Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
x Turn on thread page Beta
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Kilgore Trout)
    My dad said something interesting last night.

    We were watching the news, and the story about the animal rights protestors came on, saying that a few people had given themselves in and admitted to digging up and removing that family's grandmother. But they wouldn't reveal the whereabouts of the body.

    Then my dad said that they should be tortured until they revealed that information. Which I considered for a bit, and then agreed with. Because in these situations, all the arguments against torture don't really apply. There's the slight human rights issue involved, but apart from that, is there any good reason why not to torture these people? After all, they've admitted to taking the body, so it's not like the police would be coercing them into saying that they did something that they didn't.

    Discuss.
    The thing is, torture is only easily justifiable if it is a means of preventing at least one loss of life. Torturing an animal rights activist for witholding relatively trivial information (which will undoubtedly be got out of him sometime in the future) is simply ridiculous. It's not a sensible suggestion at all.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by The Ace is Back)
    Scenario: There is currently one terrorist held captive and under interrogation. There is a near 100% chance he knows exactly where a certain bomb is located on a... plane. Your father/mother/sibling/other relative happens to be on that plane. The only way he will tell you where that bomb is, so that somebody can defuse it in time (far-fetched I know but I'm not thinking straight right now), is if he is tortured. You have the final say.

    What's the verdict? His temporary physical pain, or the life of your relative?
    Yep, exactly - I might condone it then. I'd be wrong to, but I would.
    Everyone ignores their morals sometimes, when their emotions take over.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by poltroon)
    The crime committed was disgusting. If someone dug up and removed, out of sheer spite, the remains of one your closest relatives, how would you feel?



    As Lawz- has already pointed out, this is a quite preposterous position.
    It is not a preposterous position. I am also against any form of torture, in any circumstance. Saying that of course, from an objective, and not personal standpoint. With any issue, if you prsonalise the situation, your own rationality and restrainst disappears, and your animal instincts take over.

    From a totally, totally objective view, i do not condone any form of torture.

    If a man rapes and murders my little sister, and i get hold of him, i'd do my absolute worst for as long as possible until someone stops me or the guys's dead. But we can't get personal like this, and we can't let personal feelings such as these into law in the country, lest we become horribly uncivilised.

    Yes, this is hypocritical, i don't really care. Noone can be objective when their own flesh and blood is involved. There are certain situation where i myself would torture soeone. I think what Zoe was getting at when she said under NO circumstances, is that she wouldn't condone "legal" torture, while at the same time she would understand if someone who got hold of their childs killer would want to casue them pain.


    And the crime wasn't that bad at all. It was just some old granny's bones for Christ's sake! Yes, its horrible, but i'm sure the police have better things to do than tying to hunt down a long-dead skeleton.

    Kilgore, you if you think that someone needs to be tortured for taking a skeleton out of the ground, you have issues. And only a slight humans rights issue?Bejeezus!

    JonH, whether you know they are guilty or not is irrelevant. All humans here have human rights. Torture is barbaric and uncivilised. Confessions got out of tortured people should always be ignored. And what would you prefer? A lot of people getting tortured into false confessions at the expense of weeding out confessions for true guilty people? Thats disgusting.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    An easier and more reliable example would be in the case of a child being kidnapped and the kidnapper having admitted guilt to the police but refusing to reveal the whereabouts of the child.

    Clearly the childs life is at risk if the police do not get the kidnapper to reveal the information. Would those who are against torture agree that this would be an acceptable use of coercion ?

    Personally, as a parent i would advocate the police using every measure to find out where my child was and if they were not willing to do so, i would.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Zoecb)
    I tend to base my morals on the pretty straightforward "Treat others as you would like to be treated" principle. Causing non-consensual pain to another being is not very civilised.


    An Oscar wilde quote comes to mind.

    Anyway - that logic would prevent you from imprisoning people, or punishing them at all. I wouldn’t want to be jailed, so don’t jail em.

    (Original post by Zoecb)
    Morally wrong, imo.
    (Original post by Zoecb)
    Might be tempted to condone it though, in an emergency.


    Morally wrong on what basis now?

    You think that morality could require you to allow the entire world to be destroyed, and all humanity, simple because torture is "wrong"? Then that moral system would be asinine.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Zoecb)
    Yep, exactly - I might condone it then. I'd be wrong to, but I would.
    Everyone ignores their morals sometimes, when their emotions take over.
    Oh yeah didn't see your post before.

    You would however prevent someone else from coming to the same verdict if it was their relatives? Or for any life at all?
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by cottonmouth)
    It is not a preposterous position. I am also against any form of torture, in any circumstance. Saying that of course, from an objective, and not personal standpoint. With any issue, if you prsonalise the situation, your own rationality and restrainst disappears, and your animal instincts take over.
    Ok... lets try this:

    You arrest John.

    You suspect John has planted a nuclear bomb so large, that it will cause nuclear holocaust around the glob, and kill ALL living organisms on the planet, leaving it a desolate wasteland and thus ending billions of years of evolution.

    John tells you openly that he DID plant the bomb. However he refuses to tell you where.

    John however has a very low threshold for pain.

    You have two choices:

    A: Jail john and await the destruction of all mankind
    B: Cause John physial pain in order to extract the necessary information, and in true 007 style, save the planet.


    You would choose A?
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    Anyway - that logic would prevent you from imprisoning people, or punishing them at all. I wouldn’t want to be jailed, so don’t jail 'em.
    That implies you condone their crime.

    You think that morality could require you to allow the entire world to be destroyed, and all humanity, simple because torture is "wrong"? Then that moral system would be asinine.
    Consistant though. I always think, "What would Atticus do?"
    And I answer myself with another quote on the nature of heroism - "Live as though the world were how it should be, to show how it can be."

    I guess I was the only one listening in primary school when they taught you that if someone was being nasty to you, don't hit them back; just walk away.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by The Ace is Back)
    Oh yeah didn't see your post before.

    You would however prevent someone else from coming to the same verdict if it was their relatives? Or for any life at all?
    Probably not. Empathy...

    My point is, it's still not 'the right thing to do'.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    I guess I was the only one listening in primary school when they taught you that if someone was being nasty to you, don't hit them back; just walk away.
    And if the person has a knife or a gun and you are backed into a corner ? what then ?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Zoecb)
    I guess I was the only one listening in primary school when they taught you that if someone was being nasty to you, don't hit them back; just walk away.
    That's a completely different issue from the one Lawz- is discussing.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Zoecb)
    That implies you condone their crime.
    huh?

    You said that torture breaks the golden rule - ie do unto others...

    The same reasoning applies to any punishment - How does condonement come into it?

    (Original post by Zoecb)
    Consistant though. I always think, "What would Atticus do?"
    And I answer myself with another quote on the nature of heroism - "Live as though the world were how it should be, to show how it can be."
    Stolen directly from Socrates I take it.

    (Original post by Zoecb)
    I guess I was the only one listening in primary school when they taught you that if someone was being nasty to you, don't hit them back; just walk away.
    Yes - of course, pacifism in the face of total destruction. How sensible.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    Difference between needless vengence and necessary self defence.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Zoecb)
    Empathy...
    At least!

    (Original post by Zoecb)
    My point is, it's still not 'the right thing to do'.
    I don't think anyone would argue that torture is a 'right' action, but more the lesser of two evils.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Zoecb)
    Difference between needless vengence and necessary self defence.
    Huh? I'm lost here.

    You outlawed ALL torture no matter what. How does vengence come into it? We are discussing the use of it to prevent harm.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by The Ace is Back)
    I don't think anyone would argue that torture is a 'right' action, but more the lesser of two evils.
    I would say by ensuring the best result you are acting in a mroal way. if your grundnorm is the prevention of harm, to be simplistic, then torture is very much the right action.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lawz-)
    I would say by ensuring the best result you are acting in a mroal way. if your grundnorm is the prevention of harm, to be simplistic, then torture is very much the right action.
    Fair play, I was only referring to the act of torturing, not the desired end. Also I don't believe many people would take such a decision lightly, hence why I believe it's more the lesser of two evils.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lawz-)
    Huh?

    You said that torture breaks the golden rule - ie. do unto others...

    The same reasoning applies to any punishment - How does condonement come into it?
    I view prison as a DETERRENT more than anything else. So do you condone being stolen from? That's what the imprisonment of this hypothetical other person implies.

    Stolen directly from Socrates I take it.
    The television writer Steven S. Deknight would be flattered you think so.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lawz-)
    Ok... lets try this:

    You arrest John.

    You suspect John has planted a nuclear bomb so large, that it will cause nuclear holocaust around the glob, and kill ALL living organisms on the planet, leaving it a desolate wasteland and thus ending billions of years of evolution.

    John tells you openly that he DID plant the bomb. However he refuses to tell you where.

    John however has a very low threshold for pain.

    You have two choices:

    A: Jail john and await the destruction of all mankind
    B: Cause John physial pain in order to extract the necessary information, and in true 007 style, save the planet.


    You would choose A?
    How ridiculous. I have said that in personal situations when, i am at risk, or my family is at risk of death, i would do things. But objectively, and in law, it shouldnt be right.

    I would choose B. But i'd still want it to be a case of me breaking the law to save mankind.
    Besides, if this guy was as crazy as this, and wanted to wipe out the world, i doubt he'd give in to torture, and have his plans ruined. Whats his option? Dont say anything and destroy the earth, or give in to torture and have his plan folied and the rest of his life in jail?(sorry, had to carry on the ridiculous scenario)
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Zoecb)
    I view prison as a DETERRENT more than anything else. So do you condone being stolen from? That's what the imprisonment of this hypothetical other person implies.
    How is this relevant?


    (Original post by Zoecb)
    The television writer Steven S. Deknight would be flattered you think so.
    That he plagerized? Easily flattered.
 
 
 
Reply
Submit reply
Turn on thread page Beta
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: April 22, 2006
Poll
Do you agree with the proposed ban on plastic straws and cotton buds?
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.