Is torture ever justifiable?

[otseng]

In light of the Iraqi prisoner abuse scandal, do you think torture is ever justifiable? Or is it wrong no matter what the situation?

[adherent]

Torture is wrong. Punishment is okay, but there is a line between punishment and torture. Punishment is like a one-time sentence where as torture is like continuing cruelty and such. The only torture I can think of is going to hell even though I guess that would be punishment.

[Corvus]

Did you get this question from Wertz's journal, otseng? It's a good one.

In light of the Iraqi prisoner abuse scandal, do you think torture is ever justifiable? Or is it wrong no matter what the situation?

I can't say. What if the torture allows the torturer to extract information that could save thousands of lives, and harm only one? The only problem is that torture begets torture.

I worry that if it's justifiable under one reason, it might encourage more of the same.

My mind quails from torture as punishment, mainly because it seems to benefit no one, and partly because I find it barbaric, especially because it doesn't address the root cause of the issue. People are often the result of circumstance and often crime is perpetrated by chance, not cool cunning and design. Of course, that's no excuse.

Gratuitous torture is wrong under any circumstance.

[otseng]

Did you get this question from Wertz's journal, otseng?

No. But I imagine this is a topic on many peoples' minds now. I did go hunting around on AD to see if this question has been asked and I didn't find one.

What if the torture allows the torturer to extract information that could save thousands of lives, and harm only one?

Yes, this is a good example of the where torture could be justified by some. But the problem in this example is if the torturers know with certainty the person has that information. If not, he is just as likely to make up information.

Also, what exactly constitutes torture? Can it be defined as "the use of pain to bend the will"? How much pain is considered excessive? Or it is torture if any pain at all is inflicted?

[Illyricum]

I think torture is wrong no matter what.

What if the torture allows the torturer to extract information that could save thousands of lives, and harm only one?

I believe there other ways to extract information than just torture.

Also, what exactly constitutes torture?

The Merriam-Webster dictionary defines it as this:
2 : the infliction of intense pain (as from burning, crushing, or wounding) to punish, coerce, or afford sadistic pleasure

Yep, I think torture is wrong.

[cattious]

Torture is wrong. It's just plain wrong. Because it's just not nice to hurt people! Especially when they haven't done anything.

Of course, there are acceptions. If the torture is, well, y'know, willing, it's the business of those involved. And in the case of the information that saves thousands of lives... well... only as a last resort.

[JeffHayes]

For a true believer there should be no case for the use of torture.

To a good christian, there should be no justification.

To and Atheist, to whom this life is the only life, torture probably more
acceptable.

For instance assume that you are in a gas chamber with another man, and
there is a code you can enter on the door to open it and save you both.
The other man knows it but he is not telling you. and will not enter the
code.

A christian should not torture this man but accept his fate and wait until he
goes to heaven. It would be a rather un-christian thing to torture, and god
would surely frown upon torture. Knowing that no matter what happens,
god will set things right in the end, there is no reason to preserve ones
life or other peoples.

This is where the sticky part comes in, because some religions preach the
forgiveness of god. So a Catholic for instance may torture the other man
and then confess his sin to god, and be repentent for it, and his faith says
that he will be forgiven. Which in that sense nothing is truely forbidden as
long as one wishes forgiveness and is repentent.

Also from a catholic perspective, killing your self is wrong, and one could
consider the other man in the chamber to be killing himself and also you.
In which case you can argue that it might be justifiable to do wrong in an
act of torture, when you would be preventing a man from both comitting
murder and suicide, which would condemn him to hell. Potentially
condemning your soul in order to preserve anothers.

An Atheist in the same situation may torture the other man. He may find
torture distasteful and that he would be incapable of it, and resign to let
himself die(though a christian could take this position without faith coming
into his thought process as well). The other position would be that the
Atheist may think that "I only have this life, and nothing is out of bounds to
preserve it" and hence be capable of anything to preserve it. including
torture.

As to the original question, I think that almost any philisophical/religious
position can justify torture. The only exception would be one whose
proponents turely believe that this world is completly tranistory and than
there is not any inherent value/meaning in the life we currently hold.
Therefore find no compelling reason to torture. This position also works in
reverse however, in that if this existance is completly devoid of meaning
then there is nothing really prohibiting torture on a moral level. Some
might say that this is an athiest prespective, however remember that
an atheist holds that this life has value, and so torturing without
some form of meaningful justification would land the athiest in jail
or dead with any likelyhood, and not be worth it to him.


Although, you can interpret this question in a completly diferent way, and
the answer would have to be be yes. Meaning, that if torture was not
justifiable to the person who would actually comit the torture, it would not
have been done. And since torture has obviously been done in the past,
those who have been responsible for torture would ouviously felt it
justifiable(even if just for money, or because they were told to).

Though I am going to assume that the original poster meant Justifiable in
some widespread, universal, or moral context.

[perfessor]

JeffHayes wrote:

To a good christian, there should be no justification.

To and Atheist, to whom this life is the only life, torture probably more
acceptable.

This makes no sense. If you don't understand atheism, don't speculate.

This life is the only life, what a terrible tragedy it is to lose it needlessly - or cause another to lose his. What a terrible, reprehensible thing to cause pain and suffering, since there will be no "reward" in heaven to compensate the victim.

How foolish, to believe that any promised glory in afterlife would justify cruelty in this one. I'm glad we agree on that point.

[NuclearTBag]

You know you would think that god will frown down on tourture, but actually it is quite the oppisite, there are numerous deutormity passages, where god CONDONES stoning people for various offenses, for example, not being a virgin on your wedding night, being a rebillious child, lieing about virginity, not screaming loud enough if you are raped, and other ridiclous reasons. So, judging from what this god character says, I really don't think he'll have a problem with tourure, he also doesn't have a problem with bashing babies against stone "O daughter of Babylon, who art to be destroyed; happy shall he be, that rewardeth thee as thou hast served us. Happy shall he be, that taketh and dasheth thy little ones against the stones." (Psalm 137:8-9), so this god guy, really doesn't sound like a nice guy!!! He may even REWARD you for tourture, who knows.

[JeffHayes]

This makes no sense. If you don't understand atheism, don't speculate.

This life is the only life, what a terrible tragedy it is to lose it needlessly - or cause another to lose his. What a terrible, reprehensible thing to cause pain and suffering, since there will be no "reward" in heaven to compensate the victim.

I am not speculating, I happen to be an atheist, though you may argue that I don't "Understand" atheism, but you can feel free to start another thread in the appropriate place. I described several valid positions an atheist "Could" take on this issue. From what I can see, your argument
that I don't understand atheism is based on the fact that I don't agree with you. I will however concede that although I gave examples of how both a christian and an athiest could come to either position on the issue, I believe I may have been deficient in showing the atheist position more inclined to torture.

My position on this stems from the very assertion you make.

This life is the only life, what a terrible tragedy it is to lose it needlessly - or cause another to lose his.

I was pointing out that reasoning from the standpoint that
you are alive and this is your only life, any decision made to defend that life is subjective, making troture possible(almost a given if you value you life enough). I remember mentioning that there were many atheists who may choose to act diferrently, as well as many christians that may have justification to choose either path.

An Atheist in the same situation may torture the other man. He may also(sic. "also" was not there before) find torture distasteful and that he would be incapable of it, and resign to let himself die(though a christian could take this position without faith coming into his thought process as well).

You may personally find that torture is repugnant, however I fail to see how that "Invalidates" torture from being a choice. You have effectivly asserted that your life is not worth torturing sombody else for. I merely assert that that is not a choice we would all make.

What a terrible, reprehensible thing to cause pain and suffering, since there will be no "reward" in heaven to compensate the victim.

As for the above, I will state that under cricumstances I described above,
there was no assertion that the tortured man had to be killed. I would point this out as a flaw, but you could be refering to a psychologically ruined life.