• 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
Blackdog said:
So if the majority decided killing people who are mentally handicapped under certain conditions is OK, it would no longer be immoral? Intresting.
Click to expand...
Within certain modes of philosophy, that would be the case.

However, what could be said with certainty is that said majority had deemed killing the mentally handicapped under certain conditions to be moral. Whether one considers such an argument conclusive or even persuasive is a different question entirely.

Taking your question and turning the point back towards the poll topic, do you say that those who claim they WOULD torture in the proposed hypothetical wrong in their justifications? Are they wrong to say they would torture?
 
I wonder, even with the results of the hypothetical question. How many people would be able to torture another (able not in the sense of skill, but able in the sense of desire to harm another)
 
Arch Enemy said:
I wonder, even with the results of the hypothetical question. How many people would be able to torture another (able not in the sense of skill, but able in the sense of desire to harm another)
Click to expand...

An excellent question. While I know where I stand on the hypothetical, I am certain I am not alone in fervently hoping I am never forced to put my stance into actual practice.
 
Dezaad said:
The Scenario doesn't force the issue for me. It assumes that the person I would be torturing was responsible for the danger to my family member(s) . This is not enough. There would have to be some chance that the person knows information that would lead to my family being brought out of danger.

In those circumstances, where there is no doubt, and everything is black and white, I would torture. But life is NEVER like that. So the example cannot really tell us anything about the morality of torture.
Click to expand...

This reminds me of something I heard Dennis Prager say on his radio show once. He said "Conservitives tend to see things in black and white while Liberals see things in shades of grey"

That got me to thinking that conservatives tend to have high moral standards and they stand strongly for what they believe. Liberials on the other hand tend to be a bit wishy washy.

Example 1: John Kerry Quote "I was for the Iraq war before I was against it"

Example 2: Nancy Pelosi "I didn't know anything about possible NSA wiretaps of Harman offering assistance in disrupting a Justice Department investigation.

The very next day she said " I had been informed, I was not in a position to tell Harman the truth. Even if I wanted to share it with her I would not have had the liberty to share it with her"

Example 3: Hillary Clinton was asked at a campaign rally in NH As president would you ever approve torture? Hillary's response "Id never OK torture of terror suspects".

Hillary to the Daily News "In the event we were ever confronted with having to interrogate a detainee with knowledge of an imminent threat to millions of Americans, then the decision to depart from standard international practices must be made by the President, and the President must be held accountable"

Conservative's stand strong for what they believe. By this standard we can assume George Bush was not a conservative.

Liberals are flip floppin wishy washy self contradicting shades of grey seeing freeks.
 
celticlord said:
Within certain modes of philosophy, that would be the case.
Click to expand...

Agreed.

celticlord said:
However, what could be said with certainty is that said majority had deemed killing the mentally handicapped under certain conditions to be moral. Whether one considers such an argument conclusive or even persuasive is a different question entirely.
Click to expand...

It is hypothetical.

And yet you glossed over the Holocaust as an example of how moral or reasonable people can and do unreasonable and immoral acts?

celticlord said:
Taking your question and turning the point back towards the poll topic, do you say that those who claim they WOULD torture in the proposed hypothetical wrong in their justifications?
Click to expand...

The end does not justify the means but no. They are free individuals to think and say what they like even if I disagree. If in reality any of them were to move into the realm of action, then they would be wrong.

celticlord said:
Are they wrong to say they would torture?
Click to expand...

See above.
 
celticlord said:
An excellent question. While I know where I stand on the hypothetical, I am certain I am not alone in fervently hoping I am never forced to put my stance into actual practice.
Click to expand...

Thanks.

I also question the line that has been drawn between this hypothetical question and the deduction of the answer(er)s' moral stance on the issue. I find the question, including the expansions some posters have induced, to be a question of instinct...

Your family is in immediate danger, so would you torture?

When the responder thinks of this question they are imaging themselves in that situation, a situation of immediate action.. a question of instinct.

I do not believe morality to be from instinct. I think morality is of the rationality variety.
 
Arch Enemy said:
Thanks.

I also question the line that has been drawn between this hypothetical question and the deduction of the answer(er)s' moral stance on the issue. I find the question, including the expansions some posters have induced, to be a question of instinct...

Your family is in immediate danger, so would you torture?

When the responder thinks of this question they are imaging themselves in that situation, a situation of immediate action.. a question of instinct.

I do not believe morality to be from instinct. I think morality is of the rationality variety.
Click to expand...

Agreed on the distinction between morality and instinct.

I disagree on the proposition that the question posed at the start of this thread to be a question of instinct. Indeed, the debate that has proceeded precludes it being simply a question of instinct.

Instinct, as you correctly observe, is intrinsically separated from rational thought--it is by definition irrational thought.

Is the debate we have been having here instinctive or rational? While a few responses have been of a knee-jerk/witticism variety, most of the respondents, including Ethereal in his original post, propose reasons for their choice. Your own posts, for example, as well as Captain Courtesy's, have tended towards seeking clarification of the scenario and the predicates to the choice being made--analytical comments that require the abstract reasoning even to articulate.

Additionally, I would argue that the scenario posed could not entertain instinctive response, simply because to engage in the action proposed--that of torture--is to cogitate, calculate, and rationally think about how best to inflict pain, cause distress, and generally inflict suffering. Torture may be good or evil, but it I do not see it as ever being instinctive.

No, this is not a question of instinct. It is a moral question, and a proper answer requires a measure of moral thought and reasoning, regardless of the answer at which one arrives. Those who answer in the affirmative generally speak from a morality that places the bonds of kinship and close communion above the bonds of mere humanity; my own morality emphatically makes this distinction. Those who have answered in the negative seem to be generally speaking from a morality that makes all bonds equal, and rejects the distinction between family member and perfect stranger. We may be articulating different moral perspectives and philosophies, but the responses I have read here are definitely articulating moral reasoning and rational thought.
 
celticlord said:
Additionally, I would argue that the scenario posed could not entertain instinctive response, simply because to engage in the action proposed--that of torture--is to cogitate, calculate, and rationally think about how best to inflict pain, cause distress, and generally inflict suffering. Torture may be good or evil, but it I do not see it as ever being instinctive.
Click to expand...

One of my problems is that "they" calculate, cogitate, and rationally think about how to go about torturing
The Op's assume
The hypothetical assumes said person is a murderous thug who is directly responsible for endangering your family.
Click to expand...
Came to me as "if you don't act now, then your family will be harmed or murdered". I might be caught up on the usage of "Endanger", which invokes urgency; as the "Endangered Species List" immediately grants certain animals rights because they are at risk-- Urgency.

Also, there is a large difference between those who "torture" and those who shout and light someone's balls on fire. I agree that "torture" on the scale of the CIA, etc. requires rationalization.
I am not trained in torturing. We might be having problems with the term "torture" as well, as I do no believe me harming another for answers is torture, really.


No, this is not a question of instinct. It is a moral question, and a proper answer requires a measure of moral thought and reasoning, regardless of the answer at which one arrives. Those who answer in the affirmative generally speak from a morality that places the bonds of kinship and close communion above the bonds of mere humanity; my own morality emphatically makes this distinction. Those who have answered in the negative seem to be generally speaking from a morality that makes all bonds equal, and rejects the distinction between family member and perfect stranger. We may be articulating different moral perspectives and philosophies, but the responses I have read here are definitely articulating moral reasoning and rational thought.
Click to expand...



The rationality appears to be in the method; the Christian may have rationalized the act of prayer, without necessarily being able to rationalize Christianity.

I am not getting the immorality of not being able to distinguish between stranger and family member. I think morals were put in place to defend ourselves against everyone, including family members and strangers. Thus, In this case I do not see it being immoral distinguish.
 
UtahBill said:
"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...
Click to expand...
Morality is always unstable, this does not mean one should completely abandon it.

One certainly should not abandon it just because he classifies the enemy as having none. Not only is morality as much about how these acts will effect him and his society but it is a very dangerous path to declare someone an "enemy" and therefore beyond all any sort of boundaries or restrictions in what can be done with them.

I think people need to abandon these simplistic ideas on morality, stop trying to excuse doing any to someone just because they are your enemy and go and read Shakespeare, the best tool for morality and its very difficult application in the real world you will find.
 
Last edited:
celticlord said:
No, this is not a question of instinct. It is a moral question, and a proper answer requires a measure of moral thought and reasoning, regardless of the answer at which one arrives.
Click to expand...
It is a simplistic, abstract question that has little bearing on the realities of moral problems. There is very little that such questions can teach us, particularly one's so extreme.

It is beyond the realms of most people's experience and we can say what we feel we would do, as I have, but in the end words are wind when they are in so abstract a realm.
 
Wessexman said:
Morality is always unstable, this does not mean one should completely abandon it.

One certainly should not abandon it just because he classifies the enemy as having none. Not only is morality as much about how these acts will effect him and his society but it is a very dangerous path to declare someone an "enemy" and therefore beyond all any esort of boundaries or restrictions in what can be done with them.

I think people need to abandon these simplistic ideas on morality, stop trying to excuse doing any to someone just because they are your enemy and go and read Shakespeare, the best tool for morality and its very difficult application in the real world you will find.
Click to expand...

This argument only sustains if the use of torture is itself an abandonment of said morality. I am not at all persuaded that such is categorically true, and, in the case of the hypothetical posited at the beginning, am of the opinion that torture would in fact be most moral.
 
celticlord said:
This argument only sustains if the use of torture is itself an abandonment of said morality. I am not at all persuaded that such is categorically true, and, in the case of the hypothetical posited at the beginning, am of the opinion that torture would in fact be most moral.
Click to expand...

The point is the hypothetical is useless, it is an abstract, extreme scenario beyond the realms of most people's experience and so can tell us little beyond the fact that many of us would contemplate torture in such a scenario while sitting at home and never having been in anything like that scenario.

But also what Utahbill seemed to be suggesting and what others have implied is not only when someone is an enemy can we torture them any way we wish if it is useful but we can do just about anything, there are no boundaries or restrictions. You want to smoke out your enemy, then presumably it is fine to round up his children as hostages or machine gun them into mass graves. The implication is that anything is okay.

This I object to, and it is partly because of my family and community and the morality they have instilled in me.
 
Last edited:
I'm not derailing anything, I'm merely asking what your intentions are with it.
Click to expand...

My intentions are the same as anyone else who starts a poll; to pose a question and obtain varying perspectives. I think what you're really trying to ask me is whether or not I have an ulterior motive. Perhaps I do, perhaps I don't, but I'm not sure why that should stop you from answering a simple question.

I'm not going to answer your silly poll if the purpose is to bait, which by all outward appearances is the purpose. The fact that you aren't forthcoming with what your intentions are makes me suspect even more that the purpose of this poll is to bait.
Click to expand...

Bait? You mean expose hypocrisy or inconsistency? Perhaps that's why you're so hesitant to answer the question. No matter, I have enough material to start my follow up.
 
Ethereal said:
My intentions are the same as anyone else who starts a poll; to pose a question and obtain varying perspectives. I think what you're really trying to ask me is whether or not I have an ulterior motive. Perhaps I do, perhaps I don't, but I'm not sure why that should stop you from answering a simple question.
Click to expand...

We both know you do have an ulterior motive, so perhaps you should just be forthcoming with it instead of playing games.

Bait? You mean expose hypocrisy or inconsistency? Perhaps that's why you're so hesitant to answer the question. No matter, I have enough material to start my follow up.
Click to expand...

I would be hesitant to answer the question regardless because I think baiting is a sleazy and underhanded way of proving a point. And yes that is baiting. You can paint it however you want, but it doesn't change a thing.
 
dclxvinoise said:
We both know you do have an ulterior motive, so perhaps you should just be forthcoming with it instead of playing games.



I would be hesitant to answer the question regardless because I think baiting is a sleazy and underhanded way of proving a point. And yes that is baiting. You can paint it however you want, but it doesn't change a thing.
Click to expand...




why is it baiting?



hell I'd use it to save one of YOUR relatives who were in mortal danger....


not baiting or hard to answer at all.
 
Reverend_Hellh0und said:
why is it baiting?



hell I'd use it to save one of YOUR relatives who were in mortal danger....


not baiting or hard to answer at all.
Click to expand...

It's not the question that's baiting. It's the fact that he has an ulterior motive behind the question. I agree with you that the question is simple. A person would do damn near anything to save a loved one. I just think that asking a question like that with an ulterior motive is lame, especially when you aren't forthcoming about it when asked.
 
dclxvinoise said:
It's not the question that's baiting. It's the fact that he has an ulterior motive behind the question. I agree with you that the question is simple. A person would do damn near anything to save a loved one. I just think that asking a question like that with an ulterior motive is lame, especially when you aren't forthcoming about it when asked.
Click to expand...




i see no evidence of an ultierior motive. it seems a simple question to me. he may have an opinion he wants to hold onto for now, but thats hardley an ultierior motive.
 
Reverend_Hellh0und said:
i see no evidence of an ultierior motive. it seems a simple question to me. he may have an opinion he wants to hold onto for now, but thats hardley an ultierior motive.
Click to expand...

He even admitted that he "maybe" had an ulterior motive. Based on his comments I'd say it's pretty safe to assume that he does. It's in relation to the torture discussion in another thread. It doesn't matter what the topic would be, I think baiting to prove a point is lame. All of this could have been resolved in one post in the thread where the actual discussion is happening.
 
dclxvinoise said:
He even admitted that he "maybe" had an ulterior motive. Based on his comments I'd say it's pretty safe to assume that he does. It's in relation to the torture discussion in another thread. It doesn't matter what the topic would be, I think baiting to prove a point is lame. All of this could have been resolved in one post in the thread where the actual discussion is happening.
Click to expand...



so what?


i didn't see you in oc's thread where he does the same thing to zimmer.... funny how that always works eh?


:lol:
 
Psychoclown said:
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.
Click to expand...

I wouldn't classify myself as a pacifist at all, i'd kill to protect anyone on this forum or anyone innocent given the right circumstances and there is no other option but torture is another issue altogether for me.
 
Last edited:
dclxvinoise said:
We both know you do have an ulterior motive, so perhaps you should just be forthcoming with it instead of playing games.

I would be hesitant to answer the question regardless because I think baiting is a sleazy and underhanded way of proving a point. And yes that is baiting. You can paint it however you want, but it doesn't change a thing.
Click to expand...

There's nothing inherently wrong with having an ulterior motive, nor is the point of having one to expose it; hence it is "ulterior." You act as if nuance or deception were not part and parcel to debate; your obtuse insistence to the contrary is derailment.

I am not the "baiter" type of poster. I do not do things in order to score quick or cheap points against my opponents. I am interested in establishing an intellectually and morally relevant dialogue while bolstering my position on an issue; that's how debate works.

I shouldn't be subjected to accusations of utilizing "sleazy" or "underhanded" tactics because I might have an ulterior motive, nor should my poll be referred to as "silly" or "lame" because I do not wish to give you a window into my mind. I would have fully articulated my intentions by now but I no longer feel comfortable doing so because you've taken issue with my integrity and cast a shadow over this thread. I guess the DP will have to wait until this irrelevant tangent is resolved before we can discuss the topic at hand.
 
Ethereal said:
There's nothing inherently wrong with having an ulterior motive, nor is the point of having one to expose it; hence it is "ulterior." You act as if nuance or deception were not part and parcel to debate; your obtuse insistence to the contrary is derailment.

I am not the "baiter" type of poster. I do not do things in order to score quick or cheap points against my opponents. I am interested in establishing an intellectually and morally relevant dialogue while bolstering my position on an issue; that's how debate works.

I shouldn't be subjected to accusations of utilizing "sleazy" or "underhanded" tactics because I might have an ulterior motive, nor should my poll be referred to as "silly" or "lame" because I do not wish to give you a window into my mind. I would have fully articulated my intentions by now but I no longer feel comfortable doing so because you've taken issue with my integrity and cast a shadow over this thread. I guess the DP will have to wait until this irrelevant tangent is resolved before we can discuss the topic at hand.
Click to expand...

Say what you want, but the fact that you weren't forthcoming with your ulterior motives when asked speaks volumes.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom