View Poll Results: Would You Utilize Torture to Save a Family Member?

Voters
76. You may not vote on this poll
  • Yes

    61 80.26%
  • No

    15 19.74%
Page 10 of 44 FirstFirst ... 8910111220 ... LastLast
Results 91 to 100 of 439

Thread: Would You Utilize Torture to Save a Life?

  1. #91
    Clown Prince of Politics
    Psychoclown's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Hiding from the voices in my head.
    Last Seen
    09-24-16 @ 12:44 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    1,723

    Re: Would You Utilize Torture to Save a Life?

    I would torture without ceasing and without mercy till my loved ones were once again safe at my side. I really don't think I would stop short of anything. If the choice is permanently disfiguring or crippling some thug or losing my wife or brothers or parents, then that's not a hard choice for me. I'd get medieval and in a hurry in this situation.

    I just cannot understand the people who say no to this scenario. You'd really let your spouse, child, parent, or whatever die because you didn't want to harm a murdering thug? I can't understand that line of thinking. Just like I can't understand the extremist pacifists who say they wouldn't use lethal force to protect their children from a killer. I try and try to see their point of view, but I just can't. Its beyond me.

    That said, this scenario is so abstract and impossible, I don't really see what insight can be gained by it.
    Slipping into madness is good for the sake of comparison - Unknown.

  2. #92
    Sage
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Last Seen
    08-27-09 @ 06:41 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    6,344

    Re: Would You Utilize Torture to Save a Life?

    Quote Originally Posted by Psychoclown View Post
    That said, this scenario is so abstract and impossible, I don't really see what insight can be gained by it.
    The poll numbers show one insight: most people--perhaps all people--can contrive a justification for "torture". Regardless of what we claim for morals, when push comes to shove, we can navigate around them to do whatever we feel we must when the stakes are sufficiently dear.

    Does that make torture "moral"? Or merely tolerably "immoral"? That's rather a different debate, and I suspect is the debate Ethereal desires.

  3. #93
    Stigmatized! End R Word! Kali's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Last Seen
    08-18-12 @ 10:29 PM
    Lean
    Very Liberal
    Posts
    13,334
    Blog Entries
    7

    Re: Would You Utilize Torture to Save a Life?

    Hellll Yeah! I will do anything for my family and that includes killing and dying for em.
    ~Following My Own Flow~

  4. #94
    Professor
    Shadow Serious's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Oklahoma
    Last Seen
    07-18-14 @ 05:06 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    1,460

    Re: Would You Utilize Torture to Save a Life?

    I answered yes. The only regret would be that my knowledge would be inadquate.

  5. #95
    Dorset Patriot
    Wessexman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Sydney, Australia(but my heart is back in Dorset.)
    Last Seen
    04-04-14 @ 01:37 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    8,233

    Re: Would You Utilize Torture to Save a Life?

    Quote Originally Posted by zimmer View Post
    To answer the initial post: Yes.

    For the socialists... if "It Takes a Village", to raise a child, doesn't this mean torture also acceptable to spare the life of a villager?

    Or are we "individuals" now?

    Seems common practice in the lands run by wacko socialists, communists... as they're always subjecting threats to The Village to places of Special Treatment.

    .
    Conservatives are not individualists in the atomistic way you are positing, in fact they tend to be communitarians. To quote the eminent American Conservative sociologist Robert Nisbet, yet again:

    Conservatives, from Burke on, have tended to see the population much in the manner medieval legists and philosophical realists (in contrast to nominalists) saw it: as composed of, not individuals directly, but the natural groups within which individuals invariably live: family, locality, church, region, social class, nation, and so on. Individuals exist, of course, but they cannot be seen or comprehended save in terms of social identities which are inseparable from groups and associations.


    To care for the intermediate group and its key place in the life and freedom of the individual is certainly not socialist, in fact it is something that socialism and liberalism tend to lack(although far from completely see De Tocqueville or Kropotkin.) as they tend to see only the abstract, autonomous individual and the state. It is conservatives above all others who have viewed individuals within their traditional social structures, not obscuring individuals or the state certainly but remembering the importance of the small-scale voluntary and "natural" association and its authority to the individual personality, order, freedom and meaning.
    "It is written in the eternal constitution that men of intemperate minds cannot be free. Their passions forge their fetters." - Edmund Burke

  6. #96
    Sage
    UtahBill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Utah
    Last Seen
    09-12-16 @ 08:19 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    17,513

    Re: Would You Utilize Torture to Save a Life?

    "Morality is an unstable commodity in international relations." author John Toland....

    anyone trying to inject morals into an issue where one side clearly has none is wasting their time. If bad people inflict pain and misery on your loved ones, and continues to do so, and the only way to make it stop is to inflict pain and misery on one of their agents, the definition of morals becomes VERY ambiguous....
    IMO, we would be morally remiss if we withhold torture as a tool to get the information we need...
    Oracle of Utah
    Truth rings hollow in empty heads.

  7. #97
    User BigRed's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Ohio
    Last Seen
    06-19-09 @ 05:18 PM
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    61

    Re: Would You Utilize Torture to Save a Life?

    Quote Originally Posted by Ethereal View Post
    It seems some of us are failing to comprehend the hypothetical.

    Torturing this murderous thug is the ONLY way to save your family. There are no qualifiers, there are no exceptions, there are no what-if scenarios or anything like that. If you do not torture this murderous thug it is a certainty that your family will die. It was made black and white for a reason.

    Refuse to torture, family dies.

    Now, what is your final answer?
    That's why I don't like hypotheticals.

    They are stacked on one side in order to force someone's hand to prove a point and therefore, do not reflect reality most of the time.

    I would not torture. I'd like to think I'm further out of the jungle than that. Of course, I'm not trying to imply I'm a pacifist either.
    "If one rejects laissez faire on account of man's fallibility and moral weakness, one must for the same reason also reject every kind of government action."

    --Ludwig von Mises

  8. #98
    Sage
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Last Seen
    08-27-09 @ 06:41 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    6,344

    Re: Would You Utilize Torture to Save a Life?

    Quote Originally Posted by BigRed View Post
    They are stacked on one side in order to force someone's hand to prove a point and therefore, do not reflect reality most of the time.
    Hypotheticals do not reflect reality. That is why they are hypothetical.

    The value of hypotheticals is they allow for moral positions to be challenged conceptually.

    In this instance, the overwhelming number of respondents to Ethereal's poll in the affirmative that they WOULD torture to save a family member, along with the ample commentary in this discussion, stands as a potent challenge to the blanket assertion that "torture is immoral."

    On its own, without moderation or mitigation, the vast majority of respondents in this thread have constructively deemed that proposition to be false. Torture is not categorically immoral; so sayeth the participants here on DP.

    Why is this meaningful? It is meaningful because if we do not say that torture is categorically immoral, by what constructions may we fairly say that torture is immoral? What circumstance renders torture immoral? What context renders torture wrong?

    Further, if torture is not categorically immoral, we must pause and ask if there be justifications for the acts being decried as torture.

    The hypothetical stands as demonstration that the moral assertions being applied in "reality" are not always as categorical, clear, and patently obvious as some are wont to believe.

  9. #99
    User BigRed's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Ohio
    Last Seen
    06-19-09 @ 05:18 PM
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    61

    Re: Would You Utilize Torture to Save a Life?

    Quote Originally Posted by celticlord View Post
    Hypotheticals do not reflect reality. That is why they are hypothetical.

    The value of hypotheticals is they allow for moral positions to be challenged conceptually.

    In this instance, the overwhelming number of respondents to Ethereal's poll in the affirmative that they WOULD torture to save a family member, along with the ample commentary in this discussion, stands as a potent challenge to the blanket assertion that "torture is immoral."

    On its own, without moderation or mitigation, the vast majority of respondents in this thread have constructively deemed that proposition to be false. Torture is not categorically immoral; so sayeth the participants here on DP.

    Why is this meaningful? It is meaningful because if we do not say that torture is categorically immoral, by what constructions may we fairly say that torture is immoral? What circumstance renders torture immoral? What context renders torture wrong?

    Further, if torture is not categorically immoral, we must pause and ask if there be justifications for the acts being decried as torture.

    The hypothetical stands as demonstration that the moral assertions being applied in "reality" are not always as categorical, clear, and patently obvious as some are wont to believe.
    I suppose that is a fair contention.

    Before you can classify torture as immoral or otherwise, you would first have to define what constitutes torture and that in itself, is a subject of debate.
    "If one rejects laissez faire on account of man's fallibility and moral weakness, one must for the same reason also reject every kind of government action."

    --Ludwig von Mises

  10. #100
    King Of The Dog Pound

    Black Dog's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    South Florida
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    30,694

    Re: Would You Utilize Torture to Save a Life?

    Quote Originally Posted by celticlord View Post
    In this instance, the overwhelming number of respondents to Ethereal's poll in the affirmative that they WOULD torture to save a family member, along with the ample commentary in this discussion, stands as a potent challenge to the blanket assertion that "torture is immoral."
    So if the majority decided killing people who are mentally handicapped under certain conditions is OK, it would no longer be immoral? Intresting.

    Quote Originally Posted by celticlord View Post
    On its own, without moderation or mitigation, the vast majority of respondents in this thread have constructively deemed that proposition to be false. Torture is not categorically immoral; so sayeth the participants here on DP.
    I disagree with your false conclusion.

    The only thing it has shown is that moral people under the right circumstance can commit acts which are immoral.

    The the Holocaust is a good example based in reality, not the hypothetical. Not all who participated were immoral people but for Germany they participated in immoral acts by any standard.

    Quote Originally Posted by celticlord View Post
    Why is this meaningful? It is meaningful because if we do not say that torture is categorically immoral, by what constructions may we fairly say that torture is immoral? What circumstance renders torture immoral? What context renders torture wrong?

    Further, if torture is not categorically immoral, we must pause and ask if there be justifications for the acts being decried as torture.
    Good observation even if in this case I do not agree.

    Quote Originally Posted by celticlord View Post
    The hypothetical stands as demonstration that the moral assertions being applied in "reality" are not always as categorical, clear, and patently obvious as some are wont to believe.
    I don't think this is at all correct because as I said before any moral person is capable of immoral acts under the right circumstances. This does not make the act itself any less immoral.


    No Lives Matter

Page 10 of 44 FirstFirst ... 8910111220 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •