Is Torture Universally Immoral

DeletedUser8396

Guest
Topic: Is Torture Universally Immoral?

Motion: This house believes that torture is universally immoral.

Details: Nothing entirely novel abound the topic, this debate has existed for...well...probably since near the beginning of recorded history. The debate generally encompasses various hypothetical scenarios, all of which can, and hopefully will be, discussed.

Proponents of the motion: Those who think torture is universally immoral state various ways that it devalues humanity as a whole, among various other arguments against. In order to not preclude the debate, I'll allow you all to propose the reasons why it is immoral.

Opponents of the motion: Those who believe torture is morally acceptable generally judge based on outcomes and by the state of things (such as in a war state).

You, obviously, can take any stance you want. Let's see how it goes! Assuming there is no disagreement, I will take the side which has no supporters.
 

DeletedUser50935

Guest
Topic: Is Torture Universally Immoral?

Motion: This house believes that torture is universally immoral.

Details: Nothing entirely novel abound the topic, this debate has existed for...well...probably since near the beginning of recorded history. The debate generally encompasses various hypothetical scenarios, all of which can, and hopefully will be, discussed.

Proponents of the motion: Those who think torture is universally immoral state various ways that it devalues humanity as a whole, among various other arguments against. In order to not preclude the debate, I'll allow you all to propose the reasons why it is immoral.

Opponents of the motion: Those who believe torture is morally acceptable generally judge based on outcomes and by the state of things (such as in a war state).

You, obviously, can take any stance you want. Let's see how it goes! Assuming there is no disagreement, I will take the side which has no supporters.

My argument is going to be pretty short but here it is, Torture is most definitely immoral it is essentially the abusing of somebody to obtain information.... And abuse is most definitely immoral.
 

DeletedUser

Guest
Think about the modern world, we are plagued by some extremists that take it upon themselves to cause pain and suffering to innocent civilians. Would it be immoral for one person to be tortured into giving information that may save countless lives? What if someone knew of 9/11 or the 7/7 bombings? Would the act still be immoral on the grounds of the needs of the view outweighing the needs of the many? There is obviously debates of which we all have human rights, but aren't they violating other's rights by causing them harm or death in the process?

The act of torture is really only committed upon those that have sensitive information; a 70 year old lady from London is not going to dragged off the street by the secret service and interrogated and tortured on what Teabag shes using, its going to be someone affiliated with terrorists or someone with intent or knowledge of something that is going to harm people.

Sometimes, extreme measures need to be taken.
 

DeletedUser33530

Guest
Think about the modern world, we are plagued by some extremists that take it upon themselves to cause pain and suffering to innocent civilians. Would it be immoral for one person to be tortured into giving information that may save countless lives? What if someone knew of 9/11 or the 7/7 bombings? Would the act still be immoral on the grounds of the needs of the view outweighing the needs of the many? There is obviously debates of which we all have human rights, but aren't they violating other's rights by causing them harm or death in the process?

The act of torture is really only committed upon those that have sensitive information; a 70 year old lady from London is not going to dragged off the street by the secret service and interrogated and tortured on what Teabag shes using, its going to be someone affiliated with terrorists or someone with intent or knowledge of something that is going to harm people.

Sometimes, extreme measures need to be taken.

an act does not suddenly become immoral based upon who it is done to. The act may become justified though. For example if I shoot you for the sake of shooting you I have done something wrong. If I shoot you in self defense I have still done something wrong. However, my wrong is justified as I had no other option (hopefully). So if you find an individual who you know, as fact, knows something about a mass murder and you also know that there is no other way of getting that info out of the person, then I will say you are justified in being totally inhumane. I must point out though that those circumstances will probably never occur.
 

DeletedUser

Guest
its going to be someone affiliated with terrorists or someone with intent or knowledge of something that is going to harm people.
Allegedly.

Which is the problem. We can never be sure they are actually connected to terrorists. We can never be 100% sure, about anything. Assumptions are not enough to justify torture and therefore it will never be morally justified in my books.
 

DeletedUser

Guest
If someone has been proven Guilty of support of a terrorist organization I have no problem with it.
By proven I mean the 99.5% standard used by the US criminal courts.
 

DeletedUser50332

Guest
I'm 100% sure a pebble is a pebble.

How can you be sure?

'He' could be the manifestation of multiple online users who run a collective called 'a pebble'?
Given the amount of output, can it really all be the musings of just one person?
 

DeletedUser33530

Guest
If someone has been proven Guilty of support of a terrorist organization I have no problem with it.
By proven I mean the 99.5% standard used by the US criminal courts.

90% is the burdern of proof in criminal cases
 

DeletedUser

Guest
Torture is immoral, but organizations like ISIS or "Islamic Soldiers of Chechnya" will not care. More modern/civilized organizations could use "Truth Serums". Even though we are living in the 21st century, we are still pretty much savage civilization, don't kid yourself.

Unless she is a beautiful dominatrix, knows what she is doing and you are into the pain and submission... That is another story.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

DeletedUser50183

Guest
How can you be sure?

'He' could be the manifestation of multiple online users who run a collective called 'a pebble'?
Given the amount of output, can it really all be the musings of just one person?

I'm 100% sure that a pebble is a pebble
 

DeletedUser

Guest
I'd like to add my two cents here (I study Philosophy & Ethics which is essentially a debating subject so I love this type of thing)

Sometimes the question of whether torture is immoral is a breach of human rights, or human inequality. And there is always the issue of if the person being tortured really cannot give the required information because they don't know it, it's a big problem and seriously immoral and wrong - that person is scarred forever.

However I would like to think that "professional torturing" (just meaning done by a country or government) is more often than not for the greater good, and if (as beforementioned) it saves countless lives, is it really immoral? Is torturing one person to save a thousand more immoral than leaving that person and condemning a thousand to death? My personal viewpoint is that if someone has or is going to partake or commit an act that will violate someone else's human rights then their own should not count because I personally do not see them as human anymore. I'm well aware of how controversial this view is and it is quite an extreme view, but that is my view.

Anyway, as much as we try to avoid saying it, torture really relies on situation ethics. Or maybe the golden rule (if you're Christian); when making your mind up I strongly believe you have to look at the bigger picture and act for the greater good.

Please feel free to oppose my views - I'm young and naive so I'm sure my current views have flaws, but be kind ;)
 

DeletedUser33530

Guest
However I would like to think that "professional torturing" (just meaning done by a country or government) is more often than not for the greater good
Im sorry but i find this statement genuinely comical. Seriously never have I meant a person with a view even close to this. Needless to say im pleasantly surprised.
Is torturing one person to save a thousand more immoral than leaving that person and condemning a thousand to death?
It is if you could have gotten the information another way. Which you could of, according to i believe close to, if not every, study done on this topic. Well one source disagrees. Hollywood.
My personal viewpoint is that if someone has or is going to partake or commit an act that will violate someone else's human rights then their own should not count because I personally do not see them as human anymore.
yeah but why?
 
Last edited by a moderator:

DeletedUser

Guest
I did say, I'm quite naive so the first quote you picked out probably is comical :D

Most of the time information could be gotten another way, but this isn't something I was considering, I was considering a scenario where torture was the only option because if I didn't that's a completely debate in my opinion, and I would certainly be against torturing there.

And as for the last question, again this is just my opinion, but I partially believe in an eye for an eye. This is a bit topical and I'm not entirely sure it can be said as direct but tell me do you rate the extremist group ISIS as people? Or the KKK? Do they deserve the same rights as an honest man walking to his job? This for me is the problem. It's completely wrong. They are two completely different people, one has either supported or enacted the torturing of an innocent person and one has never committed a crime in his life.
 

DeletedUser33530

Guest
Most of the time information could be gotten another way, but this isn't something I was considering, I was considering a scenario where torture was the only option because if I didn't that's a completely debate in my opinion, and I would certainly be against torturing there.
yeah. I keep forgetting that we are discussing this that way. Sorry.

do you rate the extremist group ISIS as people? Or the KKK? Do they deserve the same rights as an honest man walking to his job?
Yeah i "rate" them as people. This is just my opinion, but I completely believe that an eye for an eye is one of stupidest ideas there is.
Now i can actually justify why they should still be considered human in alot of ways but my favorite justification is as follows. They do not view someone as human. Therefore you choose to not view them as human. So by your logic i will not view you as human. This will continue until no one is human which makes basically puts us right back where we started where amazingly everyone is equal.

They are two completely different people, one has either supported or enacted the torturing of an innocent person and one has never committed a crime in his life.
so if you ever commit a crime we start taking your rights then? And you can never gain them back. One can't logically just be giving and taking away rights so they must be gone forever. One mistake and screw your right to a fair trial. Freedom of speech? Not for those damn communists trying to destroy America.
And more importantly there is not a human in existence that has never committed a crime.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

DeletedUser

Guest
They do not view someone as human. Therefore you choose to not view them as human. So by your logic i will not view you as human. This will continue until no one is human which makes basically puts us right but where we started where amazingly everyone is equal.

I think you misunderstood what I meant, or I misunderstood what you just wrote. I haven't taken someone's life and/or tortured them. And these are two extreme groups that I picked out as they are notorious for murdering innocents based on religious beliefs or far right views. 'So by your logic I will not view you as human' I don't quite understand because of these reasons. You are comparing me with far right groups there, which goes completely against my moral/political views.

so if you ever commit a crime we start taking your rights then? And you can never gain them back. One can't logically just be giving and taking away rights.
And more importantly there is not a human on existence that has never committed a crime.

I blame myself for this, I wasn't clear enough with my point. I didn't mean any crime. I mean crimes that violate someone's basic human rights. I'm not talking about the list of rights, I mean the right to live but this is off topic. I also didn't mean that the second someone commits a crime their rights are taken away. I meant very extreme crimes - genocide, terrorism, torture of innocents etc

I could compare the extremist groups with a criminal who was committed a minor crime - it was just an example. I don't believe that people like that who are sick enough to behead, lynch or torture innocent people should be given the same treatment as what I will constitute as 'normal' people. I hope this is clearer now, because I think I wasn't precise enough with my viewpoint beforehand.

I'm enjoying the debate though :)
 

DeletedUser33530

Guest
I think you misunderstood what I meant, or I misunderstood what you just wrote. I haven't taken someone's life and/or tortured them. And these are two extreme groups that I picked out as they are notorious for murdering innocents based on religious beliefs or far right views. 'So by your logic I will not view you as human' I don't quite understand because of these reasons. You are comparing me with far right groups there, which goes completely against my moral/political views.
these groups usually justify themselves by saying that those they are against have commited crimes or aren't even human.
So... They view someone as a criminal (sinner in Isis' case) or less than human (kkk) and they then proceed to feel justified in doing whatever they want to those people. You see them as criminals or less than human and then feel justfied in doing whatever you want to them. The only difference is in these cases is that i agree that the people you are against are criminals. In other words the perspective is different.

I blame myself for this, I wasn't clear enough with my point.
Go it ;)

I don't believe that people like that who are sick enough to behead, lynch or torture innocent people should be given the same treatment as what I will constitute as 'normal' people.
this is going to be slightly off topic but i think it's worth pointing out that very few people wouldn't do these things. Humans are horrible. There are two main differences between me and an ISIS member. The environments that we live in and that im probably on the winning side so history will favor me.
 

DeletedUser

Guest
Yes, they would say that. I also believe they say that the West has killed their families so this is their payback (talking about the US invading Iraq and Afghanistan) But in the western world, we see them as wrong. In fact, forget the western world, the entire world sees them as wrong other than themselves. So doesn't it reach a point where we decided that actually they are wrong no matter which way you look at it? I totally understand what you mean, I'm just trying to contradict it because it's a debate and I'm now pushing my view further than what I actually believe. So in other words, I agree with you - it's all about perspective.

With the final point, I think you're right but the word innocent is another thing that depends on perspective and therefore leads back to the previous point.
 
Top