• 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
You said that terrorists aren't people so I figure you were in Afghanistan because if you were in Iraq you were probably fighting people involved in different political factions for control of neighborhoods/towns, aka insurgents, not terrorists. Though I suppose some of them could have been.

I was making a joke. Don't read too much into it.
 
You said that terrorists aren't people so I figure you were in Afghanistan because if you were in Iraq you were probably fighting people involved in different political factions for control of neighborhoods/towns, aka insurgents, not terrorists. Though I suppose some of them could have been.

It wouldn't matter where he was if he was only fantasizing about killing terrorists.
 
I wouldn't torture anyone for any reason. I think it's disgusting that the US has stooped so low. Makes me ill.
 
I wouldn't torture anyone for any reason.

This is a flat-out lie. Anyone who makes a statement to this effect is simply demonstrating their emotional and political bias.
 
This is a flat-out lie. Anyone who makes a statement to this effect is simply demonstrating their emotional and political bias.

I don't know. I wouldn't torture someone for "any" reason. I would torture someone for a "few" reasons.

I mean, if I just tortured people for any old reason, I'd never get any rest. I usually only torture people for good reasons... like Klondike bars. :2razz:
 
I usually only torture people for good reasons... like Klondike bars. :2razz:

It's torture that you keep bring up that line and getting it stuck in our heads!!!:eek:
 
Would You Utilize Torture to Save a Family Member

306,405,970 Americans

...all of them family
 
I don't know. I wouldn't torture someone for "any" reason. I would torture someone for a "few" reasons.

I mean, if I just tortured people for any old reason, I'd never get any rest. I usually only torture people for good reasons... like Klondike bars. :2razz:

One reason I made this poll was to demonstrate the absolute unwillingness of some people to approach this issue logically and objectively. The hypothetical is purposely black and white so as to make the choice easy and obvious. For any person with a shred of courage and love, the only acceptable answer to this poll was unequivocally, "yes". It's perfectly acceptable to be against "torture" and answer yes to this poll; there's nothing hypocritical about it and it was never my intent to imply as much.

I was simply trying to demonstrate that some people will be against "torture" EVEN WHEN it's morally justified. They reflexively reject "torture" on an emotional basis instead of approaching it logically. To them, "torture" is axiomatically evil and requires little to no logical or moral analysis.
 
One reason I made this poll was to demonstrate the absolute unwillingness of some people to approach this issue logically and objectively. The hypothetical is purposely black and white so as to make the choice easy and obvious. For any person with a shred of courage and love, the only acceptable answer to this poll was unequivocally, "yes". It's perfectly acceptable to be against "torture" and answer yes to this poll; there's nothing hypocritical about it and it was never my intent to imply as much.

I was simply trying to demonstrate that some people will be against "torture" EVEN WHEN it's morally justified. They reflexively reject "torture" on an emotional basis instead of approaching it logically. To them, "torture" is axiomatically evil and requires little to no logical or moral analysis.

Thanks for the clarification.
 
I find it odd that Celticlord would thank Ethereal's post here:

Ethereal said:
One reason I made this poll was to demonstrate the absolute unwillingness of some people to approach this issue logically and objectively. The hypothetical is purposely black and white so as to make the choice easy and obvious. For any person with a shred of courage and love, the only acceptable answer to this poll was unequivocally, "yes". It's perfectly acceptable to be against "torture" and answer yes to this poll; there's nothing hypocritical about it and it was never my intent to imply as much.

I was simply trying to demonstrate that some people will be against "torture" EVEN WHEN it's morally justified. They reflexively reject "torture" on an emotional basis instead of approaching it logically. To them, "torture" is axiomatically evil and requires little to no logical or moral analysis.

I have repeatedly answered yes to the scenario, but objected to using torture because of it's immorality. Yet according to Celticlord, I am the hypocrite.

While the intention of this thread was to demonstrate that some people will be against "torture" EVEN WHEN it's morally justified, it ALSO demonstrates that some people are hell bent on insulting those that oppose "torture" for no other reason than partisan politics. The double edge sword cuts both ways.

This was a worthwhile exercise.
 
I find it odd that Celticlord would thank Ethereal's post here:



I have repeatedly answered yes to the scenario, but objected to using torture because of it's immorality. Yet according to Celticlord, I am the hypocrite.

While the intention of this thread was to demonstrate that some people will be against "torture" EVEN WHEN it's morally justified, it ALSO demonstrates that some people are hell bent on insulting those that oppose "torture" for no other reason than partisan politics. The double edge sword cuts both ways.

This was a worthwhile exercise.

To be fair, Celtic Lord was able to identify another motivation of mine. He was spot on when he said:

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.

Not only was I attempting to highlight the emotional and illogical opposition of others, I was also trying to demonstrate that torture is not categorically immoral, and that it can be justified under certain circumstances.
 
Not only was I attempting to highlight the emotional and illogical opposition of others, I was also trying to demonstrate that torture is not categorically immoral, and that it can be justified under certain circumstances.

...Which coincides with my belief that not all things are two dimensional.

Furthermore, I don't think I was being illogical for having the belief that torturing someone is immoral, while having the belief that torture can be justified.

When viewed in only black and white, you can say that I have a hypocritical view on torture. But because it is not two dimensional like that, I am not being illogical, but only choosing the lesser of the two evils. I don't think hypocrisy is the appropriate term here.
 
This is a flat-out lie. Anyone who makes a statement to this effect is simply demonstrating their emotional and political bias.

You don't know me at all. You just called me a liar because you happen to believe that I would torture someone. That is really sick of you to say. I am as insulted as i can be. I have lived on this planet for 57 years and have done no harm. I would not torture nor kill for any reason. There are many causes for which I would be willing to die but there is no issue for which I am willing to kill. Don't judge me nor call me a liar unless you know me!
 
Last edited:
I was simply trying to demonstrate that some people will be against "torture" EVEN WHEN it's morally justified.

Torture can never, ever be morally justified in any case. Now try and tell me I am some how being emotional? :roll:

They reflexively reject "torture" on an emotional basis instead of approaching it logically.

This is nothing but opinion with no scientific evidence to back it up at all. Unless you are basing it on this un-scientific "hypothetical" poll?

I have already shown that reasonable people under the right circumstance can be forced to do or accept unreasonable things. This pretty much makes your statement incorrect as it has little to do with "emotion" and more to do with circumstance.

To them, "torture" is axiomatically evil and requires little to no logical or moral analysis.

This is nothing by psychobabble and based on information that is only good for the garbage can as I have shown.
 
Last edited:
There are many causes for which I would be willing to die but there is no issue for which I am willing to kill. Don't judge me nor call me a liar unless you know me!

Inferno's right. Some people will just roll over and die before fighting back. I don't think s/he's a liar. But I also don't think that's the right choice.
 
One reason I made this poll was to demonstrate the absolute unwillingness of some people to approach this issue logically and objectively.

I think you've confused yourself with those who are not pro-torture. The only person lacking logic here is you - the guy who believes that a personal moral/ethical code that changes with the breeze is a good moral/ethical code; the ONLY moral/ethical code.

Here's a small lesson for you: a moral/ethical code that weakens or disappears when things get rough is NOT a moral/ethical code. What it is, is a convenient cop-out. Only wimps and prevaricators try to rationalize their willingness to abrogate strongly held personal beliefs and/or break national and international law with "But the situation called for it! That guy was a murderous THUG!"

You've used this supposed "lack of logic and objectivity" bull several times, Ethereal. You state that those who are opposed to torture for any and all reasons are simply "too emotional" to make a rational decision, else they'd come to the exact same conclusion that you have, i.e. that it is perfectly acceptable for one's moral/ethical code to change if this or that situation warrants it. I say again, a moral/ethical code that changes with the breeze is no code at all - it's nothing more than trying to have your cake and eat it, too.

The hypothetical is purposely black and white so as to make the choice easy and obvious. For any person with a shred of courage and love, the only acceptable answer to this poll was unequivocally, "yes".

So, if someone answers "No, I wouldn't torture for ANY reason" they have "no courage?" Really? In my world it takes far more courage to honor one's moral/ethical code and refuse to torture a convenient target, than it does to wimp out and let fear and anger lead to brutality and violence. I guess things are different on your planet, but the United States is a nation built on the rule of law. You are advocating vigilantism. I say, sir, that you are an unrepentant anarchist with no morals at all.

I was simply trying to demonstrate that some people will be against "torture" EVEN WHEN it's morally justified.

Of course you'll argue it, but this statement just proves that you have no moral or ethical code. Blaming your willingness, nay, your eagerness, to inflict pain on others "when it's morally justified" is akin to saying "I'll just do what my irrational thoughts suggest I do at this moment, and that's justification enough."

I'd be very interested in seeing your list of "when it's morally justified" scenarios. Care to share?

They reflexively reject "torture" on an emotional basis instead of approaching it logically. To them, "torture" is axiomatically evil and requires little to no logical or moral analysis.

And yet here you are, implying that a moral code is foolish and unnecessary (really nothing more than being "too emotional") - that a situation should dictate one's morals. That, in fact, if the situation appears dire enough, morals and ethics shouldn't even be considered.

You know, you've yet to explain your rationale behind the idea that beating someone senseless requires logic and morals...






This oughta be good. :roll:
 
Inferno's right. Some people will just roll over and die before fighting back. I don't think s/he's a liar. But I also don't think that's the right choice.

Ahh, a misquote, an assumption and a judgement all at the same time. Did she say she wouldn't fight back? Did she say she would "just roll over and die before fighting back"? You try to come off as so religious and high and mighty yet, you would jump at the chance to torture or kill someone without even looking at other options. :doh The hypocricy is astounding!
 
Ahh, a misquote, an assumption and a judgement all at the same time. Did she say she wouldn't fight back? Did she say she would "just roll over and die before fighting back"? You try to come off as so religious and high and mighty yet, you would jump at the chance to torture or kill someone without even looking at other options. :doh The hypocricy is astounding!

Personal attack, sir?
 
Ahh, a misquote, an assumption and a judgement all at the same time. Did she say she wouldn't fight back? Did she say she would "just roll over and die before fighting back"? You try to come off as so religious and high and mighty yet, you would jump at the chance to torture or kill someone without even looking at other options. :doh The hypocricy is astounding!

Pot meet kettle.
 
Just an observation.

Please don't call me "sir". I work for a living. :lol:

Please show where I said anything at all about "Inferno" other than s/he is right, and that I don't think s/he's a liar.
 
Please show where I said anything at all about "Inferno" other than s/he is right, and that I don't think s/he's a liar.

Amazing. Your post only had 4 sentences. Yet you quote the 2 not relevant. :roll:
 
Back
Top Bottom