty - in response to a criminal act?

 

[Grayfox]

Torture should not be done period as you can be doing it to someone that is innocent.

or you just don't stop torturing until you hear what you want to hear regardless of guilt.

The Australian Federal Police thought Dr Muhamed Haneef he was a terrorist while their was no evidence to prove it so he was put in to solitary confinement for 23 hours a day, had his visa cancelled and lost his good job.

Now if this was in America they may have tortured him for more information.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muhamed_Haneef

 

[Famine]

Torture should not be done period as you can be doing it to someone that is innocent.

Then neither should you lock anyone up as that is a breach of a more fundamental right.

 

[Tired Tyres]

Taking what was pointed out in the NYC protest thread, the three basic human rights are life, liberty and property. Here's you're drawing the line at removing one right - one derived from the right to life - in response to a criminal act. Would you object to removing one fundamental right - liberty - in response to a criminal act?

I see what I did there. I'm not saying no punishment for a crime. I draw the line at torture as being regarded as valid as punishment for any crime at all.

 

[Dennisch]

Mel Gibson seems to like it.




Ok, I'll be gone now.

 

[TankAss95]

What's good for the goose is good for the gander.

Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.

If it is justifiable for the regime in power here and now to institutionalize torture, then why not for all the other regimes in power everywhere and at all times?

In my heart, I believe that torture is wrong, sick and sadistic. Quite likely the same thing applies to those who practice it and would seek to justify it either before or after the fact. In any case, it is a slippery slope leading to ever greater depravity and perversion. We need to walk this back, not follow the path of darkness.

Respectfully submitted,
Dotini

Agree 100%. Sometimes I find it quite hard to express my opinions or how I feel about a particular topic over the internet, but this pretty much sums up what I really think about torture as a whole.

 

[Kent]

IMHO it is torture to use jails as it tortures the soul and kills your right to freedom. I guess we should just open the jails!
Then again, Im blinded by idealism and feel like bunnies and unicorns are hiding in the hearts of extremist who will not even give women educations, voting rights, or anything close to equality.

 

[Danoff]

I see what I did there. I'm not saying no punishment for a crime. I draw the line at torture as being regarded as valid as punishment for any crime at all.

Do you think it's a violation of human rights?

 

[Tired Tyres]

Do you think it's a violation of human rights?

Since human rights don't exist outside human intellectual concept it is down to individual opinion. My opinion is that to torture is a violation of my idea of human rights.