Analphilosopher: "I don't understand the wailing about torture."

I don’t understand the wailing about torture. (Most of the wailing is coming from the Left.) There are three moral positions one can take about torture. The first is that there is nothing intrinsically wrong with it. Whether torture is justified in a particular case is a function of its consequences. If torturing someone would produce the best overall consequences, then it is justified; otherwise not. This is the consequentialist approach to torture. There are many consequentialists out there (Peter Singer, for example). If those who are wailing about torture are consequentialists, they must believe that none of the torturing going on is producing the best overall consequences. But then they must give reasons for thinking this is the case. It’s easy to imagine cases of torture that produce the best overall consequences. Suppose a bomb is about to go off in a crowded place and someone in custody knows where the bomb is and how to deactivate it. Torturing the person is likely to elicit information that would save many innocent lives.

...

It’s hard to tell, when you hear someone say that torturing a particular person is wrong, what the basis of that judgment is. The problem is that, until the basis is made clear, you can’t reply to or criticize the claim. But at least I’ve identified three possible bases for opposing torture. Let me summarize. If you oppose torture for consequentialist reasons, you must show your interlocutors why the bad of torture isn’t outweighed by the good of gathering information. You will have to do this on a case-by-case basis. If you oppose torture because it’s intrinsically and absolutely wrong (these differ, as you now can see), you must admit that, should you or your loved ones be endangered, you would still oppose torture. If you oppose torture because it’s intrinsically but not absolutely wrong, you must defend the threshold you’ve chosen and show why the amount of good produced by torture isn’t enough. This, too, will have to be done on a case-by-case basis.


http://www.analphilosopher.com/posts/1134089346.shtml



Substitute "murder" for "torture" and see if Analphilosopher's arguments make as much sense.

He and I were discussing the death penalty, which I oppose. He said, "What if someone murdered all your loved ones? Wouldn't you want them executed?" I said no, because I felt that living in prison for the rest of one's life would be worse than dying. He said, "Well, you are consistant in your arguments."

These people who think torture is ok in any or even restricted circumstances should substitute "murder" as you suggested and see if they feel repulsed. My fear is that many freepers wouldn't see anything wrong with either case.

some of the ones I know who defend torture, also are violent and would defend murder under certain circumstances. I don't get it, I guess.

good information. One of the problems with accepting torture even in instances when you believe a person has information that could imminently save lives is that it flies in the face of due process. How do you know the person has good information without due process of some kind? If you're wrong, then you've tortured someone and gotten either no information or bad information.

Another major fallacy with the pro-torture viewpoint is that they cite this hypothetical "emergency" situation to justify what has become standard practice in the war on terror, as though they believe each instance since 9/11 in which detainees have been abused is just such an emergency. Judging from the pervasiveness and persistence of abuse on Guantanamo many years after prisoners were first detained, it's difficult to see how they can use the imminent threat excuse anymore. But they will, of course, use any excuse.

I had an ancestor that was tortured. She was Anne Foster, and was jailed for being a suspected witch in 1692. She confessed to everything the torturers wanted her to confess except one thing-she wouldn't say her daughter and granddaughter were witches. But they were imprisoned and tortured anyway, and betrayed Anne, who was condemned to death. She died in Salem Jail in December of that year.

Were any of these women witches? No, as the State of MA acknowledged about ten years later. But their experience shows what torture does to people.

in Louis V's France. Torture was revoltingly common in Eighteenth Century Europe. It was condoned not only by the state but by the church, which actually undertook a lot of it.

A lot of wingers seem to forget their own revulsion for torture during the Cold War. Of course they probably believe that when our enemies do it, it's torture; when we do it, it's militarily necessary.

has no bearing on it's moral content. We can "want" all sorts of things on impulse. Philosophically this is vacuous. I can want to kill someone, have an affair, eat a lollipop, jump off a bridge, etc...all on impulse none of which I might choose to actually follow through on because of my moral compass. And some of which I might give into the impulse on and yet greatly regret after the fact because the act then violated my basic moral beliefs.

Unless of course it's entirely subjective or nihilistic in which case sure...it's all permissible...but I have a strange feeling that this position would not really appeal to most of the people who initially advocate it either.

... as so frequently argued in capital punishment cases. We are a morally impoverished society if we cannot segregate our support and healing of victims and survivors from the acts-of-no-return vengeance mislabeled as 'justice.'

because the people think they are being saved constantly from ticking time bombs. Many are highly propagandized just like the new neocon security state wants them. With no real free press, reasonable discussion about it is nil. We seem to be what my father fought against in Europe, I'm sad to say. I just can't become comfortable and go lucky anymore.

And that's not really ever the point of it anyway. Nowadays our own military troops are told if they are captured to go ahead and tell them everything because all the info has changed by that point anyway. The point of torture is to instill fear, not just in the subjects of the torture, but in those around them. I don't honestly believe for one second that our leaders regret that information about torture at Abu Ghraib and Gitmo was leaked to the public. I think it's possible they deliberately let it out, to show people how Big and Bad we are.

While I won't quibble with the structural argument - indeed, questions of ethics are only legitimately discussed within the system of ethics (deontological or teleological) agreed upon - I'll surely quibble with both the assertions regarding the burden of proof and the assertions regarding the degree of assurance.

Furthermore, I'll proclaim a major quibble with the notion that the ethical correctness of any individual instance of torture justifies torture as a policy, or as a legal act. After all, why would an ethical person seeing the 'moral rightness' of torture in any specific case allow some law to get in his way? There are indeed times it's better to apologize afterward than seek permission in advance. This is one of those times.

:toast:

The right wing is using this hypothetical emergency situation argument to justify standard operating procedure. Apples and oranges.

shows just have far we have sunk as a country. That anyone in his right mind could support this total abuse of human rights is beyond imagination. Used to be Americans gave a shit about human rights. We used to set an example, now we are just a third rate bannana republic..

If torture can be justified in the extremely rare instance that it can save lives, does it follow that it's justified in any other instance? Of course not. But do you ever hear anyone trying to justify it as standard operating procedure--which it has become under the Bushists? Of course not again.

should be considered wrong. Even when the "president" is publicly stating "We don't torture" yet getting his lawyer to make sure that torture can be used.

... that Junior is carefully reserving the POWER to torture. In absolutely no instance has this Regime asserted a full and complete rejection of torture and anything apporaching whatever narrow parsing of that word they surreptitiously reserve.

The Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld Regime is a Criminal Cabal.

This 'consequentialist' notion is based on some hypothetical and unbelieveably rare instance where the following conditions exist:

a) You have someone in custody who has critical information about an impending disaster
b) You are certain the disaster will occur if you don't get this information from the person
b) The person is either not denying they have the information (and you're certain they are not insane) or you are certain their denials are lies

I think it's safe to assume (at least in terms of building a practical policy) that this occurence would be extremely rare. Once you introduce the idea of doubt into any of these conditions you are once again in the muddy waters of reality. You risk torturing an innocent person. And you are guaranteed to undermine your moral authority (you will no longer be able to distinguish yourself from the tyrants and dictators of the world).

If we cannot examine the very manner in which we claim to know, we can know nothing.

I tend to share, however, your evident disdain for consequentialsim (teleological ethics) pretending, as it does, some god-like precognition. I have never ever met a consequentialist with even a hint of humility.

I don't know if I should hug you or smack you for making me go to dictionary.com everytime you make a post.. "teleological ethics" :eyes: :hug: :toast:

The terms 'consequentialism' and 'utilitarianism' are already used as subsets of teleological. (I must also admit to some irrational fondness for that word - it seems so sonically apt to me.) Besides, it's symmetrical with 'deontological' - another word that resonates for me.

and someone in custody knows where the bomb is and how to deactivate it..."

Can we have an official toilet wherein we can flush this turdlet-of-an-imaginary scenario making the pro-torture rounds?

because y'know without that, they got nothing.