I don't feel like arguing with you right now, just wanted to point out... aren't you looking for the word "undue"?
I don't feel like arguing with you right now, just wanted to point out... aren't you looking for the word "undue"?
However, one could argue that torture is a more effective tool for exctracting information quickly, which is often necessary.
We innately justify every action we do. You don't see ethical and moral dilemmas in many of the decisions we do every day. But why is this? We're still making a decision. That decision will effect everyone around us. The reason is because we're subconciously thinking about the consequences of our actions; we're subconsciously justifying every action we do (or we wouldn't have done it in the first place). Many of these decisions are morally neutral, but some are also morally correct. If you analyze a person's morally correct actions that are determined by their innate sense of morality, you will find that in many cases, the ends will justify the means.
Ethical and moral dilemmas are specific cases where our innate sense of morality (that is partially based in "the ends justify the means"), fails to give a clear answer. They are dilemmas because of the very fact that all our innate, subconscious "maxims" fail.
When we have ethical and moral dilemmas, we bring our innate sense of morality to the surface and we're forced to find a rationalized way to come to a decision. One way to rationalize is to use "the ends justify the means". It is quite possible that this maxim will arrive at the "correct" answer, while other rationalization will not.
I definitely agree that legality is completely irrelevant when deciding the morality of a situation. Still, it must be considered in the current discussion since we're essentially debating the possibility of legalized torture. I would argue that torture is always wrong because it dehumanizes the subject, stripping him of dignity. It has long-lasting physical and emotional effects, all of which are negative. It strips the subject of all rights, putting them below animals in our own society where even animals are protected from such behavior. The simplest answer is that it removes all protection of rights - natural, legal, or otherwise - from the subject. Common motives (intimidation, hatred/revenge) are also an indicator that the action itself is immoral/unethical, even if used for extraction of information. The results of torture are likely to be worse than the act itself, stirring hatred and continued violence against the perpetrators, creating a cycle of violence.
Feel free to share yours, too. I hadn't really previously thought about reasons why it's wrong, since I think everyone here would agree that the action itself is wrong, even if they support its use in certain circumstances.[/quote]
I don't see how any person could support a "wrong" action. I mean, the fact that it's wrong means it shouldn't be done. I thought their argument was torture is morally right in certain circumstances.
My feeling is that torture is wrong under all circumstances because it uses fear of pain, whether physical or emotional, to force a subject to do an action against his or her will, in essence making the person a lab animal in a science experiment. Like you said, it dehumanizes the person, because it removes their ability to feel secure and be an autonomous person.
But why is it wrong in all circumstances? Doesn't the suffering of the 1000's of people who might die because we did not torture this person outweigh the suffering of this one person? The reason it doesn't to me is that torture is one of the true injustices. It has no idea of justice in mind, it simply dehumanizes the subject to extract information. And I think anything that forces us to destroy our sense of justice can have disasterous outcomes greater than the possible loss of thousands of lives - because, like you said, we don't know exactly what the outcome will be.
Maybe... I'd like to see some of those who supported torture in this thread speak to this.
Exactly. It's an action contrary to justice. :thumbsup:
I didn't say that I didn't want them, I just said they are difficult to establish.
UN: CONVENTION AGAINST TORTURE
For the purposes of this Convention, torture means any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity. It does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in or incidental to lawful sanctions.
For example, what is severe pain or suffering? We all have different levels of tolerance for mental or physical discomfort. What's severe to me may not be severe to you and vice versa.
UN: CONVENTION AGAINST TORTURE
For the purposes of this Convention, torture means any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity. It does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in or incidental to lawful sanctions.
For example, what is severe pain or suffering? We all have different levels of tolerance for mental or physical discomfort. What's severe to me may not be severe to you and vice versa.
From the lost book of the bible:
Thou shalt place those who disagree with thou into sexual pyramids and define it not as torture.
zealots 5:18
Thou shalt place those who disagree with thou into sexual pyramids and define it not as torture.
zealots 5:18
With respect to interrogation, I would say that torture is inflicting undue mental or physical discomfort.
Man you must slightly deluded. Biology dictates that if you have a correctly working nervous system that you will feel pain. Not to mention, pain does nothing for ones who have convictions, i.e. martyrs of all stripes. So torture is baseless in many cases at best. The fact that any modern military power is allowed to do so and many times make mistakes injuring the innocent is rude as it is disgusting. Anyone one that supports torture by their own government, I really hope one day is suspect in another country and then you will appreciate why internationally we should not endorse torture because it comes back to haunt international citizens. The war in Iraq is illegal. Also during the earlier 1991 war over 500,000 infants were killed by the american war machine. There is much more need for international law, now more then ever.
I'm not denying it but if you're to say that there are people out there that barely feel any pain at all, I'll agree but they are not in the majority. If you take random bad guy off the street he's going to have a normal nervous system 9/10. To claim there's such variation in 'feelings of pain' is pretty ludicrous comment without any scientific data to back it up. Just because there is exception to the rule doesn't mean that it is widespread or even probabilistically likely.
Again like I said, endorsing torture hurts international and travelling citizens. So when you travel abroad one day and out of random misfortune are tortured for no good reason, just remember you endorse such behaviour yourself and you'll hope to god "you have a low pain threshold". Then you'll realize the sanity of why international laws exist for these very reasons.
Let's attach electrodes to your jewels, turn up the juice and see how much you can tolerate. If you feel no pain, you're more man than I.
I'm liking this test.
The idea that what's torture for one person is not for another person is ridiculous. Does that mean if someone's hopped up on tons or morphine and can't feel anything that getting stabbed 50 times isn't torture? If it isn't, I say we try this on Rip.
Bwahaha
Now that's funny.
"Zealots" -- isn't that the newest scripture the Christian Taliban found in the lowest catacomb of the White House?
He's another example. Drapping the Israeli flag around an Islamic terrorist would likely cause him mental discomfort, but it wouldn't do a thing to me.
3chordcharlie
Diamond Member
- Mar 30, 2004
- 9,859
- 1
- 81
I agree. And doing it to any Islamic fundamentalist, terrorist or not, would be torture, as far as I'm concerned. Especially when the motivation for doing so is to create severe discomfort.
I am suprised that my thread has lasted this long 
What's more immoral? To not try a method that is immoral on one person that could save 1000s or too do nothing and let 1000s die?
What's more immoral? To not try a method that is immoral on one person that could save 1000s or too do nothing and let 1000s die?
For thousands? What about one thousand? One hundred? Ten? What if you could save one life by torturing another?
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 22K
-
News NVIDIA and Intel to Develop AI Infrastructure and Personal Computing Products- Started by poke01
- Replies: 393
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
Facebook
Twitter