Comments on: The Moral Debate About Torture

By: meleton

meleton — Sun, 25 Oct 2009 15:31:25 +0000

Hang on here – we are talking about folks who want to destroy our standards of life and hate the One True God and his Holy Son Jesus. These are people who must be rooted out and eliminated forever! There is no way you make an omlet without breaking eggs.
The unfortunate and brutal reality is that so-called torture is not applied sadistically but is used pragmatically to further the ends of our Christian Society.
There are numerous examples of aggressive persuasion, forcefully applied, producing great results and there must be no squeamishness on behalf of the moral guardians of our great civilization in applying whatever means are necessary to achieve global standards of civilized behavior.

By: The Moral Debate About Torture - Science of Virtues | A Project of the University of Chicago - News

Thu, 09 Jul 2009 19:44:37 +0000

[...] held to follow from vice sometimes become virtuous because of their context? See the debate here. Photo by Jayel Aheram. Posted: by admin Filed under: morality, ethics, debate, [...]

By: Sean Esterline

Sean Esterline — Sun, 31 May 2009 19:28:23 +0000

Painless,

I’m sorry to have depressed you with my (apparently abhorent) moral reasoning, but that’s what happens when you take my comments to extremes without discussing them with me further.

Obviously a policeman sodomizing a suspect who (let’s say) just ran a red light would be *totally* inappropriate–for that matter I would suggest that ALL forms of forced sodomy would be unjustifiable. (Yes, I understand that it would technically fit the criteria that I previously suggested; but I was giving a general rule-of-thumb concept for the sake of brevity.)

My general comment still stands though–the so-called victims that the US has detained are still alive and unwounded, unlike the true victims that have been killed by the brutish actions of these unrepentant psycopaths.

And if *you* can convice the folks in China and Iran (and COUNTLESS other countries throughout the world) to stop TRULY harming the people in their custody (folks receiveing *permanent physical wounds*) then I’ll worry more about a psychotic killer here in America who gets a little uncomfortable during a bath.

By: Sam Crees

Sam Crees — Wed, 06 May 2009 14:05:39 +0000

Let’s play devil’s advocate; OK, torture is bad, and it is not ethical, but it is not killing. So I suggest if we are all tied up in, if torture is wrong then we need to stop all wars, get rid of the military (they do kill others), hey get ris of the police since they too do these things, and most of all we would save untold billions of tax dollars, to use for peace and helping those that need it. Because if we do this then people will like us and not want to kill anyone, for we are spreading the life style of love and peace.
For those comments I read above where everyone speculates on who is the most guilty and who is the most to blame for torture; I tell you to your face you don’t know squat! As for me I know all about the torture thing; I volunteered for amock up prisoner of war camp that the military (marine group in my case) puts on for those brave enough to try it. They tell you up front no one can be physically harmed, but they garuntee you that no one makes it the full length of the camp. On top of that if you imbeicls think that these so called torture techniques are new then I suggest you start reading the proper books; for I know all about sleep depravation, minmal diet to achive lower body temps, water submersion to the neck for hours at a time, tiger cages, continuous loud sounds, news, music, and continuos degrading, and polkig, and yes; guess what folks, read your history the Chinese prefected the water torture hundreds of years ago. Get a clue folks, you don’t know a any thing.

By: Paul E

Paul E — Wed, 06 May 2009 03:16:30 +0000

painless,

Oh, I didn’t see in your original definition of torture was context dependent. So are you saying that imposing suffering is immoral in some contexts, but moral in other contexts? Please clarify in which contexts imposing suffering is ok, and in which ones it is not.

Seems to me that a durable definition of torture would be context independent.

cheers, Paul

By: painless

painless — Tue, 05 May 2009 23:16:49 +0000

Paul E,

Talk about being disingenuous. Are you really unable to distinguish between a suspect who is in custody, and therefore not an immediate threat, from one who is not in custody, and therefore might be? So your argument is a strawman. But let’s just suppose your policeman subdues and cuffs the putative perp. Is he then free to sodomize him with a nightstick for information? According to the morals of Sean Esterline, if it doesn’t cause any physical wounds or lasting physical damage, what’s the problem? This level of moral reasoning is depressing.

And why wouldn’t I operate under the constraints I propose? I am not a moral cretin. Speaking of hypocrisy, the simplest test of moral integrity is embedded in the line which you ignored: “do unto others…” The categorical imperative, if you prefer. Are you prepared to undergo any of the techniques you quite blithely propose, or have your loved ones or Americans in general undergo them? If not, then I’m afraid the hypocrisy lies with you. And if the techniques described were not intended to produce suffering, then pray tell what they were for. And if they are intended to produce suffering, then that’s torture.

Thanks to James Horn for elevating the discourse.

By: Sean Esterline

Sean Esterline — Tue, 05 May 2009 14:47:43 +0000

Coolin – I believe what the host was refering to was what you got if you added up the “Often, Sometimes, & Rarely” columns… not just the first two. (Basically everything but the “Never & Don’t Know” columns.) As with most statistics, there’s always a way to state them to make one opinion look right.

When talking statistics I’m always reminded of the theoretical tale of the two newspapers reporting on an automobile race.

The Russian newspaper accurately reported: “In the race, the Russian car came in second, while the American car came in next-to-last.”

The American newspaper accurately reported: “The American car won, while the Russian car came in last.”

How were they *both* accurate and truthful??

There were only two cars in the race.

By: Sean Esterline

Sean Esterline — Tue, 05 May 2009 14:37:11 +0000

James Horn – Thank you for your insightful and thoughtful comments.

I, being an American Christian, can’t see Jesus torturing anyone for anything… but then again, I’m not Jesus. (And Jesus *did* fashion a whip to strike and drive out the moneychangers; not to mention all the times that God commanded the deaths of thousands of people in the Old Testament… not torture, but not exactly a cushy bed of roses for his enemies there either.)

Still, I can see your point about “torture” being potentially useless for gathering intelligence, though I don’t know of any hard data that would back up either side of the claim (for, or against the effectiveness of torture).

As with much of what it being “discussed” in this forum, we are simply stating opinions without much in the way of hard facts. (There were, apparently, some documents detailing the effectivness of waterboarding and whatnot, but I’ve not been privy to their contents.)

And again, I have to ask for us to come to a common definition of “torture” itself. Obviously things that cause physical wounds (breaking, piercing, burning) etc. would qualify and should be disallowed, but what about sleep deprivation or waterboarding–things that cause MAJOR discomfort, granted, but do not (to my knowledge) cause lasting physical damage?

By: James Horn

James Horn — Tue, 05 May 2009 11:17:05 +0000

In real life and in the hypothetical nuclear justification, one unexamined assumption is that the torturer KNOWS that the victim is an evil terrorist, ought to have the information and because he is so evil, does not deserve concern if he does not, in fact, have the answers. In real life, the first two assumptions are often wrong, and if the first assumption is wrong the third is also. The thrid assumption also violates the Eighth Amendment against cruel and unusual punishment. We seem to have fallen into a vigilante mentality. The “Kill them all and let God sort them out” philosophy leads to pervasive war crimes. Dr. Elshstain, you cannot, in the real world, okay torture in special casess without the definition of special being continually stretched, until it effectively becomes standard practice.
You are dangerously wrong.

By: James Horn

James Horn — Tue, 05 May 2009 11:00:10 +0000

One curious study result showed that, ironically Americans who claimed a deep religious belief were more fearful of death than those with little or no interest in religion. This is puzzling since a similar belief in a heaven leads Muslim extremists to seek death.
This fear of death also seems to be the only explanation why American Christians seem to be swallowing the Cheney line. If you can picture Jesus torturing someone, you need to get your nose out of Revelation and look at the Gospels.
As for torture, it is great at extracting false confessions, but it is essentially useless for extracting intelligence. Consider this: when do you stop torturing someone? The usual answer is when you get the information you need. The truth is that you are looking for information that fits you preconceptions. If your suspicions are incorrect, you will reject a truthful answer and keep torturing until the victim tells you something that matches your false picture of the situation. There is an even bigger trap, believers in torture tend also to believe that torture extracts true information. Since the false statement matches the torturer’s beliefs, it will not be examined carefully. One example is trying to uncover networks and plots. If the victim is innocent, he knows no one involved, but will eventually name people to get the pain to stop. The torturers then have these people, also innocent, arrested and tortured. One Roman Emperor eventually “uncovered” a conspiracy involving many thousands of “plotters”.
I consider torture absolutely immoral and illegal, but for those who ignore those issues in favor of the practical argument, torture is not that practical.