On the Morality of Torture

[Joel]

Since human rights don't exist outside human intellectual concept

 

[Kent]

Intellectual discussion removed from the outside world always leads to a good show.
It's also the base of many college educations.
Including mine.

 

[Danoff]

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.

...and what is your idea of human rights and where do they come from?

 

[Tired Tyres]

...and what is your idea of human rights and where do they come from?

From intellect. Where else could they come from?

 

[Hun200kmh]

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

I am amazed at this. Prison affects one's physical liberty. Torture is destined to bend your will through severe physical or psychological pain. To defend an ethical equivalence between both (or even that prison is ethically worse) is beyond wrong. I lack the knowledge of the English language to come up with a word good enough to describe how wrong.

 

[Famine]

I am amazed at this. Prison affects one's physical liberty. Torture is destined to bend your will through severe physical or psychological pain. To defend an ethical equivalence between both (or even that prison is ethically worse) is beyond wrong. I lack the knowledge of the English language to come up with a word good enough to describe how wrong.

Life is a fundamental right. Liberty is an emergent right from life. Property is an emergent right from life. Freedom from physical harm is an emergent right from life.

We take people's property for committing certain crimes - forfeiting their rights - though we don't take their property for committing any crime. We take people's liberty for committing certain crimes - forfeiting their rights - though we don't take their liberty for committing any crime. We even take people's lives for committing certain crimes - forfeiting their rights - though we don't take their life for committing any crime. Why can we not bestow physical harm for committing certain crimes when it is less fundamental than the right to life and equal to the right to freedom and property?

 

[Hun200kmh]

The right to kill as legal punishment for a crime isn't one I concede also, but the death penalty isn't being debated. To take away a man's physical freedom isn't depriving him of liberty. And it isn't also to deprive him of human dignity. Torture does both. And, for the sake of this discussion, let me state that I value human dignity higher than human liberty. I'd have my liberty taken away from me in order to defend my dignity.

 

[Famine]

To take away a man's physical freedom isn't depriving him of liberty.

That's exactly what it is. The right to liberty is the right not to be held against your will. Imprisonment is holding you against your will. That's classed as a valid punishment for certain crimes, though not all. It's also a right derived from the right to life.

The right to not be harmed is the right not to be physically injured or insulted against your will. Torture (and in fact all forms of corporal punishment, including flogging and caning) is physically injuring and insulting you against your will. Why can that never be considered a valid punishment for certain crimes, though not all? It's also a right derived from the right to life.

 

[Hun200kmh]

You are mistaken. Torture isn't even a punishment. Physical punishments also exist and have existed in history, but, again, they don't relate to torture.

And on prison vs. liberty, you are again mistaken, although here we can be discussing words and I'm afraid I'm not familiar with the English ones. But I'll say this. Liberty as the fundamental human right is in no way related to the problem of punishment for crimes, through prisons. "Liberty" the human right refers to the very definition of what a crime is. But to explain this all, in this forum's official language, would now be time consumming for me, perhaps at a later moment.

 

[Famine]

You are mistaken. Torture isn't even a punishment.

Please explain in words of one Spanish Inquisition.

And on prison vs. liberty, you are again mistaken, although here we can be discussing words and I'm afraid I'm not familiar with the English ones. But I'll say this. Liberty as the fundamental human right is in no way related to the problem of punishment for crimes, through prisons. "Liberty" the human right refers to the very definition of what a crime is. But to explain this all, in this forum's official language, would now be time consumming for me, perhaps at a later moment.

Imprisoning you against your will is a breach of your right to liberty - the right not to be held against your will. That is what the right of liberty is!

You have the right to life (not the right to not die, rather the right not to be killed), the right to liberty (not to be incarcerated against your will), the right to property (the right to own things through your endeavours) and the right to your body (the right not to be allowed to come to harm). Each can be rationally established from the previous ones (except the first). If you're seeking to redefine these rights you need to rationally establish them rather than just repeatedly saying "You're wrong" and not backing it up.

We put criminals in prison for some crimes. We take criminals' property for some crimes. We take criminals' lives for some crimes. But we cannot inflict physical harm on a criminal for some crimes? Seems massively inconsistent.

 

[Kent]

I'd have my liberty taken away from me in order to defend my dignity.

For those who speak chappell and not uni-corn...
The above quote translates to:

When keeping it real goes wrong!

Btw if you think prison isnt torture mentally or physically you probably need to see a race based gang riot or plan old rape to get exactly what the reality of prison is for just about every one.

report submitted to DOJ on the culture of Prison sexual violence

 

[Hun200kmh]

Please explain in words of one Spanish Inquisition.

Can't for two good reasons. One, the words of the spanish inquisition would be either latin or spanish, not English and this one is the official language of this forum. Two, I know nothing of Latin, and even less of Spanish then I know of English.

But what can I say ... it is very simple, the difference between physical punishment and torture. The first is a punishment, nothing is required of the "punished". The second is done to get something out of the tortured. Something he is not willing to give. Tipically, a confession, or something we want to know and the tortured doesn't want to tell us.

That's why I referred above to torture as something ...

... destined to bend your will through severe physical or psychological pain

Imprisoning you against your will is a breach of your right to liberty - the right not to be held against your will. That is what the right of liberty is!

No, it isn't. And again it amazes me that you can honestly think that. Do you think all the theories, all the philosophers, all the revolutions in history that related to the fight for liberty were about a fight against ... prisons?

No, it was a fight against states or whatever other form of human social/political organizations that would violate the more basic intellectual rights of Thought and of Speech. Meaning, the liberty of free thought (to think for yourself) and the liberty of free speech, therefore, to say what you think to all that want to listen. All other connected "freedoms" (Assembly, Association, Education, Information, Movement, Press, Religion, whatever else on free self determination and free choices of life) are instrumental to those first two and none of them stands if neither of those first two stand also.

You have the right to life (not the right to not die, rather the right not to be killed), the right to liberty (not to be incarcerated against your will), the right to property (the right to own things through your endeavours) and the right to your body (the right not to be allowed to come to harm). Each can be rationally established from the previous ones (except the first). If you're seeking to redefine these rights you need to rationally establish them rather than just repeatedly saying "You're wrong" and not backing it up.

I'm not seeking to redefine anything, but you are. And in fact trying to redefine a well-known, well-established concept (the human right of liberty), by reducing it to a worthless shadow of itself (the right not to be incarcerated against your will).


I don't particularly feel the need or indeed the duty of "backing up" any of what I wrote but hey, this is the internetz and people tend to be faced with these "back up" demands. I'll go no further on it than the "internetz" mother of knowledge (fitting, isn't it?), so I'll quote here the beggining of the wikipedia's article on liberty

Liberty is a moral and political principle, or Right, that identifies the condition in which human beings are able to govern themselves, to behave according to their own free will, and take responsibility for their actions. There are different conceptions of liberty, which articulate the relationship of individuals to society in different ways, including some which relate to life under a "social contract" or to existence in a "state of nature", and some which see the active exercise of freedom and rights as essential to liberty.
Individualist and classical liberal conceptions of liberty typically consist of the freedom of individuals from outside compulsion or coercion, also known as negative liberty, while Social liberal conceptions of liberty emphasize social structure and agency, or positive liberty.

Adding, to conclude, that even the "negative liberty" concept, although apparently closer to your own definition, is still fundamentally different because it relates to the freedom from outside compulsion or coercion over thought and speech. All else following. Logically.

 

[Ibonibo]

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.
...
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.

As I understand it the difference between our opinion is that you don't want to elevate the criminals rights above those of the victim.
And I don't want to reduce my humanity on the same level as the those of the criminal.
Damm, it sounded clearer in my head rofl than what i wrote.

But as I said I think that is a cultural differences between US and EU.
EU wants to be the humanitairian
Us wants to punish those who did bad

That was now in general, not only on torture.

On torture: If you torture a human being long enough he will admit and sign everything just in order to have a relief of the pain inflicted.
Also what will happen to the people who will torture. You think they enjoy that (if they do, you will create a monster worse than the torturee). One of the Texan prison exectutioner (he had done more than a 100) said that he will have for the rest of his life nightmares about all the people he killed in the name of a state, he is heavily depressive,...
And can you be 100% sure, unless you caught him in the act, that you torturing the right guy.

Just to show the difference: In germany a young millionaire boy was kidnapped a few years ago, and the police only treatened the suspect of torture to know where he was guarding the boy. Well that was enough for a court to rule that already as torture and the responible officers needed to quit their position.
Is it fair for the officers in that case (for me No)
Is the judgement fair (for me Yes)

The officer said he would do it again (and I agree)

(but what i think has not really importance)

The kid was found dead later.

@Kent:
When keeping it real goes wrong!

Man I need to rewatch those. Chapelle was hilarious
I'm rich .......

 

[dylansan]

I sort of disagree with you Famine. The ideal punishment for a crime would entail the least possible forfeiture of the criminals rights and the most effective prevention of further crimes. It's impossible to have both, so a balance needs to be found so criminals are much less able to commit more crimes, without just killing every criminal. Torture is a severe punishment that, on its own, does little to prevent further crime. Prison (ideally) just keeps the person away from society which is all that's really needed. Perpetrators of lesser crimes can be persuaded not to do it again by imposing fines or other forfeitures. Law enforcement should have nothing to do with karmic retribution, just making as many people as happy as possible. If we had infinite prison space with no chance of escape, the death penalty would be undeniably unnecessary. I still oppose the death penalty on the grounds that 100% certainty is impossible, but that's a different discussion.

 

[Famine]

Can't for two good reasons. One, the words of the spanish inquisition would be either latin or spanish, not English and this one is the official language of this forum. Two, I know nothing of Latin, and even less of Spanish then I know of English.

I believe you misinterpreted. The Spanish Inquisition is an example of torture used for both punishment and coercion... Torture can be used as punishment.

No, it isn't. And again it amazes me that you can honestly think that. Do you think all the theories, all the philosophers, all the revolutions in history that related to the fight for liberty were about a fight against ... prisons?

Again, I believe you have misinterpreted. Someone who is in prison has lost their liberty, thus imprisonment is an offence against the right of liberty.

No, it was a fight against states or whatever other form of human social/political organizations that would violate the more basic intellectual rights of Thought and of Speech. Meaning, the liberty of free thought (to think for yourself) and the liberty of free speech, therefore, to say what you think to all that want to listen. All other connected "freedoms" (Assembly, Association, Education, Information, Movement, Press, Religion, whatever else on free self determination and free choices of life) are instrumental to those first two and none of them stands if neither of those first two stand also.

I'm curious. What freedom of thought, speech, assembly, association, education, information, movement and press does one have when locked inside a small prison cell for a predetermined amount of time each day with predetermined individuals? When you mix how and when gaolers say. When the literature you have access to is limited by the gaolers.

Against what part of liberty does being separated from society and forcibly imprisoned not offend?

I'm not seeking to redefine anything, but you are. And in fact trying to redefine a well-known, well-established concept (the human right of liberty), by reducing it to a worthless shadow of itself (the right not to be incarcerated against your will).

It is the most basic form of that concept - if you are imprisoned against your will, every aspect of your life is governed by the individual or group that has you imprisoned. Imprisonment is an offence against all aspects of the right to liberty.

I don't particularly feel the need or indeed the duty of "backing up" any of what I wrote but hey, this is the internetz and people tend to be faced with these "back up" demands.

This is also GTPlanet's Opinions forum and if you're prepared to share your opinion you should also be prepared to have it challenged.

Adding, to conclude, that even the "negative liberty" concept, although apparently closer to your own definition, is still fundamentally different because it relates to the freedom from outside compulsion or coercion over thought and speech. All else following. Logically.

I'm not wholly sure what you think prison is, but there is no freedom of though or speech (both of which are merely derived rights) when you are locked up for 18 hours a day. I mean, sure, you're free to think about how exciting the grey concrete walls are, but that's pretty much the limit. I wonder how much thinking Elisabeth Fritzl did for 25 years. As for freedom of speech? Yes, just imagine how your fellow convicts take to you voicing whatever you see fit - not to mention the gaolers themselves. This guy used his "freedom of speech" to tell people he was being let out soon from his sentence after raping a 13 year old girl. They disembowelled him with a toothbrush. Freedom!

I sort of disagree with you Famine. The ideal punishment for a crime would entail the least possible forfeiture of the criminals rights and the most effective prevention of further crimes. It's impossible to have both, so a balance needs to be found so criminals are much less able to commit more crimes, without just killing every criminal. Torture is a severe punishment that, on its own, does little to prevent further crime. Prison (ideally) just keeps the person away from society which is all that's really needed. Perpetrators of lesser crimes can be persuaded not to do it again by imposing fines or other forfeitures. Law enforcement should have nothing to do with karmic retribution, just making as many people as happy as possible. If we had infinite prison space with no chance of escape, the death penalty would be undeniably unnecessary. I still oppose the death penalty on the grounds that 100% certainty is impossible, but that's a different discussion.

Your right to exist free of physical harm is just a derivation of your right to life. Your right to exist free of captivity beyond your wishes is just a derivation of your right to life. To exclude any possibility of a punishment involving the later you must also exclude any possibility of a punishment involving the former.

 

[Danoff]

From intellect. Where else could they come from?

Don't dodge. What constitutes a right to you and why? And furthermore, since you don't think anyone's idea of rights apply to anyone else, what makes you think anyone else should listen to your opinion about torture being a violation of your rights?

As I understand it the difference between our opinion is that you don't want to elevate the criminals rights above those of the victim.
And I don't want to reduce my humanity on the same level as the those of the criminal.

You do not reduce yourself to the level of the criminal by taking action against a criminal. If a man points and gun at you, shoots to kill, and misses and you then point a gun at him, shoot to kill, and hit... you are not a murderer. You took exactly the same action, but you didn't violate the rights of an innocent person. You shot someone who had forfeited his rights.

EU wants to be the humanitairian
Us wants to punish those who did bad

Don't make this a EU vs. US thing. I don't speak for the US, and you don't speak for the EU.

On torture: If you torture a human being long enough he will admit and sign everything just in order to have a relief of the pain inflicted.

Doesn't matter. But if this were the whole story, don't you think nobody would bother torturing anyone for information? Somehow this practice has lived on for centuries. It wouldn't have if it didn't produce results.

I'm sure that at the base of it, your statement is true. The people doing the torturing must have some sort of clever way of telling if the information is legit. Doesn't seem possible I know, but they must have found a way.

Also what will happen to the people who will torture. You think they enjoy that (if they do, you will create a monster worse than the torturee).

Doesn't matter. They volunteer for the job. I wouldn't advocate that anyone be forced into doing something they aren't comfortable with. And how do you know we're creating a monster here? How do you know we're not just providing a monster with a positive outlet? Ever watch Dexter?

One of the Texan prison exectutioner (he had done more than a 100) said that he will have for the rest of his life nightmares about all the people he killed in the name of a state, he is heavily depressive,...

Maybe he made a wrong choice.

And can you be 100% sure, unless you caught him in the act, that you torturing the right guy.

It is possible to catch people in the act.

Just to show the difference: In germany a young millionaire boy was kidnapped a few years ago, and the police only treatened the suspect of torture to know where he was guarding the boy. Well that was enough for a court to rule that already as torture and the responible officers needed to quit their position.

Threatening torture is not torture, just like threatening to hit someone is not hitting them. One of them is assault, the other is battery. Two completely different crimes.

 

[dylansan]

Your right to exist free of physical harm is just a derivation of your right to life. Your right to exist free of captivity beyond your wishes is just a derivation of your right to life. To exclude any possibility of a punishment involving the later you must also exclude any possibility of a punishment involving the former.

When we refer to an action as moral, does that mean its "an acceptable action within the bounds of human rights" or "the action that minimizes the violation or forfeiture of human rights"? I feel that you're using the first definition, where I would tend to use the second. In fact, I prefer to judge morality on a scale, rather than a black or white, "it is or it isn't" judgement. And in that case, I would consider torture not to be as moral an action as say, imprisonment, though that is based mostly on my opinion of which rights are more important. I will have to think about how to decide which rights are more important, because at the moment I can only think of subjective reasons.

 

[Dapper]

What constitutes a right to you and why?

Rights don't exist unless there is some math to back it up like every other natural law. Of course living in a society where people live and work together, usually so everyone is better off, requires a set of self imposed rules, laws or rights, to be made so everyone does benefit in some way. But that is my just my opinion, thanks for asking.

 

[Lain]

Torture as a punishment is barbaric and does nothing to improve the world.

It'd be better to try and rehabilitate/reform them, and also try to find and fix the root causes in society for their behavior.

 

[sniper338]

They chops hands off in the middle east for stealing, I bet the crime rate is pretty low from that. I'm not saying I agree with it but an extreme punishment like that would seem to be a good deterrent.

 

[Lain]

They chops hands off in the middle east for stealing, I bet the crime rate is pretty low from that. I'm not saying I agree with it but an extreme punishment like that would seem to be a good deterrent.

Two problems:

Like you said, it's extreme.

And stealing still happens.

 

[Danoff]

Rights don't exist unless there is some math to back it up like every other natural law. Of course living in a society where people live and work together, usually so everyone is better off, requires a set of self imposed rules, laws or rights, to be made so everyone does benefit in some way. But that is my just my opinion, thanks for asking.

My opinion is that to torture is a violation of my idea of human rights.

Just answer the question.

 

[Famine]

When we refer to an action as moral, does that mean its "an acceptable action within the bounds of human rights" or "the action that minimizes the violation or forfeiture of human rights"? I feel that you're using the first definition, where I would tend to use the second. In fact, I prefer to judge morality on a scale, rather than a black or white, "it is or it isn't" judgement. And in that case, I would consider torture not to be as moral an action as say, imprisonment, though that is based mostly on my opinion of which rights are more important.

Any action of punishment against an individual is a violation of human rights, so when judging what punishment is appropriate you are judging what human rights are to be forfeited.

It seems massively odd that people feel it's appropriate, where the crime suits, to remove the right to property (by confiscation/fine) or the right to liberty (by incarceration), but not the right to self (by physical punishment) when all three rights are equal in stature - derived from the basic right to life. We even feel it's appropriate, where the crime or threat of it suits, to remove that right too (by taking out Osama bin Laden or Saddam Hussein, or by shooting the burglar in your house before he can harm you) when that's a much more fundamental right - in fact the fundamental right from which all others, real or wishy-washy UN statement of what things are nice, are derived.

I will have to think about how to decide which rights are more important, because at the moment I can only think of subjective reasons.

Right to life is the fundamental right. All others are rationally derived from that. Right to liberty, right to self and right to property are primary derived rights - they can be directly, rationally derived from the fundamental right without reference to any others.

 

[Ibonibo]

You do not reduce yourself to the level of the criminal by taking action against a criminal. If a man points and gun at you, shoots to kill, and misses and you then point a gun at him, shoot to kill, and hit... you are not a murderer. You took exactly the same action, but you didn't violate the rights of an innocent person. You shot someone who had forfeited his rights.

Well In this one case there is an imminent threat for my life, so defending my life would be tolerable, even a given. Whereas when someone is already incarcerated there isn't an imminent threat for your life, so torturing him will not save your life, and not torturing him will not kill you

Don't make this a EU vs. US thing. I don't speak for the US, and you don't speak for the EU.

I don't speak for the EU. But it is the stance that our respective gouverments take, and that is a fact, not some subjective opinion. And it is a fact that there is a difference in how the US sees the penal system, and how the EU sees it.

Doesn't matter. But if this were the whole story, don't you think nobody would bother torturing anyone for information? Somehow this practice has lived on for centuries. It wouldn't have if it didn't produce results.

I'm sure that at the base of it, your statement is true. The people doing the torturing must have some sort of clever way of telling if the information is legit. Doesn't seem possible I know, but they must have found a way.

And there are also several other instruments besides torture to aquire information. I would fell bad for humanity if we wouldn't have evolved in that aspect since the middle age. We should always try to use non invasive/destructive instruments to gather information, than directly jump on the torture boat (i know you didn't imply that)

Doesn't matter. They volunteer for the job. I wouldn't advocate that anyone be forced into doing something they aren't comfortable with. And how do you know we're creating a monster here? How do you know we're not just providing a monster with a positive outlet? Ever watch Dexter?

Basing that agrument on a TV show may not be the best exemple. And maybe wait till they finish Dexter, maybe Dexters bounderies for identifying criminals will blur with time.
Also as referring to a TV show, in Lost, Saiid? (the iranian guy) shows what it does to a human to torture, and I think it shows a more realistic take on torture than Dexter ever could.


Maybe he made a wrong choice.

maybe he grew on the job and changed his opinion. Maybe he was also a hard guy before, but killing all those people made a click in his mind. you would maybe change your opinion too when you peeled off enough epiderm of hands of criminals.

It is possible to catch people in the act.

Yes it happens, but it was kind of rare.


Threatening torture is not torture, just like threatening to hit someone is not hitting them. One of them is assault, the other is battery. Two completely different crimes.

Well yes it is. It is psycologic torture.
On a side note, There is a french renaissance story about a guy imprisonned and taken the day to the guillotine in the morning. He was tortured for weeks before. On the night before his execution, he sees that his cell door is not locked. So slowly he realizes he can maybe escape.
When he's near the exit of the prison, the guards caught him and laught that they played a fine prank on him. They did that on purpose.

That too is torture, and it shows even more sadistical behavior, than simply executing a person or cutting of a toe

I guess we can agree that we don't agree. And That is a good thing, if everybody thought torture would be ok, we would torture people so theay admit they shoplifted. And it is also ok that people are in favor of it so that in case of a real need to do it there are people who would do it.
(south park and american dad had an episode on that subject, we need the 2 factions of believe)

It seems massively odd that people feel it's appropriate, where the crime suits, to remove the right to property (by confiscation/fine) or the right to liberty (by incarceration), but not the right to self (by physical punishment) when all three rights are equal in stature

I hope I misread that or that you didn't elaborate enough, but are you suggesting that physical punishement is or should be on the same latter as a financial punishement.??

So you get stopped by the cops for speeding and it would be ok to given the choice : 50€ or a toe?

 

[Famine]

I hope I misread that or that you didn't elaborate enough, but are you suggesting that physical punishement is or should be on the same latter as a financial punishement.??

, where the crime suits,

I'm suggesting that violating one primary derived right for a crime where that punishment would be appropriate should be treated no differently from violating another primary derived right for a crime where that punishment would be appropriate. Others are suggesting that it's just fine to violate any other primary or fundamental right where the crime suits those punishments, but are precluding any possibility that anyone can ever commit a crime where the suitable punishment is physical harm. It's bizarre - that's also a primary right, but we can't punish people with that one, just lock them up, take their stuff or kill them...

So you get stopped by the cops for speeding and it would be ok to given the choice : 50€ or a toe?

Would it be OK to be given the choice of a £60 fine or life imprisonment? Of course not, because the crime doesn't suit that punishment.

 

[dylansan]

When is torture appropriate? I would agree with you if it prevented crime any better than imprisonment, but torture necessitates imprisonment anyway, so why add to that?
You can't defend yourself from someone torturing you by torturing them back either, so I fail to see a circumstance where it is fair.

Just because a criminal forfeits his rights doesn't mean someone has to take advantage of that. Unnecessarily harming someone who's committed a crime is just that, unnecessary.

 

[Famine]

When is torture appropriate?

I don't know. I'm not advocating it - just saying that on the basis we deem [violate primary human right] is acceptable in [given situation involving forfeiture of rights], we can't exclude any instance of [primary human right] on any logical grounds.

 

[dylansan]

I think we can exclude certain punishments on the logical grounds that they are unnecessary. It can't be moral to harm someone if not for the purpose of improving society. It can't be moral to cause misery without removing other misery from the world by doing so.

Ultimately, our definition of morality based on human rights is flawed. It works in theory, but it's not the most practical solution. As a society, our goal should be to increase overall happiness as much as possible. Human rights partly accomplishes this, but forfeiture of those rights when committing a crime doesn't necessarily. Usually it does, but the real focus should be on preventing further crimes without taking away too many of the criminal's rights. We should ask ourselves, "what punishment is most effective at preventing crime yet causes the least misery?"

The punishment for someone who steals should not be limited to fines and taking away property. Some jail time (not life) is perfectly acceptable depending on the amount stolen. Similarly, the punishment for causing harm or torture should not be limited to torture. In fact, because it does so little to prevent further crime, it really shouldn't be the punishment at all. I don't know which punishments are most effective, or which should be used in place of torture, but that can be determined by considering their impact on the happiness of both the criminal receiving it and the general public who are further protected from certain violations of their rights.

 

[Famine]

I think we can exclude certain punishments on the logical grounds that they are unnecessary.

You'd have to demonstrate that it is. Danoff, earlier in the thread, posited a situation where it is necessary and useful - and we've already established that there is no logical reason to preclude it.

It can't be moral to harm someone if not for the purpose of improving society.

Society is irrelevant. It is immoral to harm (or kill, imprison, remove property from) someone for the purpose of improving society if they have not done anything that warrants it.

The purpose of rights isn't to establish society (or wrongs), but to establish responsibilities. I have a right not to be killed, you may not kill me and thus I have the responsibility not to kill you either. The purpose of government is to protect rights by the might of scale - force (domestically the police force and globally the armed forces).

The reason punishments like imprisonment, confiscation and death exist is not the betterment of society but the governmental protection of individual rights. We don't allow them to imprison, take from, kill or torture people just to make society a better place but to punish those who ignore the responsibilities that come with their rights.

This is why it's moral to take a man's knife away from him and give it back point first when you're in a situation where he wishes to deprive your right to property (and threaten your right to life) - by ignoring his responsibility to observe your rights he forfeits his own. Although it's not always legal to do so.

 

[Ibonibo]

I don't quote everything

@famine
The pysical right you talking about:
1. So when i have a car accident, and the other have a broken leg (physical harm), could he/ the state harm me physically ?

2. I still miss apart from all the fundamental rights, the human dignity, not only the dignity of the criminal, but also yours.
In the treatement , an eye for an eye, you lowering your dignity to the same level as those from the criminals (the same goes for torture, death penalities, or physical punishement, abuse)
3. Look at the generation where physical education was still prevalant. Did they do better than the generation after '68??


@dylan:
"It can't be moral to harm someone if not for the purpose of improving society. It can't be moral to cause misery without removing other misery from the world by doing so."

"Shocking."
The same kind arguments where used by the nazis. Committing a crime against a person or an entity to improve others lives is not a valid argument.


Also killing an innocent child to save others (numbers not important)? Do you approve.

If yes who kills the child.

And as we use movie/ Tv references : Dark knight, Who throw his humanity away to kill the prisonners.

It's easy talking, actually doing it is an other thing