When do the ends justify the means?

[Bob Kelso]

Ideals are a fantastic thing to have, but when they're measured up against grim situations where there is typically no "right" thing to do, or no way to know what will be "right", I can't say I'd be above doing what needed to be done.

I find torture to be repugnant, but if it were my child's life on the line -or anyone's child for that matter- and I had no other way... I think I'd be ok to sleep at night if that child was doing the same thing in it's own bed, safe and sound.

[Thumpalumpacus]

I'm against torture as well. 

I was just answering a hypothetical scenario in which an innocent child who was known to be alive and could still be found, as honestly as possible. I would do what it takes to find them, if  I knew with absolute certainty who the person responsible for taking them was  AND they were not forthcoming. 

I know that torture is wrong, but I can't say that it's not something I wouldn't consider under those very specific circumstances as a matter of survival. As I said, I'm just being honest.

Well, that's a very specific hypothetical, and perhaps designed to elicit a particular answer? I mean: how could you know the child is alive if you have his captor in your power? If your prisoner was only a henchman, how can your guarantee that his information is up-to-date? What if his cohorts move the child while you're bashing his face in?

No, torture doesn't admit those possibilities. It should be abjured.

[Minimalist]

If you don't mind being as big a shit as your opponent then I guess torture is okay.  I object to that, though.

[Thumpalumpacus]

If you don't mind being as big a shit as your opponent then I guess torture is okay.  I object to that, though.

A race to the bottom is no race at all.

[pocaracas]

Torture doesn't work on the grand majority of cases.
If the guy you're torturing isn't forthcoming in the first place, what makes you think he will be forthcoming once he has a biggest grudge against you?
But Americans think it works... Maybe 24's Jack Bauer has something to do with it...
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/nat...story.html

[Athene]

I'm against torture as well. 

I was just answering a hypothetical scenario in which an innocent child who was known to be alive and could still be found, as honestly as possible. I would do what it takes to find them, if  I knew with absolute certainty who the person responsible for taking them was  AND they were not forthcoming. 

I know that torture is wrong, but I can't say that it's not something I wouldn't consider under those very specific circumstances as a matter of survival. As I said, I'm just being honest.

Well, that's a very specific hypothetical, and perhaps designed to elicit a particular answer? I mean: how could you know the child is alive if you have his captor in your power? If your prisoner was only a henchman, how can your guarantee that his information is up-to-date? What if his cohorts move the child while you're bashing his face in?

No, torture doesn't admit those possibilities. It should be abjured.

I only answered the hypothetical as it was presented in the OP. The child is alive, but soon to die and I have  the perpetrator with me. You've added several other factors to this hypothetical, enough to change it into a completely different scenario.

I do believe that torture is wrong. I don't believe that government or state-sponsored torture, under any other name is a morally acceptable practice OR wise practice, considering the fact that civilians and combatants are likely to say anything they think their captors want to hear, in order to make the torture stop. It is a self-defeating practice that shouldn't take place in any society that claims to uphold human rights.

With that being said, I did lay out a scenario, in which I would be willing to consider this if it were necessary, as it relates to a highly unlikely, hypothetical scenario. Implausible...but, not impossible.

I view torture the same as I view murder, in this regard. Correct me if I'm wrong, but while people accept the fact that murder is wrong, they would typically make the choice to kill someone if they had to in order to defend themselves or their loved ones... as an extremely rare and isolated incident.

I can't imagine that most people wouldn't be willing to fuck up some guy, in order to find out where he stashed a missing kid. If it were there own child, even more so. The innate drive to protect their child would be all-encompassing, even as they knew what they were doing was wrong.

I'm sorry if you take this to mean that I'm saying that torture is okay, because I'm not.

[Ashground]

This whole debate comes from the fact that we want to hurt certain people who we think deserve it. So we go to clearly hypothetical lengths to justify our abhorrent fantasies.

What if they genuinely know nothing? Would you be happy to be tortured if someone else honestly believed you were the one with important information? Anything is justifiable until it happens to you.

[Wyrd of Gawd]

The real purpose of State sponsored torture is to demonstrate to everyone that the State will make mincemeat out of suspects if it will protect the State.  Its primary purpose is to create fear and to keep other people from doing what the person who is being tortured did.  

The purpose of a private individual torturing another person, such as a person torturing the person who killed a family member, is one of retribution and to inflict as much pain on the killer as possible.  

The book of 2 Maccabees chapter 7 contain a great story about torture and how people will resist it if they have the proper motivation.  https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?se...ersion=CEB

In Judges 1:5-7 (CEB) a king used to cut off other kings' thumbs and big toes.  One day he lost a battle and was captured.  So the enemy paid him back.

"5 There they found Adoni-bezek at Bezek, fought against him, and defeated the Canaanites and Perizzites. 6 Adoni-bezek fled, but they chased after him, captured him, and cut off his thumbs and big toes. 7 He said, “Seventy kings with severed thumbs and big toes used to pick up scraps under my table, so God has paid me back exactly for what I did.” They brought him to Jerusalem, where he died."

According to the Bible God got ticked off and killed everyone in a big flood because they were sinners.  People still "sin" so his cure didn't work.

[Athene]

This whole debate comes from the fact that we want to hurt certain people who we think deserve it. So we go to clearly hypothetical lengths to justify our abhorrent fantasies.

What if they genuinely know nothing? Would you be happy to be tortured if someone else honestly believed you were the one with important information? Anything is justifiable until it happens to you.

In the hypothetical being discussed, the person at hand is known to be the perpetrator. In real life, these things are not easily proven. Thus, my real life reaction would differ from response to the hypothetical. To my understanding, a given such as knowing something for certain is taken at face value in a hypothetical question. That's how hypotheticals work.

I, myself do not harbor any abhorrent fantasies. I can't speak for others.

[Wyrd of Gawd]

Everyone will torture another person given the right circumstances without exception and not get too bleeding heart about it. Hell, even Jesus says that he will torture people and that he will love doing it. And all gods torture people. So if you are religious are you saying that you will refuse to do what your favorite deity commands you to do and risk being tortured yourself?

Cops torture people. Soldiers torture people. Criminals will sometimes torture people. Religious people torture people. Atheists torture people. Parents will torture their own children. Children will torture their own parents. Wives and husbands torture each other. And you will be happy to torture someone if the conditions are right, especially if you could get away with it and maybe be rewarded for doing it.