If not, why not? If yes, why yes? Please give principles or standards that allow or forbid torture?
2007-09-19 10:02:06 · 9 answers · asked by Anonymous in Arts & Humanities ➔ Philosophy
This is a philosophy Q in ethics . Try backing your comments by reason and/or evidence.
2007-09-19 12:13:35 · update #1
No... The American Colonies used to do it to its own citizens (wait, they've started torture again). And it doesn't work... It just caused people to falsely accuse their neighbors of offenses that warranted execution.
Also, look at the Spanish Inquisition... It was proved that people, under torture, will admit to anything just to make the pain go away... Even if it means their own execution.
If we allow that kind of torture, it's a slippery slope...
Such as...
Then why not torturing people for medical purposes, like the Nazis did during WWII?
Why not feed people to lions, or force them into gladiatorial battles?
How about drawing and quartering prisoners who fail to admit wrong-doing?
In some places in the world TODAY, to discover a thief, they are made to put their hand in boiling oil to retrieve an iron ring. Who wouldn't be burned? Then who wouldn't be punished? And who wouldn't confess, and become punished anyway, just to avoid the boiling oil?
2007-09-19 10:12:44 · answer #1 · answered by Catboy 3 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Depends on how you define, "torture."
Does putting panties on somebody's head constitute torture? Some say it does. I think psychological tactics are totally fair game, provided that they are proven to be effective.
I would only accept methods that have been proven to provide high quality information. Terrorists are not "morally civilized" in any sense of the word, and they do give up their rights when they enter into an adversarial relationship with our country. I don't feel sorry for people who rejoice in the murder of thousands of innocent people. And I don't think that extracting information to save innocent lives is morally wrong. Sorry. If that makes me "just as bad as they are" then so be it. (I don't think it does, because I would never harm an innocent person or rejoice and dance at the news of grisly murders or suicide bombings)
2007-09-19 10:50:26 · answer #2 · answered by greengo 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋
The words "moral" and "civilized" don't have universal standards. They are contrived concepts, you can't go to one source and see a list of civilized acts that everyone can agree upon. It leaves the door open to some conceptualizing certain acts as having no moral consequence. Hence amputating a thief’s hand in the Islamic Republic is not considered to be an immoral act by the person doing the cutting. So answering Yes or No is exercising arrogance that one's moral system is the "civil" one.
2007-09-19 10:12:16 · answer #3 · answered by ycats 4 · 0⤊ 3⤋
No. The ends don't justify the means, at least not in this case.
Its OK to kill your enemy if it is reasonable to assume that he is going to kill you but once you start using torture you are damaging yourself as much as your enemy (if not more).
Its like cheating to win a game. You may win the game but there's a larger game out there called life and giving away your self-esteem is even more dangerous than trying to win on your own merits.
Fear of losing is what motivates us to cheat but its that fear that will destroy us in the end. Winning in the short term is not as important as hanging on to our humanity in the long term.
P.S. - Mental torture is just as bad as physical torture, if not worse. I'd rather have a broken arm than a broken heart - it heals a lot faster. And using Barry Manilow, well thats just plain evil.
2007-09-19 10:06:23 · answer #4 · answered by megalomaniac 7 · 3⤊ 1⤋
Yes it is a proven fact. Listen to how many times during the day a radio station plays Fallout Boy.
2007-09-19 10:05:06 · answer #5 · answered by Buckwheat 3 · 1⤊ 1⤋
We do it all the time to children. Anyone claiming the reprehensible nature of terror and torture should consider what our children in "modern" and "civilized" society allows and tolerates where children are concerned.
2007-09-19 10:52:04 · answer #6 · answered by guru 7 · 1⤊ 3⤋
making a terrorist listen to barry manilow for days to get info sounds good to me. especially if the info gained will save lifes of others.
I don't believe in physically harming someone, but mental torture in this case? sounds fair game to me. lying? tricks? games? mental stuff? yes!
2007-09-19 10:11:18 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 3⤋
yes it is if it means keeping your people safe from terrorists you need to put your people first and who cares about these animals anyway
2007-09-19 10:05:33 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 4⤋
No such thing as "justification".
2007-09-19 10:16:53 · answer #9 · answered by Josh 1 · 0⤊ 1⤋