- Oct 22, 2004
- 7,559
- 0
- 0
I was re-reading 1984 and got to the horrific torture sequences and this made me question my take on torture. One of the most common arguments that opponents of torture cite is that it doesn't work, i.e., "if I take a Bunsen burner to the guy's genitals, he's going to tell you just about anything." And this is the opinion I've held for quite a while. I realize now that it's a bit of a cop-out from taking a firm moral stance against torture, but that's beside the point.
In 1984, the protagonist is subjected to prolonged physical and mental torture which breaks him utterly and leads him to confess to everything and anything, ultimately betraying everyone and everything he held dear, not just verbally, but in the deepest part of his psyche. So if we break someone they will tell us anything. I don't think anyone disputes that. But will they tell us everything? And is that more useful than nothing?
It seems to me that the real point of torture is not to get them to tell you the truth out of some rational decision to end the torture. The point is to torture them until they're incapable of rational thought and have said everything they CAN say. Then we can sort through the information and attempt to weigh it by likelihood.
In 1984, the protagonist is subjected to prolonged physical and mental torture which breaks him utterly and leads him to confess to everything and anything, ultimately betraying everyone and everything he held dear, not just verbally, but in the deepest part of his psyche. So if we break someone they will tell us anything. I don't think anyone disputes that. But will they tell us everything? And is that more useful than nothing?
It seems to me that the real point of torture is not to get them to tell you the truth out of some rational decision to end the torture. The point is to torture them until they're incapable of rational thought and have said everything they CAN say. Then we can sort through the information and attempt to weigh it by likelihood.