• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Would You Utilize Torture to Save a Life?

Would You Utilize Torture to Save a Family Member?

  • Total voters
    60
Ethereal

Ethereal

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 17, 2005
Messages
8,211
Reaction score
4,179
Location
Chicago
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
This hypothetical scenario is an attempt to gauge one's moral position on torture. It is not meant to elicit idiotic references to the television show 24. That a hypothetical is unlikely to occur is irrelevant - they are intended to subject our moral suppositions to scrutiny by forcing us to make a choice. Having said that, please answer the question with a YES or NO answer followed by an explanation.

If you had to brutally torture a person in order to save the lives of your family, would you do it?

The hypothetical assumes said person is a murderous thug who is directly responsible for endangering your family.

Answer: Yes.

Explanation: Because I hold the lives of my family in a higher regard than murderous thugs.
 
Does this question presuppose that you know he's a murderous thug, and you know that he knows something worth torturing him over?
 
Lachean said:
Does this question presuppose that you know he's a murderous thug, and you know that he knows something worth torturing him over?
Click to expand...
Why, would you torture any other?
 
Last edited:
Of course I would. Just like I would probably kill someone if they killed someone in my family. However, thats exactly why we have laws against torture and against vigilante justice. It is the whole point of these laws.
 
Yes because I value the lives of my loved ones and me over the well being and lives of those who wish to do us harm.
 
This hypothetical has to assume the following in order for me to say yes:

That without a shadow of a doubt my family was in immediate danger.

That I would be able to extract information; that I had some training in torturing.

That no higher authority was willing, or could, intervene.
 
Yes, without hesitation.

No life is more precious to me than those within my household. Torture, maim, mutilate, kill, whatever was needed to keep my household safe, that is what I would do.
 
SouthernDemocrat said:
Of course I would. Just like I would probably kill someone if they killed someone in my family. However, thats exactly why we have laws against torture and against vigilante justice. It is the whole point of these laws.
Click to expand...

And what point is that?
 
Arch Enemy said:
This hypothetical has to assume the following in order for me to say yes:

That without a shadow of a doubt my family was in immediate danger.

That I would be able to extract information; that I had some training in torturing.

That no higher authority was willing, or could, intervene.
Click to expand...

Assume your family is in danger. Torturing a man may or may not help save them. Doing nothing will condemn them.

What then?
 
I do believe there are lines that one shouldn't cross unless one wants to become the monster he despises.

I don't believe in engaging in a process that leaves permanent bodily damage. I don't think even in the hypothetical given I could chop off digits, or set someone on fire. I could and would kill in self defense of my family. But I don't think I'd be able to stomach any intensely brutal torturing process as a means of getting what I wanted.

That said I wouldn't have an issue with things that did not cause permanent bodily damage but did cause intense in the moment discomfort. Waterboarding, sleep deprivation, etc. I would probably also not have issue with punches in the face, smacks upside the head, shoving, etc. But could I take pliers and chop off another persons finger in order to extract info? No.
 
Ethereal said:
It is not meant to elicit idiotic references to the television show 24.
.
Click to expand...
Nothing idiotic about them in the other threads. This is a direct thread about said situations but when people imply them or posit them randomly within other discussions it is fine to call them out on such. If you don't like being called on such then don't do it. Don't make cranky, reference to them later though because you're pissed off at being made to look stupid.

To be honest I consider what you did, attempt to make a controversial point while attempting to be beyond reproach for it a rather cowardly act. If you want to object to being called out on the 24-like scenarios your argument relies on then do so in the threads, don't do it here where you think you can't be responded to.



As for this thread, it is not something I can answer off the top of my head. To "brutally" torture is not something within my life's experiences and I have never been in said situation.

I think I could kill for my family, I could beat some on up for them but to sit down and torture is something else.
 
Last edited:
talloulou said:
I do believe there are lines that one shouldn't cross unless one wants to become the monster he despises.
Click to expand...

The monster I despise is the ineffective wimp who won't do what's necessary to prevent harm to his loved ones.

If the means at my disposal is nothing but a sharp knife and a blow torch, the criminal that's not telling me what he's done with my family member is going to have very permanent body damage indeed.

You don't really love someone unless you're willing to kill those who harm them.
 
Wessexman said:
To be honest I consider what you did, attempt to make a controversial point while attempting to be beyond reproach for it a rather cowardly act. If you want to object to being called out on the 24-like scenarios your argument relies on then do so in the threads, don't do it here where you think you can't be responded to.
Click to expand...
Interjecting all manner of moral gymnastics to evade the simple yes/no answer sought might be construed as moral cowardice of the worst sort.

Moral choices involve two syllables: "yes" and "no". If you can't use one of those to answer the question, then you're dodging the question.

That's cowardice.
 
Scarecrow Akhbar said:
The monster I despise is the ineffective wimp who won't do what's necessary to prevent harm to his loved ones.
Click to expand...

Sometimes there are values more important than base ideas of harm.

Like the legendary Roman generals who executed their sons, who though they had won great victories they had done so by disobeying orders or the Carthaginians who would rather perish along with their families and city rather than compromise with Rome and leave the city to start again in another spot.

And I'm far from a universalist liberal, I'm the one of the most particularlist people you will ever meet. My loyalities are unashamedly far more so for my family, friends, colleagues, local community, county and region, then my country and then humanity at large. But I do have principles and values beyond Benthamite utilitarianism, values that spring from my family and my community, its history and traditions and some of these I would be loath to quickly sacrifice for the basest idea of safety.
 
Last edited:
celticlord said:
Interjecting all manner of moral gymnastics to evade the simple yes/no answer sought might be construed as moral cowardice of the worst sort.

Moral choices involve two syllables: "yes" and "no". If you can't use one of those to answer the question, then you're dodging the question.

That's cowardice.
Click to expand...
:rofl

Is there any for you to insult me such? I gave my views on this question above, I'll say would do it but it is a slightly empty phrase being beyond anything I ever experienced, I however do not consider it simple or an easy yes or no answer, the important things in life rarely are such and to try and reduce them to such is a fool's errand.

To quote Burke.

The nature of man is intricate; the objects of society are of the greatest possible complexity; and, therefore, no simple disposition or direction of power can be suitable either to man's nature or to the quality of his affairs.

I have a Conservatives disdain for simplistic, reductionist ideas of morality, they bring nothing but trouble, we've seen them all before.
 
Last edited:
Under these conditions, are you really in the right state of mind to make this sort of judgment?

If someone breaks into my home, I defend myself and my family. Not because I thought it through, but because it's instinctual.

So to answer the question, would I? Probably. Most likely. Is it because of my principles or moral values? No, I don't think they play a part in this situation.
 
No

Because I would just kill him, period.
 
Personally, I'd torture the **** out of someone simply to get a bowl of chocolate pudding... let alone to save someone's life.


And I don't even like chocolate pudding.
 
Tucker Case said:
Personally, I'd torture the **** out of someone simply to get a bowl of chocolate pudding... let alone to save someone's life.


And I don't even like chocolate pudding.
Click to expand...

You are one sick bastard. Who in the hell does not like chocolate pudding!
 
Lightdemon said:
You are one sick bastard. Who in the hell does not like chocolate pudding!
Click to expand...
He really is, because now I've got Pink Floyd's "Another Brick in the Wall" going through my head.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom