February 23, 200917 yr There's also the problem of false confessions under torture, I'm not sure how effective it really is. If you're in that much pain you'd probably say anything to make it stop. In this situation, I think it is obviously permissible because the situation is so loaded in favour of it having to be permissable. But it's a very slippery slope when you start condoning it, and in general I'm against it. "Da mihi castitatem et continentam, sed noli modo"
February 23, 200917 yr I agree with those who say that the given scenario would never happen and as such, is moot. I don't think torture should ever be permissible. Once you make it okay in one instance, it's a slippery slope... In an ideal world, if you could be 100% sure of a persons guilt and 100% sure that any information gathered would be both truthful and relevant then in the given scenario I think torture would be morally justifiable. None of the above could be verified to any reasonable degree though, and so there will always be a chance that the person being tortured is an innocent and is being wrongfully tortured. For that reason and that reason alone I will always be against the use of torture in any situation. Also, as someone else has already posted... Any information obtained through torture has to be seen as suspect information. How could anyone honestly accept a confession under torture? I find it absolutely ridiculous. The stars are matter, we're matter, but it doesn't matter.-Don Van Vliet
February 23, 200917 yr Oh hell yeah. When you can save thousands of innocent lives, it sure as hell is. The best weapon to torture? Knives, ask Heath about them.
February 23, 200917 yr Suppose that US officials have as much evidence as anyone could have for believing that: (1) there are ten hydrogen bombs hidden in the ten most populous US cities; (2) the bombs are powerful enough to decimate each city leaving no survivors and extensive radioactive fallout; (3) the bombs are set to go off in 24 hours; (4) it is not possible to evacuate any of the cities within 24 hours; (5) a conspirator in custody knows where each of the bombs is and will reveal this information quickly enough, if tortured, for officials to find and disarm each of the bombs; and (6) there is no other way to avoid having the bombs detonate. --Kenneth Himma Great scenario....for a movie. Think about it- we know how many bombs, what kind of bombs, what cities they're in, have a known conspirator in custody, and we KNOW that if we torture him he'll give us the locations of each bomb. Shouldn't the scenario tell us what kind of torture to use? Everything else is laid out there for us. How did the authorities find out that torture is the answer? Did the conspirator tell them "I will only give you the information if you torture me"? If that's the case, torture is ok. Otherwise, no.
February 23, 200917 yr Huh. I dunno. Getting addicted to a drug, particularly one of the harder ones, like heroin, seems to be a torture to me. And yet people actually wish for it to be legal. Perhaps it doesn't seem as big an issue when nobody but the person themself is accountable. catch it now so you can like it before it went so mainstream
February 24, 200917 yr Everytime I hear torture I ALWAYS think back to Metal Gear Solid 3 with Ocelot and the 3 Revolvers. That said given this situation (and how absurd it is by the way) I'd use a full 6 shot revolver and blow his damn limbs off till he corks up. (or something worse) Popoto.~<3
February 24, 200917 yr Oh hell yeah. When you can save thousands of innocent lives, it sure as hell is. The best weapon to torture? Knives, ask Heath about them. I think needles would feel worse because you can do a lot with them without the fear of dying. Plus, could you imagine a needle going down your finger from the tip down? :uhh:
February 24, 200917 yr Yes it is. [hide=?]Suppose that US officials have as much evidence as anyone could have for believing that: (1) there are ten hydrogen bombs hidden in the ten most populous US cities; (2) the bombs are powerful enough to decimate each city leaving no survivors and extensive radioactive fallout; (3) the bombs are set to go off in 24 hours; (4) it is not possible to evacuate any of the cities within 24 hours; (5) a conspirator in custody knows where each of the bombs is and will reveal this information quickly enough, if tortured, for officials to find and disarm each of the bombs; and (6) there is no other way to avoid having the bombs detonate.[/hide] Who WOULDNT torture for that?!?! then the guy would endure torture for 24 hours and get his 72 virgins. torture debates are always inspired with the assumption torture actually works. [bleep] torture, we need some kill-bill-truth-serum.
February 24, 200917 yr Author Yes it is. [hide=?]Suppose that US officials have as much evidence as anyone could have for believing that: (1) there are ten hydrogen bombs hidden in the ten most populous US cities; (2) the bombs are powerful enough to decimate each city leaving no survivors and extensive radioactive fallout; (3) the bombs are set to go off in 24 hours; (4) it is not possible to evacuate any of the cities within 24 hours; (5) a conspirator in custody knows where each of the bombs is and will reveal this information quickly enough, if tortured, for officials to find and disarm each of the bombs; and (6) there is no other way to avoid having the bombs detonate.[/hide] Who WOULDNT torture for that?!?! then the guy would endure torture for 24 hours and get his 72 virgins. torture debates are always inspired with the assumption torture actually works. [bleep] torture, we need some kill-bill-truth-serum. We have truth serum. They're CNS depressants like alcohol and work in pretty much the same way. You should trust someone's testimony under "truth" serum to the exact same degree you'd trust someone's testimony if they were blind drunk. The problem is, they tend to mix fact and fantasy, and it's hard to discern from the two. Moreover, truth serum is illegal under international law, and is considered a form of torture.
February 24, 200917 yr First would be their fingernails, then their toenails, then their eye gets popped out, and then it starts to get cruel & brutal. 100 lives < 100 million +.
February 24, 200917 yr It isn't really torture if it's not violent. Stick a chopstick up the guy's nose and it'll tickle him so much (possible nosebleed)
February 24, 200917 yr I don't really think it'd be that hard to find somebody to torture him, which I definately agree in this scenario should be done. I mean, a few million lives could probaly motivate you do do alot. Doomy edit: I like sheep
Create an account or sign in to comment