Is Torture Universally Immoral

DeletedUser50332

Guest
I am very concerned that there are people who seem to think that it is acceptable to treat other people as being less than human, no matter what the excuse! The starting point, or first principle, should be that all people are treated as humans; treated with humanity.

We should be very wary of any claim that states that if someone has committed an extreme criminal act, then they should no longer be considered human. Terrorists are human too. One of the best examples of my point has to be Nelson Mandela. Now, most people around the world would say that this person, who won the nobel prize for peace, is a nice guy. But this is forgetting that he led a guerilla and terrorist campaign.

In more recent years in Syria, it is alleged that the Asad regime was oppressive, and so some Syrians rose up in opposition to the Asad regime. The West then backed those groups who opposed Asad. Those opposition groups splintered, and a space was created for an armed religious group to flourish. In Iraq, a power vaccum likewise allowed for the group who became known as ISIS to develop. So, they along with other opposition groups started out by wanting to oppose what they perceived as an oppressive regime.

Now before anyone jumps down my throat, I am NOT trying to justify ISIS or their brutal and heneous acts of terror and torture, which I abhor. What I am trying to do is to highlight that these situations are not straight forward.

Some of the above comments are also concerning because they seem to assume that all government regimes are legitimate, and as such are legitimate in using force and violence (torture) for the 'greater good'. I dont think hat I need to list all of the oppressive regimes around the world, but there are constant infringements of people's human rights taking place by governments across the globe.

The point that I am trying to get across is that the whole issue is far from straight forward. We cannot lose a sense of treating all people as humans. And bringing it back to the topic, instead of trying to make justifications for it, the starting point HAS to be that torture is morally wrong. However, there are occassions when governments justify that they needed to torture someone in order to secure vital, life-saving information. What they are doing is justifying a moral wrong, it does not suddenly convert it into a moral right!
 

DeletedUser

Guest
However, there are occassions when governments justify that they needed to torture someone in order to secure vital, life-saving information. What they are doing is justifying a moral wrong, it does not suddenly convert it into a moral right!

This quote is 100% right, and has made me realise that. I take back my comments about professional torturing. And also, you are right, these situations aren't straightforward. This is visible in how open this debate has become - we were discussing whether something is morally right in different cultures at one point.

For the most part of your post, I think you are right but there are many many people who would torture people they hate for whatever reason. Mainly males, testosterone and all but again what is being missed in my posts (or maybe I'm not expressing myself clearly even now) is that I am not saying those people aren't human. I think I may have said that at one point so I'll hold my hands up and apologise because that isn't what I meant. I meant that it's disgraceful that those people have the same rights as someone who is (at least compared to them) innocent. This is wrong. Surely, if you're saying that they deserve the same rights as someone who is 'innocent' then you are defending them.

The world is a cruel place. There are people all over the world who have never committed a crime who starve to death, or die of disease and things that someone in a first-world country wouldn't die of. Yet there are people who are immorally wrong on every level (ISIS, KKK etc) who are being treated better than innocents in the third world. When I say they don't deserve the same human rights, this is what I'm talking about. A lot of people seem to forget that. And in strong capitalist countries, criminals are given basic human rights when there are people outside the prison walls starving and homeless.

Anyway that is a completely different debate. It's just that my comments seem to have opened it up so much.
 

DeletedUser8396

Guest
Allow me:

If we look at torture, and it's intent at base, it is to use another individual and manipulate him into feeling pain until the desired outcome is achieved. What this implies is that the outcome achieved can be accomplished by the tortured individual (such as the information be given, action be done, etc.) We will be using the "information" example.

We then are faced with 3, and only three, possibilities: the man does indeed know something, the man may or may not know something, or the man does not know something.

The following is predicated on the idea that causing unnecessary pain is immoral. If you disagree, this is the wrong thread for you.

Now, let us take option 3, that the man does not know something. We, the torturers, are sure of this. It is clear that causing this man pain will in no way achieve the outcome desired, and is by definition unnecessary. This is certainly immoral.

Take option 2: that the man may or may not know something, but we are not sure. If we go this route, and still torture the man, the act of torturing him was an act of gross negligence. We are causing pain on an individual with no knowledge of the individual actually obtaining the outcome we desire, making the torturing of said individual to be arbitrary and without foundation. The problem with this is that, were we to universalize this - torturing people whether or not we are certain they know something - then society would devolve into a culture of depraved peoples with a tyrannical oppression and distrust. It uses an individual as a means to an end and, worse yet, does not have a necessary end. In essence, it is immoral.

Take option 1: In order for torture to NOT be categorically immoral, the argument of it not being so would need to establish, at the very least, that the individual being tortured certainly knows something of value. However, I will argue that even if they can prove this, which I will also argue that they cannot, the act is still immoral.

We will take two scenarios to the first option: that torture is the only means of obtaining the information and that there are other means to obtaining the information which would not be considered torture.

Let us take option 2. If there be any alternative to torture, and we not take it, it is immoral. Always. It would be willfully choosing to cause excess pain without regard to alternatives and is, by nature, unnecessary. This should be simple. Does not matter how certain one is of the knowledge obtained by the individual - if there are alternatives, it precedes this objection.

Option 1: Torture is the only means to obtaining the information. Here you must first prove that the individual does know something with 100% certainty. First of which, that is impossible. Were we to know for 100% certainty that the individual knows something, we would, by necessity, know the information - therefore removing the need for torture whatsoever and the act of it be just unjustified pain - immoral.

Furthermore, even if we are 100% certain and disregard the claim above, we would be using the individual as a means to an end. Immoral. Or we would need to be sure that by torturing him and receiving the information that the act of doing so would certainly (100%) bring about a greater level of pleasure. And even further, we would need to ascertain that the act of torturing the individual does not in any way impede the torturer's ability to function at the highest ability available nor impede the society to function at the highest level available. In all three realms, torture is immoral. If you reject this paragraph, refer to the prior. If you reject both, prove why.

Then someone brought forth that it is always immoral, but can be justified in some cases. To that I would disagree. No universal wrong can ever be justified. A justified immoral act is merely a moral or neutral act. Since I have shown above that it is always immoral, there is no way to justify it.
 

DeletedUser50332

Guest
Furthermore, even if we are 100% certain and disregard the claim above, we would be using the individual as a means to an end. Immoral.

Exactly a pebble! People are an end in themselves, and should never be viewed as a means!
 

DeletedUser

Guest
I agree with you pebble, but I think I am still in my right to say in my opinion torture can sometimes be justified so as my own direct answer to the question is no.

And I think it should be no anyway because, well, do ISIS (as the commonly used example), or Somalian pirates etc, do they regard torture as immoral? Clearly not. Therefore it is not universally immoral.
 

DeletedUser50332

Guest
It's just that my comments seem to have opened it up so much.

If I have mis-represented your views, then this was inadvertant.
However, as you say, your comments certainly have opened up debate.
Thanks
 

DeletedUser

Guest
That's okay ;) I'm always open to any and everyone's views. I even try to understand the extremism of terrorists, and I think in one way I do. It's all they are taught, most do not have a choice (do or die), and if you were given so much hatred towards a particular race or people in your childhood, you would probably turn out like them too.
 

DeletedUser8396

Guest
I agree with you pebble, but I think I am still in my right to say in my opinion torture can sometimes be justified so as my own direct answer to the question is no.

And I think it should be no anyway because, well, do ISIS (as the commonly used example), or Somalian pirates etc, do they regard torture as immoral? Clearly not. Therefore it is not universally immoral.

No, that's the perception of it being universally immoral, not whether it is. Were I to disagree that a tree is made of wood wouldn't make it so that trees aren't universally made of wood.

As for your first paragraph, you're then staying in an unjustified belief without any reasoning to back it...
 

DeletedUser

Guest
Trees can be proven to be made out of wood. Can torture be proven as immoral or moral? Not really no. You could do surveys and find out what people think but even if it's a massive win for immoral, it's still perception is it not?

As for your second paragraph ;) If I was to state my reasoning again I would be repeating myself wouldn't I? I've already said why I believe torture can sometimes be moral - to save the lives of thousands. Yes, you've argued that there are other methods and put it into context more than myself but I do believe torture can rarely but sometimes be justified.

Take this example. You've found the leader of a terrorist organisation which has committed many attacks recently. You take him hostage. As he is the leader, it would be a given that he would know about any upcoming planned attacks, or who performed previous attacks (who else is associated with the group). Therefore without knowing the information, you know that he knows something. He's stubborn and loyal to his group. Torture is the only way to get information out of him. Could torture then be justified? To save the lives of innocents?
 

DeletedUser33512

Guest
Trees can be proven to be made out of wood. Can torture be proven as immoral or moral? Not really no. You could do surveys and find out what people think but even if it's a massive win for immoral, it's still perception is it not?

As for your second paragraph ;) If I was to state my reasoning again I would be repeating myself wouldn't I? I've already said why I believe torture can sometimes be moral - to save the lives of thousands. Yes, you've argued that there are other methods and put it into context more than myself but I do believe torture can rarely but sometimes be justified.

Take this example. You've found the leader of a terrorist organisation which has committed many attacks recently. You take him hostage. As he is the leader, it would be a given that he would know about any upcoming planned attacks, or who performed previous attacks (who else is associated with the group). Therefore without knowing the information, you know that he knows something. He's stubborn and loyal to his group. Torture is the only way to get information out of him. Could torture then be justified? To save the lives of innocents?

"Terrorist" is just as subjective, then?

Torture is straight up immoral. Maybe it can be justified, rarely, it's still immoral. People's opinion doesn't matter to that. Whether it's ISIS or Iran or the US, or Britain. It's just wrong. Also, FYI, torture is rarely successful, especially for "terrorists" as they'd usually die for the cause.
 

DeletedUser50332

Guest
Do we need to strip this conversation back to philosophical basics?

Can we say that there are such things that are morally 'good' or morally 'evil'?
Or do we take up a proto-Nietzschean position and advocate that their is neither a moral 'good' nor 'evil'?
Or do we avoid moral relativism and advocate that there are some universal fundamentals to which we must adhere in order to function as a society?

Do we need to separate out a moral 'act' from moral 'justification'?

(Bring me back to task if I am going off on a tangent!)
 

DeletedUser

Guest
No. The definition of terrorist is: "A person who uses terrorism in the pursuit of political aims." This isn't down to perception at all.

But maybe you have a point. Is the answer to the question, torture is immoral but can (rarely) be justified? Maybe this is the answer. We're getting closer. The definition of immoral is: "not conforming to accepted standards of morality" so if this is taken into account, yes torture is immoral, but can be justified.

As for the success, this isn't anything to do with the question really is it? Okay you could argue that if this doesn't work then it's even more immoral, but really torture should always be a last resort and you have to be extremely mentally strong to withstand torture. Yes, some would rather die but there are methods of torture that aren't life threatening. If it was life threatening it would defeat the point of torture entirely because you wouldn't get any information as they'd be dead.
 

DeletedUser8396

Guest
Trees can be proven to be made out of wood. Can torture be proven as immoral or moral? Not really no. You could do surveys and find out what people think but even if it's a massive win for immoral, it's still perception is it not?

As for your second paragraph ;) If I was to state my reasoning again I would be repeating myself wouldn't I? I've already said why I believe torture can sometimes be moral - to save the lives of thousands. Yes, you've argued that there are other methods and put it into context more than myself but I do believe torture can rarely but sometimes be justified.

Take this example. You've found the leader of a terrorist organisation which has committed many attacks recently. You take him hostage. As he is the leader, it would be a given that he would know about any upcoming planned attacks, or who performed previous attacks (who else is associated with the group). Therefore without knowing the information, you know that he knows something. He's stubborn and loyal to his group. Torture is the only way to get information out of him. Could torture then be justified? To save the lives of innocents?

If what I said can't be refuted, then I have proven it. Since mine has yet to be refuted, it trumps your argument since I addressed the fact that it could save thousands (by addressing literally all scenarios).

As for your example, there is no guarantee that there are any currently planned attacks. Also, it could be that he is simply a public face for the organization, not knowing any real intel. And the knowledge of past attacks and those involved is of no consequence since we are not certain if another attack will happen AND that there are likely alternative means.

Prove me wrong. Your only other options are continuing with an unfounded argument or bowing out.
 

DeletedUser

Guest
Nope, I'll put my hands up to that. Fair do's. There's nothing else to argue after that. I enjoyed the debate though thanks guys :)
 

DeletedUser

Guest
Pebble, I've been arguing opposing views on my own for two pages ;)
 

DeletedUser

Guest
I have done, but you've exhausted my arguments. I've never really considered the morality of torture before, I've opposed your views, you've opposed mine and now I can't continue because there is nothing else to argue. I'm too inclined to agree :)
 
Top