I've been reading several articles explaining that the U.S military tortures detainees for no reason and how the Corporate Media is ignoring it, although, it's very likely that the U.S isn't the only nation that does so. In any case, what are your opinions on the matter of torture? Is it acceptable under the circumstance that many other lives may very well be in danger due to something that the person knows or is torture just flat out wrong?
[Discussion] Is torture ever acceptable?
- Thread starter Mudo
- Start date
saaaaaadpanda
Active member
It depends on your philosophical stance. Utilitarianism would suggest that torture is acceptable, though that's not my opinion.
Evidence suggests that torture shouldn't be used, not because it's immoral, but because it's ineffective. Basically, when you torture someone, you're likely to get false information because the tortured person will say anything to relieve the pain.
Evidence suggests that torture shouldn't be used, not because it's immoral, but because it's ineffective. Basically, when you torture someone, you're likely to get false information because the tortured person will say anything to relieve the pain.
dominicansharingan
Active member
The US is biggest bullies of the world! They make 35 countries suffer for the benefit of 1. F-ing disgrace of country that doesn't stand for what was meant for :/
Insofar as it is being used to protect others. Although we can't really say if one life is more important than the next, the next best thing we can do is to ensure that the most lives are saved. If it takes torture to get information out of someone, so be it.
The Necromancer
Active member
Actually in the long run it can be very effective. Given enough time to check the sources and find out if the information is reliable, torture can be used to find the right information. When you have limited time and resources, however, your point is correct.
Super Saiyan 2 Teen Gohan
Active member
Sometimes it is, sometimes it's not. What determines whether or not it's acceptable is the reason, who the person is, and how far the torturer takes it. Sadly, most of the time one of those things is bound to be out of place, and that's when you get shit like Abu Grhaib.
I agree with this viewpoint. There comes a point in the process where you are no longer certain whether the information being given is accurate or not. The only possibility is if you already know the answer but are trying to establish full confirmation. Even still, torture is not the best way to glean information. I know several organizations would beg to differ, but it really isn't effective unless properly employed and contained. With the right amount of pain and pressure, you can get the majority of people to say just about anything. Otherwise, they will die before doing as requested and it is rather pointless to torture such an individual because you will get nothing.
Short answer: Torture isn't a good method.
The source would be coming from the one being tortured in this case. Having the proper amount of time to validate whether the information is correct is where Necromancer is coming from I believe.
immortal sage
Active member
if it can save lives then ye but if its true that the us tortures prisinors of war that have no info just for the hell of it then that is inhumane and it shouldnt be done
While this is true in a lot of cases, it certainly isn't true with the domican republic, a country that would either A) Not exist, or B) Be in even deeper poverty then it already is without the US.
The source can't be the one being tortured, because he is likely to give false information, you can't verify whether or not his information is correct or not by torturing him more.
