Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community - View Single Post - Should the United States of America torture people?

Jinn · 03-19-2008, 10:42 AM

I have no clue how I stand on this issue.

On one hand, I think torture is absolutely terrible, and after reading McCain's first-hand account of his torture for 6 years in Vietnam, I can't imagine allowing that to be inflicted on anyone, no matter how much of a political enemy they are.

On the other hand, I think that we understand as a democratic republic that sometimes, just sometimes... the individual has to give up certain things for the benefit of the group. This same logic justifies an ethical consideration about whether you'd kill 1 person if it meant saving 20, or 200, or 2000. At some point, most people well deign that the death of the 1, no matter how tragic, was necessary and effective to save the lives of many others.

It is because of this "shifting" point - Will you kill 1 person to save 10? Will you kill 1 person to save 5? -- question that I can't conveniently say that we should never torture an individual.

So I think I've tenatively arrived at how I feel about the situation; if the torture of another person, innocent or otherwise, can be viewed by a reasonable third party to directly lead to SAVING a substantial group of other humans (hostage situations, bomb situations, etc), then I can abide torture. If it's being used for mere identification (give up your leader, etc..) then I do not think it is ever acceptable, and should be the torturer as well as his authorizing officers should be held accountable for the war crime that it is.

So in a court of law, a would-be torturer would have to demonstrate to a "reasonable third-party" that their torture technique was necessitated by the belief that it could DIRECTLY save the lives of many others.

EDIT: After looking at this poll I seem to be in the DRAMATIC minority on this issue, so I've got a question for the overwhelming majority who seem to think torture is never acceptable.

If you have a credible reason to believe that killing one person would save the lives of 200 people, would you not act (in all of your power) to kill that person? Why is torture any different? Or does it have to be more than 200, for you? I think the torture or death of one person is absolutely tragic, but the death of 200 is unthinkably tragic, especially if you could've prevented it.

EDIT x2: This 'ethical logic' seems eerily reminiscent of a discussion I had in an Ethics/Philosophy study - aren't there notable philosophers who have pondered this question directly?

03-19-2008, 10:42 AM	#25 (permalink)
Jinn Lover - Protector - Teacher Location: Seattle, WA	I have no clue how I stand on this issue. On one hand, I think torture is absolutely terrible, and after reading McCain's first-hand account of his torture for 6 years in Vietnam, I can't imagine allowing that to be inflicted on anyone, no matter how much of a political enemy they are. On the other hand, I think that we understand as a democratic republic that sometimes, just sometimes... the individual has to give up certain things for the benefit of the group. This same logic justifies an ethical consideration about whether you'd kill 1 person if it meant saving 20, or 200, or 2000. At some point, most people well deign that the death of the 1, no matter how tragic, was necessary and effective to save the lives of many others. It is because of this "shifting" point - Will you kill 1 person to save 10? Will you kill 1 person to save 5? -- question that I can't conveniently say that we should never torture an individual. So I think I've tenatively arrived at how I feel about the situation; if the torture of another person, innocent or otherwise, can be viewed by a reasonable third party to directly lead to SAVING a substantial group of other humans (hostage situations, bomb situations, etc), then I can abide torture. If it's being used for mere identification (give up your leader, etc..) then I do not think it is ever acceptable, and should be the torturer as well as his authorizing officers should be held accountable for the war crime that it is. So in a court of law, a would-be torturer would have to demonstrate to a "reasonable third-party" that their torture technique was necessitated by the belief that it could DIRECTLY save the lives of many others. EDIT: After looking at this poll I seem to be in the DRAMATIC minority on this issue, so I've got a question for the overwhelming majority who seem to think torture is never acceptable. If you have a credible reason to believe that killing one person would save the lives of 200 people, would you not act (in all of your power) to kill that person? Why is torture any different? Or does it have to be more than 200, for you? I think the torture or death of one person is absolutely tragic, but the death of 200 is unthinkably tragic, especially if you could've prevented it. EDIT x2: This 'ethical logic' seems eerily reminiscent of a discussion I had in an Ethics/Philosophy study - aren't there notable philosophers who have pondered this question directly? __________________ "I'm typing on a computer of science, which is being sent by science wires to a little science server where you can access it. I'm not typing on a computer of philosophy or religion or whatever other thing you think can be used to understand the universe because they're a poor substitute in the role of understanding the universe which exists independent from ourselves." - Willravel Last edited by Jinn; 03-19-2008 at 10:48 AM..