Our BetterMost Community > The Polling Place
Torture: Is It Ever Acceptable?
delalluvia:
--- Quote from: moremojo on December 14, 2007, 11:01:55 am ---So, Del, do we only live by our principles when it is convenient to do so? I understand the points you're making, but I find this kind of moral relativism disturbing (I find Lincoln's suspension of habeas corpus a lasting mark of shame against him, and not at all admirable). I realize that not very many of us could die a martyr's death, but those who do are among the true heroes. Jesus showed by his example that it is better to be killed than it is to kill. Likewise, it is morally superior to be tortured than it is to torture.
--- End quote ---
Of course we only live by our principles when it's convenient. We do it all the time. Do you think WWII shouldn't have been fought and won?
What does your answer to that question say about your principles?
I find Lincoln winning the war admirable. That was his goal, against all odds.
Jesus - if he existed at all - was a major influence over this world, but unfortunately a poor influence and he failed almost completely at his mission.
He taught to 'turn the other cheek', to 'love thy neighbor as thyself'...
How many who claim to be his followers actually follow his teachings?
Very very very few. I have Born Again Christian friends who feel being a 'soldier' in God's work is a blessing. Going out and killing people in a war is perfectly fine for a Christian. I keep bringing up the contradiction between what Jesus taught and what he says is OK to do, and he simply rationalizes it away:
Jesus would want Christians to survive, so it's perfectly fine to fight battles and kill people who would kill you and destroy Christianity.
I see here a massive failure of Jesus' teachings to stick.
People who call themselves Christians simply adopt what works for them and ignore what doesn't. That's how many modern Christians earn the moniker 'cafeteria' or 'cherry picking' Christians. I see that as people tossing away their principles daily simply because they're inconvenient.
Jess
As for torture, in this day and age, I haven't done a study on it of course, but I'm sure there are drugs that they use, which lowers one's consciousness and awareness, so while someone may say "I'll misdirect them, tell them what they want to hear."...that may not be an option for the person being tortured. They may be so out of it, they won't know what they're saying.
People in charge of such things would expect people to lie and misdirect. Like I said, I haven't done any studying on it, but anyone with a basic knowledge of human psychology would know this and have developed countermeasures.
injest:
not according to the studies I have found. Consistantly the information gleaned from torture has been proven incorrect and unreliable.
what does work is the THREAT of torture;
Ironically, while actual torture rarely yields reliable information, the culture of fear created by the threat of torture often motivates people to bring information to those in power
but then we are faced with the question of what kind of society we want....
First, it seems likely that adopting torture and the threat of torture as weapons would be morally harmful to the society in question. To see that this is likely, one needs to merely consider the nature of societies that have already embraced the use of torture. Second, the use of torture as a means of coercion and intimidation certainly seems to be a form of terrorism. As such, the reduction in one type of terrorism would be, ironically, offset by the increase in another. Third, terrorism is denounced as a moral evil and its alleged opponents, such as George Bush, seem to revel in claiming the moral high ground. However, a society that accepts the use of torture cannot claim the moral high ground-they are walking the same ground as the terrorist
delalluvia:
--- Quote from: injest on December 14, 2007, 08:54:49 pm ---not according to the studies I have found. Consistantly the information gleaned from torture has been proven incorrect and unreliable.
what does work is the THREAT of torture;
Ironically, while actual torture rarely yields reliable information, the culture of fear created by the threat of torture often motivates people to bring information to those in power
--- End quote ---
Very likely. However, honestly, I doubt that anyone who actually had success with a certain torture would want to publish his findings so that everyone would know and then be able to develop countermeasures...we're not told everything.
--- Quote ---but then we are faced with the question of what kind of society we want....
First, it seems likely that adopting torture and the threat of torture as weapons would be morally harmful to the society in question. To see that this is likely, one needs to merely consider the nature of societies that have already embraced the use of torture. Second, the use of torture as a means of coercion and intimidation certainly seems to be a form of terrorism. As such, the reduction in one type of terrorism would be, ironically, offset by the increase in another. Third, terrorism is denounced as a moral evil and its alleged opponents, such as George Bush, seem to revel in claiming the moral high ground. However, a society that accepts the use of torture cannot claim the moral high ground-they are walking the same ground as the terrorist
--- End quote ---
Well, simply saying that we're not walking a higher ground morally and are just trying to protect our people destroys that entire argument. Self-defense is an extremely high ground to walk, just checkout the nation of Israel.
moremojo:
--- Quote from: delalluvia on December 14, 2007, 09:12:36 pm ---Well, simply saying that we're not walking a higher ground morally and are just trying to protect our people destroys that entire argument. Self-defense is an extremely high ground to walk, just checkout the nation of Israel.
--- End quote ---
Not necessarily. Self-preservation is very understandable, but it's not necessarily indicative of high moral or spiritual stature. I offer the example of Jesus again--the failures of most of his followers notwithstanding, he illustrated how the lack of self-preservation can be a moral/spiritual attainment of the highest order.
I realize that principles are discarded all the time out of expediency, but if they are so expedient, what was their worth in the first place? What is the point of fighting a war to "save" the United States when you shred the very constitutional foundation of the country in doing so? At the very least, such people can be honest about what they are really doing.
I have stated elsewhere that I do find the intentional taking of human life permissable under certain conditions, and used the Second World War as an example. The kind of evil that Hitler and the Nazis represented had to be met with the only kind of power that someone like Hitler understood and respected--brute, violent force. But killing someone swiftly is very different from torturing them needlessly. And I still find much to admire in those that met the Nazis' bullets with gentleness and meekness, and sacrificed their lives in the demonstration of their faith and principle. Just because most of us are unwilling (incapable?) of doing the same does not diminish the potency and beauty of their gesture.
delalluvia:
--- Quote from: moremojo on December 14, 2007, 09:24:31 pm ---Not necessarily. Self-preservation is very understandable, but it's not necessarily indicative of high moral or spiritual stature. I offer the example of Jesus again--the failures of most of his followers notwithstanding, he illustrated how the lack of self-preservation can be a moral/spiritual attainment of the highest order.
--- End quote ---
It most certainly can be...until everyone who believes so is exterminated...then what was gained? Some people would rather be a live dog than a dead lion - forget any noble sacrifices. They'd just rather live.
--- Quote ---I realize that principles are discarded all the time out of expediency, but if they are so expedient, what was their worth in the first place?
--- End quote ---
That's what makes them so precious and the people who DO stick to them very admirable. They're extremely hard to maintain. They're doable, but as I pointed out in my Christian example, most people would just rather live their lives and not worry about the morality of the constant compromise that is their lives.
--- Quote ---What is the point of fighting a war to "save" the United States when you shred the very constitutional foundation of the country in doing so? At the very least, such people can be honest about what they are really doing.
--- End quote ---
We've already done so, many times in the past, and now and will probably do so again.
If you read the book The DaVinci Code, the author in his afterword, has several interviews and in one he talks with an ex-govt operative. This operative actually told him that the U.S. government had been secretly wire-tapping its own people for years - in full violation of the Constitution. Didn't matter. It was a matter of National Security and no president alive would go against that. That was back in 2003 when the book was published. The gods only know how long its been going on.
My best friend in high school was half-Middle Eastern and I don't know where she learned this, but she told me that if someone in the States called certain Middle Eastern countries more than 3 times in a single year, their phones would start being tapped. She did this one year and all year, we kept hearing strange noises over her phone during conversations - this was back before cell phones.
[shrug]
--- Quote ---I have stated elsewhere that I do find the intentional taking of human life permissable under certain conditions, and used the Second World War as an example. The kind of evil that Hitler and the Nazis represented had to be met with the only kind of power that someone like Hitler understood and respected--brute, violent force. But killing someone swiftly is very different from torturing them needlessly. And I still find much to admire in those that met the Nazis' bullets with gentleness and meekness, and sacrificed their lives in the demonstration of their faith and principle. Just because most of us are unwilling (incapable?) of doing the same does not diminish the potency and beauty of their gesture.
--- End quote ---
It doesn't diminish the picture of their sacrifice, but I don't usually find people going to their death like sheep very admirable. What did it accomplish except make martyrs of themselves, earn world-wide victim status and leave 6 million dead? In many cases, the victims outnumbered their persecutors. How much shorter would the war have been if Hitler had had to deal with constant revolts and civil war in his own country while trying to fight a war on two fronts? If they had to die, IMO, their descendants and the world in general would have been better served by them doing so to help end the war. As for the torture, the difference is whether we consider it 'needless' or not.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version