Is torture ever morally acceptable? The 'ticking bomb' scenario.

[KKarvox]

I'm against torture in any way, for any reason. However, i am not convincd that waterboarding is torture, it something frat boys do as a hazing ritual. the same with playing music as a form of "torture". As long as it is not physically or mentally damaging, i don't think it is torture. It may feel like it at the time, but afterward your fine. I am betting that being waterboarded is scary as hell though, and probably should only be used in extreme cases of national security issues.

 

[Ambiguous Turd]

The only scenario where I could condone torture would be the ticking time bomb scenario and that we have solid intelligence that states that a bomb or biological/chemical attack was going to take place on American soil ... and we believe that the prisoner has intelligence that could help pin-point the location.

I can not forsee condoning torture for any other reason.

 

[gd]

I don't think torture should ever be used at all. First of all, it's just completely and morally wrong. Sure, it could be the most awful person ever, but that still doesn't mean that torture is acceptable (looking at you Cheney).

The other point, which at think is even more important, is that torture doesn't mean that we'll even get the truth. You may be torturing someone who doesn't even know anything, but if you torture them for long enough, they're going to tell you what you want to hear, regardless of whether or not it is helpful.

I don't think that torture should ever be used in any scenario, as it is both morally wrong and likely won't even be helpful.

 

[Loveless]

That is a lot to consider when weighing up if torture is morally acceptable in this situation. Consequentialists would argue that torture in this situation is acceptable here because the torturer's actions can be legitimised because he could save multiple lives. However, Deontologists would disagree and say that torture is never acceptable because it is universally decided that torture is wrong and doing so would be immoral

I've a lot more of this thread to read but purely taken from the first post...
This Deontologist idea seems flawed to me at it's basic level, as morality is flexible and rarely is anything moral universally decided and unanimous.
Now you could go out and survey a 1000 people about whether torture is morally acceptable and the majority would say absolutely not. However, given the circumstances, do you not think that a large number would change their mind.
I've always seen morality as an individually fluid thing. I can't agree with any notion of universal morality. You might think that would mean I'd be saying "Yes, torture is morally acceptable" but I'm not. What I am saying is some choices are not straight right or wrong answers. I think I've said this before but sometimes the choice is between wrong and wronger and your interpretation will decide your actions.

Is torture morally acceptable? No. As a society, it's not something that should ever be part of the ideal we're supposed to be working towards.
Is torture morally unacceptable? No. It is a necessary evil, that in the case suggested would prevent the suffering of many at the cost of less.

I'm a bitch for seemingly sitting on the fence with that answer but basically, I believe in necessary evils.
Right, now to read the rest of this thread.

EDIT

I probably should have asked "Is torture ideally acceptable?" instead of morally but that wasn't the question.

 

[Loveless]

I'm against torture, always, in any situation. It isn't right, no matter what the reason. Call me soft or a "pussy" or whatever you'd like, but I'm against violence in any form for any reason, and that includes violence to prevent more violence.

Nice idea, fails miserably in practice though. Just off the top of my head, The Amritsar Massacre came about due to massive peaceful protest against a violent army. Ghandi admitted himself that the non-violent approach would have failed abysmally against the Nazi's. You can't meet violence with pacifism and expect to come out on top.

Ah I'm just reading on and you're differentiating between violence and self-defence. There's little difference in my book and in the case of the "ticking bomb" is getting the information not a form of self-defence in exactly the same vein as protecting your family from a threat?

I've got to be honest, for an interesting topic I'm mildly disappointed with this threads replies.

Ah I think I also read something about you being against pre-emptive attacks. Let's shrink this issue down to a personal level, seeing as that's what everyone else is doing.
You're in a parking lot with your loved ones, putting the shopping in the boot of your car when this maniac with a knife bursts out the shopping mall screaming, and starts running towards you branding said knife. At what point do you feel you're justified in stopping him? 10 feet? Knife at your throat? After you've been stabbed?

I like this idea of non-violence but let's be honest, it's idealist nonsense that simply doesn't work in this world.

 

[X]

Nice idea, fails miserably in practice though. Just off the top of my head, The Amritsar Massacre came about due to massive peaceful protest against a violent army. Ghandi admitted himself that the non-violent approach would have failed abysmally against the Nazi's. You can't meet violence with pacifism and expect to come out on top.

Well it's a good thing I'm not leading any massive rebellions than.

Ah I'm just reading on and you're differentiating between violence and self-defence. There's little difference in my book and in the case of the "ticking bomb" is getting the information not a form of self-defence in exactly the same vein as protecting your family from a threat?

No, because self-defense would imply that you were being attacked, in the present tense. Not that you might be attacked in the future. It's all about whether you believe the ends justify the means.

Ah I think I also read something about you being against pre-emptive attacks. Let's shrink this issue down to a personal level, seeing as that's what everyone else is doing.
You're in a parking lot with your loved ones, putting the shopping in the boot of your car when this maniac with a knife bursts out the shopping mall screaming, and starts running towards you branding said knife. At what point do you feel you're justified in stopping him? 10 feet? Knife at your throat? After you've been stabbed?

This is very different from the "ticking time bomb" situation this thread brings up. If a maniac is running at you with a knife, you can see this. It's right in front of you. It's not a matter of conjecture. With the "ticking time bomb" scenario, it's torture for the sake of maybe getting information that maybe is correct, but in all likelihood, isn't.

I like this idea of non-violence but let's be honest, it's idealist nonsense that simply doesn't work in this world.

Really? Because it has worked, several times. Look at the civil rights movement and Martin Luther King.

 

[Loveless]

Well it's a good thing I'm not leading any massive rebellions than.

Indeed.

No, because self-defense would imply that you were being attacked, in the present tense. Not that you might be attacked in the future. It's all about whether you believe the ends justify the means.

This is just splitting hairs. When the threat is clear and present, are you going to wait until the moment of the attack to defend yourself? I think not. Call it pre-emptive defence if you like. No-one is going to wait until after they've been attacked to defend themselves, whether it's individually or nationally.

This is very different from the "ticking time bomb" situation this thread brings up. If a maniac is running at you with a knife, you can see this. It's right in front of you. It's not a matter of conjecture. With the "ticking time bomb" scenario, it's torture for the sake of maybe getting information that maybe is correct, but in all likelihood, isn't.

No it really isn't different at all and you're arguing specifics, opinion and conjecture, when the specifics aren't known.

Really? Because it has worked, several times. Look at the civil rights movement and Martin Luther King.

I'm actually not all that familiar with how the civil rights movement of the 60's came to it's end. I am aware that it was not always peaceful, by any means. I'd also add that African-Americans weren't being exterminated en masse, and if they were, they wouldn't have lasted hundreds of years in your country. It really depends on what you're up against.

 

[Miko]

If someone had information I needed that would save lives I'd torture them for it, I wouldnt be very good, havent had much practise see. Thing is, a good torturer will get the truth out of anyone, even fanatics, there are methods that do work. It's just all the people that know them are morally grey, still, if it's necessary then I think they should be used.

Dont get me wrong, I am never gonna kid myself and say that it's morally acceptable, it's disgusting and evil, maybe it does make you as bad as the person your torturing but I'd say it's worth the sacrifice. Especially when there are few or no alternatives.