Unthinkable - Is torture justfied?

[MindOverMatter2]

If there were three nuclear bombs secretly hidden in three different locations in your city, threatening to kill millions, would it be morally justified to torture the person who knew their location.

Vote and give an argument as to why you think it would or would not be justified.

 

[JohnDamian]

If there were three nuclear bombs secretly hidden in three different locations in your city, threatening to kill millions, would it be morally justified to torture the person who knew their location.

Vote and give an argument as to why you think it would or would not be justified.

Absolutely not!

What is the distinction between a person who wilfully causes severe damage to one person, and of millions of people?

It is merely a difference of quantity, and not of quality - to wilfully cause severe damage is to make yourself identical in quality as the bomber; just not as prolific in your applications.

Innocence and Guilt are absolutely irrelevant, a human being should not be brutalised, and no human being should brutalise another.

 

[Pat_Payne]

There’s also a practical consideration that people forget – just because you torture someone doesn’t mean he’s going to give you true information. He might lie either deliberately to send you on a wild goose chase, or he might just blurt out the first thing that comes to his mind that sounds plausible just to get the torture to stop.

Torturing someone and having them sing like a canary only works reliably in the movies.

Unless you’re Princess Leia, of course… “Dantooine, they’re on Dantooine…”

 

[DOShea]

Absolutely not!

What is the distinction between a person who wilfully causes severe damage to one person, and of millions of people?

Answer: Purpose

It is merely a difference of quantity, and not of quality - to wilfully cause severe damage is to make yourself identical in quality as the bomber; just not as prolific in your applications.

A person legitimately trying to stop the deaths of millions of innocents has a far different intent than the one who willingly tries to slaughter them. If your theory, and it IS a a theory, is true, then it’s impossible for you to ever justify a war anywhere under any circumstances since the soldier would be no better than the one he kills. That means you become like Hitler by fighting against his tyranny and evil.

The church does not teach that.

St. Michael, meanwhile, becomes no better off than Satan when he runs him through with his sword. Jushua, David, Gideon… everyone in the Old Testament who killed others at God’s command… they must by reason have become no better off than those they slaughtered according to your theory. For that matter, God, condemning evil and punishing evildoers becomes no better off than they, by your theory. That’s why I don’t agree with it.

Innocence and Guilt are absolutely irrelevant, a human being should not be brutalised, and no human being should brutalise another.

Again you are alluding to the term “never” here, and that isn’t what has been the Church’s position throughout history. Why was there any Crusade? What about self-defense? Isn’t trying to stop a triple nuclear attack self defense? If it isn’t, then what is it? Are you saying one would be perfectly within his right to shoot an attacker who attacked his person, yet somehow bears less responsibility or should feel less impacted by the situation if he gets to share his misery with millions of others? That makes no sense.

I don’t think you correctly conceptualize the amount of destruction you are talking about. You can go online and see pictures of places in the Ukraine that are still ghost towns because of the radioactivity associated with the Chernobyl nuclear incident. And that was a result of a mis-operated nuclear power plant. A nuclear bomb - three of them in fact, set off in a place like NY City would kill tens of millions in the blasts, and another almost equal number over the next few months from exposure and disease. No one would be able to live in a triangle between Buffalo, NY, Hartford, CT, and somewhere between Delaware and Virginia, depending on the prevailing winds.

Your idea is we should stand by and let that happen without taking any steps at self defense strictly on the idea that we become the same as the evildoer. I think that is insanity.

 

[Big_Ro]

If there were three nuclear bombs secretly hidden in three different locations in your city, threatening to kill millions, would it be morally justified to torture the person who knew their location.

Vote and give an argument as to why you think it would or would not be justified.

( NIV )
Luke 9:23-26
23 Then he said to them all: “If anyone would come after me, he must deny himself and take up his cross daily and follow me.
24 For whoever wants to save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for me will save it.
25 What good is it for a man to gain the whole world, and yet lose or forfeit his very self?
26 If anyone is ashamed of me and my words, the Son of Man will be ashamed of him when he comes in his glory and in the glory of the Father and of the holy angels.”

Seems pretty clear cut. Torture in inherently evil. Christ was tortured. And, as the evidence clearly shows, it is very ineffective. In fact, it appears that to befirend our enemies is far more effective in getting at the truth. Yeah, that whole love thy neighbor thing. What good are our principles if we only follow them when it’s convenient or doesn’t cost us anything.

 

[JohnDamian]

Your idea is we should stand by and let that happen without taking any steps at self defense strictly on the idea that we become the same as the evildoer. I think that is insanity.

Turn the other cheek.

Didn’t Peter get chastised for cutting of Malchus ear, in an attempt to prevent a far greater crime? Are we to not heed this lesson, and to fall prey to moral relitivism and self-justifications?

What next, abortion whenever someones life is in danger… We should heed church teachings on the matter;

**CCC 2297-2298 **
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… In times past, cruel practices were commonly used by legitimate governments to maintain law and order, often without protest from the Pastors of the Church, who themselves adopted in their own tribunals the prescriptions of Roman law concerning torture. Regrettable as these facts are, the Church always taught the duty of clemency and mercy. She forbade clerics to shed blood. In recent times it has become evident that these cruel practices were neither necessary for public order, nor in conformity with the legitimate rights of the human person. On the contrary, these practices led to ones even more degrading. It is necessary to work for their abolition. We must pray for the victims and their tormentors..

 

[Rascalking]

My question-suppose we captured a 9/11 ringleader on 9/1/01. We ask him politely to tell us what is going on. He says, “No.” We ask him not so nicely. He says no. We take away his toys, and send him to bed without supper. He still says no. Since we can’t do anything else, we watch as 9/11 happens, and then we pat ourselves on the back because we don’t use “other” methods of intoerrogation. Sadly, thousands of our countrymen die, but gosh, we didn’t tortue!

No, I’m not “for” tortue. However, not all things that are vile and disgusting are immoral. My question-what else do we do than? What is tortue?

 

[Adonia]

In order to save millions of lives “enhanced interrogation” is to me permissable. One then has to define torture. To me, pulling out someone’s fingernails would be considered torture - as would playing the greatest “hits” of Yoko Ono over and over again. Then again, I fully supported the limited use of waterboarding that our Government agents used when interrogating the terrorists we had captured. Supposedly, we got valuable information that saved many lives doing this. Where do you draw the line? The RCC allows us to fight and kill our enemies in a just war to save innocent lives, so can we kill but not torture? Jesus always said to “love your enemies” and to “turn the other cheek”. How does one decide to do one thing but not the other? This is definitely a hard question to answer.

 

[MindOverMatter2]

Again you are alluding to the term “never” here, and that isn’t what has been the Church’s position throughout history. Why was there any Crusade? What about self-defense? Isn’t trying to stop a triple nuclear attack self defense?..

…Your idea is we should stand by and let that happen without taking any steps at self defense strictly on the idea that we become the same as the evildoer. I think that is insanity.

To be fair, there is a big difference between self defence and torture.
Its one thing to fend off an attacker, and quite another thing to brutalise somebody for information. We exist not merely to live but to actualise the moral good; and there are different moral goods in relation to various different contexts. Protecting ones self is a morally dignified and courageous thing to do within a particular context, and it is a necessary act insofar as one is attempting to actualise the good of courage and to reflect moral value and dignity of ones being. Its not an intention to kill, but rather death occurs as a result of the opponents unwillingness to surrender; and thus the moral dignity of both persons is preserved through freedom of choice. But when it comes to the possibility of torture, we must ask ourselves, is this really a morally dignified and courageous thing to do? Does this act truly reflect the value of people. The fact of the matter is, the person has been caught. The authorities have the right to interrogate the prisoner. But it is up to the moral conscience of the prisoner to give up any information regarding the locations of the nuclear bombs. This is a dignity that God has given to the sinner. The authority does not sin by not brutalising the prisoner since the sin lies with the prisoner alone who refuses to do the right thing. If the authority brutalises the prisoner, then they are depriving the prisoner of a divine right instituted by God; and that is the right to make a choice according to ones conscience. Life and death decisions cannot be actualized merely to preserve life. Rather such decisions have to take in to consideration the spiritual good that will be lost if we decide to behave like animals.

By your standard, a human life loses its value as soon as it becomes a threat to life. In which case I don’t see why God keeps any sinners alive. But Life, when considered by itself, is irrelevant and meaningless. Life is only meaningful in relation to the greater good. As a gift from God, human life is a potential vehicle to actualise potential moral goods; and human life exists only in that regard. It would be a moral good to respect the moral value of the prisoner. The command “Love your enemy”, is a moral good that can be actualised in the event that I have describe in the OP.

 

[JohnDamian]

My question-suppose we captured a 9/11 ringleader on 9/1/01. We ask him politely to tell us what is going on. He says, “No.” We ask him not so nicely. He says no. We take away his toys, and send him to bed without supper. He still says no. Since we can’t do anything else, we watch as 9/11 happens, and then we pat ourselves on the back because we don’t use “other” methods of intoerrogation. Sadly, thousands of our countrymen die, but gosh, we didn’t tortue!

No, I’m not “for” tortue. However, not all things that are vile and disgusting are immoral. My question-what else do we do than? What is tortue?

Torture is anything that goes beyond taking him to court and keeping him in standard housing. Even interrogating him without consent, or subjecting him to sub-standard living space would constitute torture, as it is cruel.

Even “sending him to bed without his supper” is cruel. Or “asking him politely” if he does not wish to talk. Or “taking away his toys” for that matter, if he has a legal right to those toys.

I am glad I live in a country where I cannot be detained for longer than 1 day (4 with court) without a charge, where I can’t be forced into interviews, where I am guarenteed food and shelter if I am arrested – I have heard some attrocious things about other countries… such as interviews lasting 5 or 6 hours, it makes me terribly sad.

 

[Rascalking]

Torture is anything that goes beyond taking him to court and keeping him in standard housing. Even interrogating him without consent, or subjecting him to sub-standard living space would constitute torture, as it is cruel.

Even “sending him to bed without his supper” is cruel. Or “asking him politely” if he does not wish to talk. Or “taking away his toys” for that matter, if he has a legal right to those toys.

Ok. Than the alternative is…watching things blow up in our faces (sometimes literally) while we feel noble because we don’t tortue?

 

[Ghosty]

Straight from the Catechism:

2297 *Kidnapping *and hostage taking bring on a reign of terror; by means of threats they subject their victims to intolerable pressures. They are morally wrong. *Terrorism *threatens, wounds, and kills indiscriminately; it is gravely against justice and charity. *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. Except when performed for strictly therapeutic medical reasons, directly intended amputations, mutilations, and *sterilizations *performed on innocent persons are against the moral law.91
[2298](javascriptpenWindow(‘cr/2298.htm’) In times past, cruel practices were commonly used by legitimate governments to maintain law and order, often without protest from the Pastors of the Church, who themselves adopted in their own tribunals the prescriptions of Roman law concerning torture. Regrettable as these facts are, the Church always taught the duty of clemency and mercy. She forbade clerics to shed blood. In recent times it has become evident that these cruel practices were neither necessary for public order, nor in conformity with the legitimate rights of the human person. On the contrary, these practices led to ones even more degrading. It is necessary to work for their abolition. We must pray for the victims and their tormentors.

So torture is defined as physical and/or moral violence, and this would obviously include “enhanced interrogation”. So, at least from the Catholic perspective, it is unequivocally wrong in all circumstances. This includes “ticking time bomb” scenarios and 9/11/01.

Peace and God bless!

 

[JohnDamian]

Ok. Than the alternative is…watching things blow up in our faces (sometimes literally) while we feel noble because we don’t tortue?

I would rather die in a free, humane country - standing up for what I believe in, than live in a brutal totalitarian regime. The fact that some “civilized” countries brutalise people even now is a tragedy of the highest kind, we can only pray for the victims of such abuse, and for the forgiveness for any crime they may have commited, as well as the victims to that.

 

[Rascalking]

I would rather die in a free, humane country - standing up for what I believe in, than live in a brutal totalitarian regime. The fact that some “civilized” countries brutalise people even now is a tragedy of the highest kind, we can only pray for the victims of such abuse, and for the forgiveness for any crime they may have commited, as well as the victims to that.

Good to know. Even though I’m British (100%) I am SO glad I live in a country where people do the right thing to save lives.

I would agree to disagree on this one.

 

[Redratfish]

If there were three nuclear bombs secretly hidden in three different locations in your city, threatening to kill millions, would it be morally justified to torture the person who knew their location.

Vote and give an argument as to why you think it would or would not be justified.

If it is in self defense, and the defense of millions, then yes. Self Defense is self defense. While defending yourself, you do not have to worry about moral questions. Could the bomber give the wrong place? Yes, he could very easily. But then again, which is better, to try to defend yourself, or give up without trying.

Put it this way. Guy (bomber) walks into your house (city) with a gun(nuke) with intent to kill, what are you morally obligated to do? Kill him correct? Well, in torture, your not even killing them, its one better than killing them.

 

[verum_peto_1]

Torture is anything that goes beyond taking him to court and keeping him in standard housing. Even interrogating him without consent, or subjecting him to sub-standard living space would constitute torture, as it is cruel.

Even “sending him to bed without his supper” is cruel. Or “asking him politely” if he does not wish to talk. Or “taking away his toys” for that matter, if he has a legal right to those toys.

Do you actually think that sending someone to bed without dinner is the moral equivalent of detonating a bomb at a wedding, or in a public market? These are the sort of daily acts which we are talking about, in the context of torture.

My personal belief is that putting pressure on someone through the accepted interrogation techniques used prior to the Bush/Cheney implementation of torture techniques which violated the Geneva Conventions, is useful and appropriate, and is not immoral.

But it is a gray area. I mean, the good cop / bad cop classic technique to gain someone’s confidence does indeed create psychological distress. Depriving someone of food for a day or two, creates some discomfort. Disorientation during transport by the use of blindfolds and other sensory isolation does lessen the confidence and resolve of a prisoner, and therefore make him more likely to open up to an interrogator.

The morality of these acts, I think, rests in whether they are truly cruel, or not. Some deprivation, short term isolation, or sleep deprivation does not rise to the level of cruelty, in my opinion, which is beyond the expectations of any soldier or combatant.

Obviously, rendition, waterboarding, any of the acts depicted in the Abu Graib photos - are immoral and despicable. In practical terms, such techniques are also ineffective, as any experienced and successful interrogator will tell you.

 

[JohnDamian]

Do you actually think that sending someone to bed without dinner is the moral equivalent of detonating a bomb at a wedding, or in a public market? These are the sort of daily acts which we are talking about, in the context of torture.

I see no difference in qualities of acts when one person decides to purposefully make another person suffer. I can see a difference in degree, but both are morally repugnant.

But it is a gray area. I mean, the good cop / bad cop classic technique to gain someone’s confidence does indeed create psychological distress. Depriving someone of food for a day or two, creates some discomfort. Disorientation during transport by the use of blindfolds and other sensory isolation does lessen the confidence and resolve of a prisoner, and therefore make him more likely to open up to an interrogator.

I can say for certain that such practices are abusive. If I was interrogated without permission, or anyone even tried to blindfold me evidence from such abuses would not be admitted in any civilized court. Such cruelty deserves contempt and disgust, anyone in authority who even thinks about allowing such abuses should be voted out of office.

The morality of these acts, I think, rests in whether they are truly cruel, or not. Some deprivation, short term isolation, or sleep deprivation does not rise to the level of cruelty, in my opinion, which is beyond the expectations of any soldier or combatant.

You see, most ordinary citizens are not soldiers or combatants. If I committed a crime the only thing’s I should be forced to do is be detained in reasonable accomedation and have to attend my trial. I can see that waterboarding etc. is more cruel than sleep deprivation; but the fact that it is cruel in itself is what makes it repugnant. People are not animals to be starved blindfolded isolated and tormented - I would not even do these things to an animal and you say that it is fine to do it to people?!

I am happy that the Church and the Civilized world stands up against these practices and refuses to allow them.

 

[MindOverMatter2]

I am happy that the Church and the Civilized world stands up against these practices and refuses to allow them.

I’m with you all the way John. I would rather die with you than live with the evil of torturing somebody.

 

[Rascalking]

I’m with you all the way John. I would rather die with you than live with the evil of torturing somebody.

Would you rather have your mother, son or daughter die? Would you rather have thousands of your fellow country men die?

I’m glad that if people thought this way during World War 2, they where in the minority. That’s probably why they where the greatest generation.

 

[MindOverMatter2]

Would you rather have your mother, son or daughter die? Would you rather have thousands of your fellow country men die?

Would you torture your grandmother or father in order to get life saving information from them? I think you would. I think, like many people, you have a distorted view of morality. But in my eyes, true morality concerns first and foremost the spiritual salvation of humanity. Thus it is more important that I pray for their souls, since it is their soul that is truly in jeopardy, not their finite bodies. The true enemy is spiritual in nature. Human souls are more important than how long they will live or how they will die on earth.