Another Torture Debate

[Bubba_Switzler]

I noticed a recent answer to a question about torture which quoted CCC:

Torture which uses physical or moral violence to extract confessions, punish the guilty, frighten opponents, or satisfy hatred is contrary to respect for the person and for human dignity.

The thing is, though, this is not at all what modern advocates of torture propose.

The classic argument for torture specifically entails deliberately harming a person involved in a crime in order to obtain information that will prevent grave harm, usually death, to innocents. The typical example being a ticking bomb or, more generally, wartime intelligence. (Note that merely being an enemy soldier abiding by the rules of war does not satisfy the criteria of being involved in a crime.)

So the question arises: is torture so defined forbidden by the Catholic Church?

 

[LittleOne1]

The Church rejects the use of torture because it violates the doctrine of double effect. An evil, which is direct harm to another or threatened harm, is never allowed in order to obtain a good. So the idea of forcing confessions throught the use of torture in order that we may save lives is not allowed. Besides, confessions from torture or information many times is given in order to please the torturers; not necessarily to give accurate information.
Final word: ends do NOT justify means!

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

On the other hand, the Catholic Church does permit self defense, both personally and institutionally (e.g. police and army). What distinguishes torture, as I described in the OP (as distinct from the particular form of toture that the CC explicitly prohibits and which nobody is advocating)?

(Note also that the OP description does not entail “confession” unless by that you mean generally obtaining information and not the usual meaning of self-incrimination.)

In other words, if it’s ok to kill someone to prevent a harm to innocents, why wold it be prohibited to harm someone to prevent a harm to innocents?

 

[Spirithound]

One of my concerns is obtaining false information, or digging for information that isn’t there. How do we know we’ve got the right person with the right information?

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

One of my concerns is obtaining false information, or digging for information that isn’t there. How do we know we’ve got the right person with the right information?

That is certainly a legitimate practical concern. (And, by analogy, we don’t want self defense to become a license for vigilanteeism or just war to be come a license for wars of conquest or, for that matter, for justice systems to convict the innocent.)

But this is not an argument of principle (unless you contend that it is impossible to do it effectively while steering clear of the specific forms of torture that the CC does explicitly prohibit.)

 

[apromisemade]

To make an analogy, the Church says you cannot directly abort a baby to save the life of the mother because both lives are of equal value.

How than, in that sense, could you justify torturing, possibly to the point of severly injuring or killing, one human being to save another. Even if it was one human being to save many, the implication would be that the life, welfare, and dignity of one person is somehow less important or valuable than that of another.

Cheney once preached the “2 percent doctrine,” that even if there is even a two percent chance someone could have valuable information, then that would justify using “enhanced interrogation techniques.” That logic, to me, is just sick.

 

[Texas_Roofer]

I noticed a recent answer to a question about torture which quoted CCC:

Torture which uses physical or moral violence to extract confessions, punish the guilty, frighten opponents, or satisfy hatred is contrary to respect for the person and for human dignity.

The thing is, though, this is not at all what modern advocates of torture propose.

It is the exact same, one and the same

The classic argument for torture specifically entails deliberately harming a person involved in a crime in order to obtain information that will prevent grave harm, usually death, to innocents. The typical example being a ticking bomb or, more generally, wartime intelligence. (Note that merely being an enemy soldier abiding by the rules of war does not satisfy the criteria of being involved in a crime.)

So the question arises: is torture so defined forbidden by the Catholic Church?

Yes it is forbidden and the “typical” scenarios are false

On the other hand, the Catholic Church does permit self defense, both personally and institutionally (e.g. police and army). What distinguishes torture, as I described in the OP (as distinct from the particular form of toture that the CC explicitly prohibits and which nobody is advocating)?

the scenarios are false

(Note also that the OP description does not entail “confession” unless by that you mean generally obtaining information and not the usual meaning of self-incrimination.)

In other words, if it’s ok to kill someone to prevent a harm to innocents, why wold it be prohibited to harm someone to prevent a harm to innocents?

Torture protects no one. Torture is an attack on innocents.

That is certainly a legitimate practical concern. (And, by analogy, we don’t want self defense to become a license for vigilanteeism or just war to be come a license for wars of conquest or, for that matter, for justice systems to convict the innocent.)

But this is not an argument of principle (unless you contend that it is impossible to do it effectively while steering clear of the specific forms of torture that the CC does explicitly prohibit.)

? ? This makes no sense. I can only assume you believe you are partially omniscient. The ticking time bomb is based on partial omniscient, the torturer is omniscient about (1) a bomb exists (2) about who knows details on the bomb (3) some bomb details concerning stopping the bomb (4) about which statements are true and which are false, etc., etc. Of course if the torturer were onmiscient then there is no need to torture, so the scenarios are completely false.

 

[Caesar517]

The Church rejects the use of torture because it violates the doctrine of double effect. An evil, which is direct harm to another or threatened harm, is never allowed in order to obtain a good.

Directly harming another is not intrinsically evil (self defense). Directly harming an *innocent *person is an intrinsic evil. The issue here is with a guilty person.

 

[apromisemade]

Directly harming another is not intrinsically evil (self defense). Directly harming an *innocent *person is an intrinsic evil. The issue here is with a guilty person.

But how would you know he (or she) was guilty?

That’s the thing. Everyone presents these exaggerated scenarios where you know for absolute certain someone knows the combination to this bomb and it will go off in two minutes if you don’t get him to tell you (I mean really, that’s like something out of Mission Impossible). When in reality such situations are for lack of a better word, nonexistent. You may know that an individual is familiar with someone who you know for sure is guilty, but you cannot know if someone is actually guilty until such information is verified through humane (and therefore more effective) interogation.

 

[Caesar517]

To make an analogy, the Church says you cannot directly abort a baby to save the life of the mother because both lives are of equal value.

Again, this should be dealing with a guilty person, not an innocent one.

How than, in that sense, could you justify torturing, possibly to the point of severly injuring or killing, one human being to save another. Even if it was one human being to save many, the implication would be that the life, welfare, and dignity of one person is somehow less important or valuable than that of another.

If someone was trying to murder your children, you would sacrifice his life for the lives of your children, and rightly so.

 

[TMC]

I noticed a recent answer to a question about torture which quoted CCC:

Torture which uses physical or moral violence to extract confessions, punish the guilty, frighten opponents, or satisfy hatred is contrary to respect for the person and for human dignity.

The thing is, though, this is not at all what modern advocates of torture propose.

The classic argument for torture specifically entails deliberately harming a person involved in a crime in order to obtain information that will prevent grave harm, usually death, to innocents. The typical example being a ticking bomb or, more generally, wartime intelligence. (Note that merely being an enemy soldier abiding by the rules of war does not satisfy the criteria of being involved in a crime.)

So the question arises: is torture so defined forbidden by the Catholic Church?

Absolutely immoral. Torturing an informant in the hopes of gaining information that could save a life is not analagous to shooting someone that is shooting at you. If torturing an informant is licit, what is not? Could you put a gun to the head of a terrorist’s wife? Beat his children? Evil cannot be defeated with stronger evil. If you make yourself evil than no matter which side prevails - good has lost.

 

[Caesar517]

But how would you know he (or she) was guilty?

That’s the thing. Everyone presents these exaggerated scenarios where you know for absolute certain someone knows the combination to this bomb and it will go off in two minutes if you don’t get him to tell you (I mean really, that’s like something out of Mission Impossible). When in reality such situations are for lack of a better word, nonexistent. You may know that an individual is familiar with someone who you know for sure is guilty, but you cannot know if someone is actually guilty until such information is verified through humane (and therefore more effective) interogation.

Here’s a case:

You are at war with a group of terrorists who are murdering innocents. You manage to capture one of the leaders, who knows when the next attack will occur. He is well known and there is no question as to his guilt. Why could you not interrogate him (torture) in this case?

It doesn’t have to be a common scenario, as long as it is possible.

 

[Caesar517]

Could you put a gun to the head of a terrorist’s wife? Beat his children? Evil cannot be defeated with stronger evil. If you make yourself evil than no matter which side prevails - good has lost.

One would assume that his wife and children are innocent. I see no slippery slope here.

 

[TMC]

One would assume that his wife and children are innocent. I see no slippery slope here.

I don’t see a difference. The justification for torturing the hypothetical informant is not that he deserves to be tortured as punishment. Its that torturing him will save many, many others. If that is justifiable, why not torture his wife, or his children, or random citizens of his country, if that will save many, many others. The moral calculus is the same – torturing this person may be wrong, but the benefit outweighs the wrong. That kind of end justifies the means morality is a race to the bottom.

I’ll say it again - you can’t defeat evil with stronger evil.

 

[Caesar517]

I don’t see a difference. The justification for torturing the hypothetical informant is not that he deserves to be tortured as punishment. Its that torturing him will save many, many others. If that is justifiable, why not torture his wife, or his children, or random citizens of his country, if that will save many, many others. The moral calculus is the same – torturing this person may be wrong, but the benefit outweighs the wrong. That kind of end justifies the means morality is a race to the bottom.

I’ll say it again - you can’t defeat evil with stronger evil.

Replace “torture” with “kill”. You can kill a guilty person to save others (self-defense), but not an innocent person because harming an innocent person is intrinsically evil, whereas harming a guilty person is not. My thinking is that the same would apply to a lesser form of harm (torture).

 

[apromisemade]

Here’s a case:

You are at war with a group of terrorists who are murdering innocents. You manage to capture one of the leaders, who knows when the next attack will occur. He is well known and there is no question as to his guilt. Why could you not interrogate him (torture) in this case?

It doesn’t have to be a common scenario, as long as it is possible.

Do you have a documented example of such a situation?

 

[Caesar517]

Do you have a documented example of such a situation?

Not in front of me, but I face it all the time in games and in my own thoughts. Do you think this is 100% impossible? If it can happen, it will – no matter how small the chance may be.

My mind is not yet made up on this issue. That’s why I need to address it.

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

It is the exact same, one and the same Yes it is forbidden and the “typical” scenarios are false

I don’t think it takes a great deal of intellect to see the difference.

Torture is an attack on innocents.

Actually, I defined it explicitly to the contrary.

I can only assume you believe you are partially omniscient. The ticking time bomb is based on partial omniscient, the torturer is omniscient about (1) a bomb exists (2) about who knows details on the bomb (3) some bomb details concerning stopping the bomb (4) about which statements are true and which are false, etc., etc.

I have no idea what “partial omnicience” is. Is that anything like partial omnipotence? Yes, there is plenty of room for error…in both directions. That’s life.

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

But how would you know he (or she) was guilty? That’s the thing. Everyone presents these exaggerated scenarios where you know for absolute certain someone knows the combination to this bomb and it will go off in two minutes if you don’t get him to tell you (I mean really, that’s like something out of Mission Impossible). When in reality such situations are for lack of a better word, nonexistent. You may know that an individual is familiar with someone who you know for sure is guilty, but you cannot know if someone is actually guilty until such information is verified through humane (and therefore more effective) interogation.

That’s a very fair question. But note that there are criminal conspiracies and it is possible to capture one member of the conspiracy. That is not a “false” scenario.

Those who have studied this subject seriously have proposed, among other things, “torture warrents” which would essentially empower a judge to make a judicial decision in the particular case to determine that there is a reasonable certainty that the person is not innocent but in fact has the information needed.

 

[Feste_1242]

This is a good question. I haven’t given it much deep thought, but it would seem to me that extracting information (such as in the ticking bomb scenario) would fall under “extracting confessions.”