The more you attend Church, the more likely you are so support Torture.

[John V]

So you think they will always tell the truth under torture, then?

First, that's a false dichotomy. Second, I already said: All it needs is that the tortured person will sometimes tell the truth. Some recovered children are better than none.

... so long as the truth is being told.

You said that "the tortured will say what they think their captor wants to hear in order to make the torture stop." I want to hear the actual location of the child. By your logic, the person being tortured should tell me that.

When the interrogators themselves deprecate the capability of torture to educe information, it probably doesn't work. I'm inclined to accept their professional opinion.

Me too. I haven't had time to review opposing opinion, but if the facts are that torture is ineffective, I see no reason to pursue it.

As opposed to, say, build the things straight in the first place?

Yes, as opposed to that.

You obviously abdicate your faculty of moral judgement in at least one case.

What case is that, and how is it obvious?

[Thumpalumpacus]

First, that's a false dichotomy. Second, I already said: All it needs is that the tortured person will sometimes tell the truth. Some recovered children are better than none.

The fact that some if not most will undoubtedly lie shows that the premise is flawed. We haven't even addressed the other hidden assumptions built into that scenario, either.

You said that "the tortured will say what they think their captor wants to hear in order to make the torture stop." I want to hear the actual location of the child. By your logic, the person being tortured should tell me that.

... or you will be sent on a wild goose-chase so that the criminal will get his wish of having the child die, perhaps. Or, you have the wrong guy. Or, he dropped the child off left to wander.

Bottom line, this scenario represents a "perfect storm" scenario in an attempt to educe the acknowledgement that torute is moral. The fact is that the inbuilt assumptions are so unlikely that this scenario is useless as a means of adjuging the morality of torture.

Me too. I haven't had time to review opposing opinion, but if the facts are that torture is ineffective, I see no reason to pursue it.

I'd recommend you use Google Scholar to get the meat of the details. News articles are great, but usually pretty biased.

As opposed to, say, build the things straight in the first place?

Yes, as opposed to that.

It's a pity that said carpenter couldn't figure out a better way of building quality products.

What case is that, and how is it obvious?

You seem like you can figure it out.

[abaris]

I promise, this is the first and the last time I'm doing this. But since here are also knuckleheads believing in the validity of torture, I'm quoting myself from the other thread.

This is from Fox news of all sources. Even they can't spin the "enhanced interrogation" issue otherwise known as torture into something useful. The title says it all:

Why CIA interrogations report matters: Torture doesn't work and Americans need to know

The executive summary of the report, written after reviewing hundreds of thousands of the CIA’s internal documents, shows that torture was more brutal and much less fruitful than the CIA claimed. In fact, the committee concluded that all the claims about the value of intelligence gained from “enhanced” interrogation—including the claim that it helped the U.S. find Usama bin Laden—are overstated or just plain false.

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2014/12/0...s-need-to/

One of many many sources carrying the same claim. A claim that has been known to be true since the age of enlightenment when people actually started to think for themselves. A recommended ability.

[John V]

The fact that some if not most will undoubtedly lie shows that the premise is flawed.

As noted, some saved children are better than none.

We haven't even addressed the other hidden assumptions built into that scenario, either.

So address them if they're important.

... or you will be sent on a wild goose-chase so that the criminal will get his wish of having the child die, perhaps. Or, you have the wrong guy. Or, he dropped the child off left to wander.

The child was going to die anyway. If some people give accurate info under torture, some children benefit, and as noted the kidnapper may too.

Bottom line, this scenario represents a "perfect storm" scenario in an attempt to educe the acknowledgement that torute is moral. The fact is that the inbuilt assumptions are so unlikely that this scenario is useless as a means of adjuging the morality of torture.

Such scenarios are common in philosophical discussion. I took this scenario from such a site, in fact.

It's a pity that said carpenter couldn't figure out a better way of building quality products.

Yep, too bad for the crooked cabinets.

You seem like you can figure it out.

Why the dodge?

[KevinM1]

Sin isn't a crime. Sin is just stuff a god doesn't like.

Sin is the shit that the men who invented god didn't like.

More accurate: sin is the stuff that the men who invented god didn't want others to do as a means of control. Church leaders? They sin all the damn time.

[robvalue]

I'm sickened to see people come to the defence of torture. I guess I shouldn't be surprised seeing as subscribing to some external "moral" standard is totally abandoning your humanity.

[John V]

I'm sickened to see people come to the defence of torture. I guess I shouldn't be surprised seeing as subscribing to some external "moral" standard is totally abandoning your humanity.

What about the 40% without religious affiliation who support torture according to the survey? You guys keep ignoring that the difference is only 1 person in 5.

[Jackalope]

I'm sickened to see people come to the defence of torture. I guess I shouldn't be surprised seeing as subscribing to some external "moral" standard is totally abandoning your humanity.

What about the 40% without religious affiliation who support torture according to the survey? You guys keep ignoring that the difference is only 1 person in 5.

If you put it that way it seems small.

Let's put it another way: it's 50% more likely

Quite frankly, that 40% of nonreligious people disgust me as well.

[robvalue]

Yeah, I was referring to people on this forum. But yes, anyone saying torture is okay is fucked up, whatever their justification.

[Thumpalumpacus]

As noted, some saved children are better than none.

You asked how your premise was flawed, and I showed you.

But since we're on the subject, how many children have been saved by torture under these circumstances?

That's right, none. Because they're unrealistic to the point of being nonexistent. Life isn't a Dirty Harry movie, either.

So address them if they're important.

I'm pretty sure I did, right below this one-liner of yours. Let's read on:

... or you will be sent on a wild goose-chase so that the criminal will get his wish of having the child die, perhaps. Or, you have the wrong guy. Or, he dropped the child off left to wander.

The child was going to die anyway. If some people give accurate info under torture, some children benefit, and as noted the kidnapper may too.

Not necessarily. You're assuming your perfect storm has winds blowing you in the right direction.

Such scenarios are common in philosophical discussion. I took this scenario from such a site, in fact.

That explains a lot. Philosophy is not often worth the paper it's printed on.

You seem like you can figure it out.

Why the dodge?

I want to get insight on your critical thinking faculties. Whether or not you can understand the point, and how quickly you do so, tells me a lot about you.