Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
Welcome to The New Coffee Room. We hope you enjoy your visit.


You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.


Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
  • Pages:
  • 1
  • 2
  • 6
Torture is Bad; The Pentagon Finally Acknowledges
Topic Started: Sep 6 2006, 09:13 AM (1,281 Views)
pianojerome
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!
Rick,

What is acceptable to you to do, morally, if you know that a suspect who is under your interrogation has information that will save the lives of hundreds of people, but the suspect refuses to talk?

Would you just let this one criminal go free, knowing that hundreds of innocent people will soon be killed? That hardly seems moral, IMO. What would be the moral action to take next?
Sam
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Axtremus
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!
pianojerome
 
Would you just let this one man go free, knowing that hundreds of people will soon be killed? What would be the moral action to take next?
Easy. Just set an arbitrary confidence threshold for an arbitrary "wrongful detention to innocent death ratio" and run with them.

Example: If I have 23% confidence that letting one particular person free would lead to 89 innocent deaths, then I detain that person until the confidence number goes below 21%, or the expected number of innocent deaths fall below 69, or both.

You can, of course, choose other arbitrary numbers to suite your values.

Please let me know how well you think this would work if you're the decision maker. :)
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
pianojerome
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!
Axtremus
Sep 7 2006, 02:05 AM
pianojerome
 
Would you just let this one man go free, knowing that hundreds of people will soon be killed? What would be the moral action to take next?
Easy. Just set an arbitrary confidence threshold for an arbitrary "wrongful detention to innocent death ratio" and run with them.

Example: If I have 23% confidence that letting one particular person free would lead to 89 innocent deaths, then I detain that person until the confidence number goes below 21%, or the expected number of innocent deaths fall below 69, or both.

You can, of course, choose other arbitrary numbers to suite your values.

Please let me know how well you think this would work if you're the decision maker. :)

What do you do while you detain that person?

(I know your post was in part sarcastic, but I am curious: if one choose not to release the criminal, but to simply detain him (hopefully in a rose-scented hotel room with fluffy pillows), what does this solve? What does one plan to do while he is detained?)
Sam
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Axtremus
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!
pianojerome,

Let's thread down that path further. :)

There is a cost to "detain" somebody, and that cost has to be born by the tax payers -- people you're trying to protect by undertaking the act of detention in the first place. So there is a cost/benefit calculus that, again, you can perform to decide how much resources you want to spend on detaining that person, and what you can do with that person given that cost parameter (e.g. serve $10 nutritious meals three times a day v. $0.50 Ramen noodles twice a day).

E.g. Pick an arbitrary number/ratio -- say 1:10 -- meaning you're willing to make a 1:10 bet -- that if letting one particular person go free might lead to destruction that would cost the destruction of 10% of the community's wealth (and this can be calculated from the likelihood-adjusted lifetime direct and indirect economic output of the likely victims, that 23% chance of 89 people that might get killed), you would spend 1% of the community's wealth to detain that person for every 10% wealth destruction potential.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
John Jacob Jingoism Smith
Member Avatar
Middle Aged Carp
Waterboarding is torture enough to fit my definition.
Jingoism

You can safely assume that you've created God in your own image when it turns out that God hates all the same people you do.
Anne Lamott
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Axtremus
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!
John Jacob Jingoism Smith
Sep 7 2006, 02:28 AM
Waterboarding is torture enough to fit my definition.

See, at least you've got a pretty straight grasp of what constitute "torture."

Those other centrists... with all that "it depends," they are so wishy-washy about what constitute "torture."

Centrism is a mental illness indeed!
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ivorythumper
Member Avatar
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
John Jacob Jingoism Smith
Sep 6 2006, 05:27 PM
Torture is so far outside my moral sphere that I have a hard time believing anyone who grew up in the U.S., or has any Christian belief at all can feel otherwise.

But there we have it. Who would Jesus torture?

Second thing wrong with it, is that it's a government enterprise and the government inevitably F***s up EVERYTHING it touches. They WILL torture innocents, I guarantee it. The government does not have and will never have the wisdom it would take to guarantee no innocents will be harmed. I cannot live with that.

Thirdly, torture, much too often, just doesn't work in terms of extracting valuable information.

People who advocate torture are way, way too dark for me. It is the epitome of evil.

I had no idea you were a Christian, Jingo.

Are you opposed to torture in all circumstances? Was it evil to torture Abdul Hakim Murad, despite the fact that it saved the lives of thousands of innocents? Should they have all been allowed to be murdered, with the government knowing full well that there was a plot to blow up airplanes, had Murad not confessed under coercion? Do you really want a government that will not do what is necessary to protect it citizens? Is it really that black and white for you?
The dogma lives loudly within me.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
OperaTenor
Member Avatar
Pisa-Carp
It's that black and white to me. Never, ever, is moral high ground attained through torture. If I knew torturing someone would save the life of my child, I couldn't do it.

It boils down to integrity to me, which is the only thing in my life I truly have a semblance of total control over.



Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ivorythumper
Member Avatar
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
OperaTenor
Sep 7 2006, 12:24 AM
It's that black and white to me. Never, ever, is moral high ground attained through torture. If I knew torturing someone would save the life of my child, I couldn't do it.

It boils down to integrity to me, which is the only thing in my life I truly have a semblance of total control over.

I respect your sense of integrity, though in all honesty I would not want to be the child of a person who would not do whatever is necessary to protect them from bad people. I think that you as the adult have a very sacred duty of care to protect and secure the safety of your child. I also think that you cannot morally abjure that duty when your child is threatened due to squeamishness, wanting the moral high ground, a feeling of integrity, or any other reason.

I don't think it is a question of either moral high ground (I am not willing to let innocents get slaughtered so that people can feel good about themselves), or integrity.

For me, the principles are along these lines:

1) A person has a profound, but not an absolute, right to bodily integrity and free will.

2) No one has the right to do an intrinsically evil deed.

a) I submit that terrorism is intrinsically evil in a way that torture is not, since the harm of terrorism is random and inflicted against innocents, whereas torture can be defended under the notion of the State's right to defend itself from harm.

b) With the right to act freely comes the responsibility to act morally (justly, ethically, etc). The one who will not act morally forfeits a degree of rights in proportion to the gravity and/or significance of the offence.

3) No one has the right to withhold the truth if it harms others.

4) The State has a sacred duty to uphold the common good and to protect and secure the safety of its citizens. That is, in fact, virtually the only legitimate function and the very raison d'etre of the State.

5) The private good of any individual cannot be placed above the common good. The law is written to promote the common good, not the private good.

Given the seriousness of the occasion of torture, this is not something to be done lightly. Like the death penalty, it is a momentous issue for the State. While it ought be used very judiciously, given the principles that I hold I do not see any grounds whereby it can be claimed that the State has no right to torture. For me it is a prudential decision, and due to the political climate it might be judged best to not torture in a particular instance. But I think it would be foolish that torture should be universally outlawed since it is ultimately against the most basic good of the people.



The dogma lives loudly within me.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Daniel\
Member Avatar
Fulla-Carp
Torture is bad. Mass murder too.

I'm Daniel and I approved this message.

:leaving:


Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Radu
Member Avatar
Senior Carp
OperaTenor
Sep 7 2006, 10:24 AM
If I knew torturing someone would save the life of my child, I couldn't do it.


Can we have your wife's opinion on this ?
Posted Image
------------------------------------------------------------
"Whenever I hear of culture... I release the safety-catch of my Browning!"
The modern media has made cretins out of so many people that they're not interested in reality any more, unless it's reality TV (Jean D'eaux)
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Phlebas
Member Avatar
Bull-Carp
Bush in 2002 stupidly signed a memo saying he had the authority to deny protections of the Geneva Convention to combatants picked up in Afghanistan. That was stupid because it opened a debate that should never have been opened. The fact is, we have probably always used "extreme coersion" in every war the US has fought. We will again in future wars when Bush is long out of the White House. It's a sad fact that war is awful, and awful things happen in war - civilians get killed, torture happens. I can easily say "I'm against war," or "I'm against torture," but that doesn't make it go away in reality, and frankly it doesn't make it the worst solution 100% of the time.
Random FML: Today, I was fired by my boss in front of my coworkers. It would have been nice if I could have left the building before they started celebrating. FML

The founding of the bulk of the world's nation states post 1914 is based on self-defined nationalisms. The bulk of those national movements involve territory that was ethnically mixed. The foundation of many of those nation states involved population movements in the aftermath. When the only one that is repeatedly held up as unjust and unjustifiable is the Zionist project, the term anti-semitism may very well be appropriate. - P*D


Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
apple
one of the angels
i don't know.... not picking terrorists brains for info would be like not utilizing fetuses for stem cells.

i do realize i'm criss/crossing political boundaries.
it behooves me to behold
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
apple
one of the angels
..and i'd throw my integrity out the window any day to save my children.. myself be damned.
it behooves me to behold
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Mikhailoh
Member Avatar
If you want trouble, find yourself a redhead
OperaTenor
Sep 7 2006, 03:24 AM
It's that black and white to me. Never, ever, is moral high ground attained through torture. If I knew torturing someone would save the life of my child, I couldn't do it.

It boils down to integrity to me, which is the only thing in my life I truly have a semblance of total control over.

I could and would without hesitation, do anything necessary to save my child. Do you want the moral high ground or your child's life?

Some things transcend the question of morality. All species protect their own.

Once in his life, every man is entitled to fall madly in love with a gorgeous redhead - Lucille Ball
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Axtremus
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!
Phlebas
Sep 7 2006, 09:00 AM
Bush in 2002 stupidly signed a memo saying he had the authority to deny protections of the Geneva Convention to combatants picked up in Afghanistan. That was stupid because it opened a debate that should never have been opened. The fact is, we have probably always used "extreme coersion" in every war the US has fought. We will again in future wars when Bush is long out of the White House. It's a sad fact that war is awful, and awful things happen in war - civilians get killed, torture happens. I can easily say "I'm against war," or "I'm against torture," but that doesn't make it go away in reality, and frankly it doesn't make it the worst solution 100% of the time.

Well, look on the bright side -- THANKS to Bush, we now has this important national debate that would likely elevate the American moral standard yet again, and that this higher moral standard will get exported to the rest of the world. I'm betting that this will be a good thing for humanity over the long haul.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Radu
Member Avatar
Senior Carp
apple
Sep 7 2006, 04:06 PM
..and i'd throw my integrity out the window any day to save my children..  myself be damned.

So in your opinion OT is full of ...

Posted Image

?
Posted Image
------------------------------------------------------------
"Whenever I hear of culture... I release the safety-catch of my Browning!"
The modern media has made cretins out of so many people that they're not interested in reality any more, unless it's reality TV (Jean D'eaux)
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Axtremus
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!
OK, so some of our coffee drinkers think that "survival of the species" (e.g., protecting your child) would take precedence over all moral considerations, and some do not.

So here's a hypothetical:

Suppose you have a third option -- that if you consent to you and your loved one converting to Islam, that your loved one will be let free unharmed, and you would not need to torture any body. Would you take this option?

I ask because sometimes I see some coffee drinkers here portray having to get converted to Islam as a great threat, and they are willing to kill to neutralize that threat. Just wondering how willful conversion to Islam might compare to letting your loved ones get killed, or sacrificing some moral high ground and resort to torture.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Axtremus
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!
ivorythumper
 
3) No one has the right to withhold the truth if it harms others.
That also applies to Catholic priests who might be conveyed such information in a confession booth, right?

Would you mind referring me to any relevant Vatican guideline in this matter? Thanks.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Radu
Member Avatar
Senior Carp
Axtremus
Sep 7 2006, 04:32 PM
ivorythumper
 
3) No one has the right to withhold the truth if it harms others.
That also applies to Catholic priests who might be conveyed such information in a confession booth, right?

...or to lawyers...
Posted Image
------------------------------------------------------------
"Whenever I hear of culture... I release the safety-catch of my Browning!"
The modern media has made cretins out of so many people that they're not interested in reality any more, unless it's reality TV (Jean D'eaux)
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
apple
one of the angels
Radu
Sep 7 2006, 08:26 AM
apple
Sep 7 2006, 04:06 PM
..and i'd throw my integrity out the window any day to save my children..  myself be damned.

So in your opinion OT is full of ...

Posted Image

?

not at all... just my opinion.
it behooves me to behold
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
QuirtEvans
Member Avatar
I Owe It All To John D'Oh
For all of you dancing on the head of a pin about what you'd do if you knew that you could save X number of lives by torturing one man, I have a fairly simple question:

How do you KNOW that you'll save lives by torturing him?

It's all pretty easy when you assume that there's a 100% certainty that he's guilty, and that hundreds or thousands of lives will certainly be saved. But that isn't the real world.

In the real world, you can't be sure whether he's guilty. Even if you have a very high degree of confidence about his guilt, you can't be sure that he has any information that will save any lives. In fact, in the real world, there will almost always be a high degree of uncertainty that the "subject" of torture has any relevant information, let alone relevant information that will certainly save lives.

Does the uncertainty change your calculus?
It would be unwise to underestimate what large groups of ill-informed people acting together can achieve. -- John D'Oh, January 14, 2010.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Rick Zimmer
Member Avatar
Fulla-Carp
Axtremus
Sep 7 2006, 06:26 AM
OK, so some of our coffee drinkers think that "survival of the species" (e.g., protecting your child) would take precedence over all moral considerations, and some do not.

So here's a hypothetical:

Suppose you have a third option -- that if you consent to you and your loved one converting to Islam, that your loved one will be let free unharmed, and you would not need to torture any body. Would you take this option?

I ask because sometimes I see some coffee drinkers here portray having to get converted to Islam as a great threat, and they are willing to kill to neutralize that threat. Just wondering how willful conversion to Islam might compare to letting your loved ones get killed, or sacrificing some moral high ground and resort to torture.

An interesting point, Ax.

I am paralleling this discussion with the discussion a week ago or so aimed at Christians asking whether or not one would allow oneself to be forcefully converted is Islam in order to get out of danger. So many of the Christians on here argued that either 1) they would hope they would have the strength to resist because it is their obligation to do so, but they feared they would not be strong enough or 2) they would never do such a thing as renounce their faith even if it was a bogus conversion.

And yet, when asked if they would agree to be converted to evil by condoning torture, these same people justify torture.

Sometimes the question of whether one would renounce one's faith is not put in those exact words.
[size=4]Violence is incompatible with the nature of God and the nature of the soul -- Benedict XVI[/size]
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
apple
one of the angels
here's a hypothetical...

suppose you knew the 'enemy' would torture your compatriots to extract information.. would your opinion of administering torture be affected?
it behooves me to behold
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
AlbertaCrude
Bull-Carp
I'd join the Communist Party before I'd convert to Islam.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ZetaBoards - Free Forum Hosting
Join the millions that use us for their forum communities. Create your own forum today.
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · The New Coffee Room · Next Topic »
Add Reply
  • Pages:
  • 1
  • 2
  • 6