When Is Torture Morally Permissible?

Abortion, euthanasia, genetic engineering, Just War theory and other such hot topics.

Moderators: AMod, iMod

ken
Posts: 2075
Joined: Mon May 09, 2016 4:14 am

Re: When Is Torture Morally Permissible?

Post by ken »

fiveredapples wrote:
ken wrote:How can I correctly answer 'yes' or 'no' if I do not yet know what your conception or definition of torture is yet?
Because I'm asking for YOUR CONCEPTION, numbskull!!!
You did NOT ask for mine nor anyone else's conception in the opening post. You ONLY asked for it AFTER you failed to provide an answer to my clarifying question posed to you. You will not or can not provide a definition nor conception of 'torture', so to play along with your silly game here I will now respond by saying that "yes" torture can be morally permissible.

Are you going to start playing the game now and provide some examples of where torture is morally permissible so that we can begin to do some further analysis?
Dubious
Posts: 4000
Joined: Tue May 19, 2015 7:40 am

Re: When Is Torture Morally Permissible?

Post by Dubious »

Torture is justified under specific circumstances which may at best not be considered amoral or immoral. However defined what qualifies will not be agreeable to everyone. There never was or will be a united consensus on good and evil, reward and punishment. It defaults to the conclusion that when based on an agreed set of circumstances, torture may be morally permissible by not contravening accepted morality.
User avatar
fiveredapples
Posts: 156
Joined: Sun Oct 31, 2010 10:47 am

Re: When Is Torture Morally Permissible?

Post by fiveredapples »

ken wrote:You did NOT ask for mine nor anyone else's conception in the opening post. You ONLY asked for it AFTER you failed to provide an answer to my clarifying question posed to you.
Look at the Title of this thread, moron: When is torture morally permissible? In my original post, I say the following:
fiveredapples wrote:I realize that some of you believe that torture logically implies moral impermissibility, so your answer to the topic question will be 'never.'
Obviously I'm asking for YOUR conception, you giant imbecile.
User avatar
fiveredapples
Posts: 156
Joined: Sun Oct 31, 2010 10:47 am

Re: When Is Torture Morally Permissible?

Post by fiveredapples »

Dubious wrote:Torture is justified under specific circumstances which may at best not be considered amoral or immoral.
In other words, torture is not by definition morally impermissible. Thank you for answering the question. For others, it's improving impossible to even understand what is asked of them.
ken
Posts: 2075
Joined: Mon May 09, 2016 4:14 am

Re: When Is Torture Morally Permissible?

Post by ken »

fiveredapples wrote:
ken wrote:You did NOT ask for mine nor anyone else's conception in the opening post. You ONLY asked for it AFTER you failed to provide an answer to my clarifying question posed to you.
Look at the Title of this thread, moron: When is torture morally permissible? In my original post, I say the following:
fiveredapples wrote:I realize that some of you believe that torture logically implies moral impermissibility, so your answer to the topic question will be 'never.'
Obviously I'm asking for YOUR conception, you giant imbecile.
Why are you asking for other's conception? Are you still trying to find something, anything, that could help you defend your already held strong belief?
User avatar
fiveredapples
Posts: 156
Joined: Sun Oct 31, 2010 10:47 am

Re: When Is Torture Morally Permissible?

Post by fiveredapples »

ken wrote:Why are you asking for other's conception? Are you still trying to find something, anything, that could help you defend your already held strong belief?
Ha ha ha...another Liberal idiot trying to cut off people from reasonably coming to conclusions the Lobotomy Left disagree with. You're spending a whole bunch of time trying to cast doubt on my conception of torture, a conception I mostly work out in the "UN Definition of Torture" thread after much explanation and argument. Why aren't you there attacking one of my premises? LOL...because you can't. So instead of taking me on in philosophical debate, addressing my very cogent arguments, you avoid them and come here to make pronouncements. Look, Everybody, ken is here to tell you what to think without bothering to explain why you should think it. Feel free to ignore the person who provides arguments in a philosophy forum, but do listen to the guy who simply says "you're wrong" and "I really, really disagree." How fucking sad.

This thread is about hashing out the many implications of the general conception of torture most of us subscribe to. Everywhere I look, 'torture' is defined without a clause about its moral impermissibility. In other words, torture is not by definition morally impermissible. If you believe otherwise, where is your argument? Do you know how to give arguments? Do you know what an argument is? Seriously, do you know? It's obvious that you don't know when you owe one. I continue...

As torture is not by definition morally impermissible, it is possible that torture is sometimes morally permissible. That's an uncontroversial claim. And if morons object, it's still an uncontroversial claim. What I seek to do in this thread is to hash out the circumstances, the salient features, that render an act of torture morally permissible. I say "render" but that's not actually a good term. That suggests that I have to turn an act of torture from impermissible to permissible, when in fact torture is not morally pre-loaded. In some contexts, torture is morally permissible; in others, it is morally impermissible. The purpose of this thread is to better understand which salient features of a given circumstance are present in the 'morally permissible' cases and which are missing in the 'morally impermissible' cases.

It's only after we've done this conceptual work that we can apply our (now better understood) notion of torture to real life cases so that we can properly judge whether they are or are not morally permissible cases. But unless you subscribe to the view that torture is morally impermissible by definition -- and on what grounds do you believe that when every definition says otherwise? -- then we're very clear that torture is not inherently morally impermissible.

I will get started in earnest in a day or two. Until then, the Fake News Nincompoops will soon be here to litter this thread with gibberish and pronouncements -- but you'll see not one argument, believe me.
User avatar
Harbal
Posts: 9557
Joined: Thu Jun 20, 2013 10:03 pm
Location: Yorkshire
Contact:

Re: When Is Torture Morally Permissible?

Post by Harbal »

fiveredapples wrote: I will get started in earnest in a day or two.
In a day or two! We've got to contain our excitement for a day or two before we get to know where this most fascinating and highly philosophical topic will lead us? Can't you just give us a clue how it ends?
User avatar
Hobbes' Choice
Posts: 8364
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 11:45 am

Re: When Is Torture Morally Permissible?

Post by Hobbes' Choice »

Harbal wrote:
fiveredapples wrote: I will get started in earnest in a day or two.
In a day or two! We've got to contain our excitement for a day or two before we get to know where this most fascinating and highly philosophical topic will lead us? Can't you just give us a clue how it ends?
Of course 5redpommes will be triumphant concluding that torture is at all times morally permissible, even when negotiating the price of a burger. Whereas everyone else will be in a crumpled gibbering heap, defeated.
ken
Posts: 2075
Joined: Mon May 09, 2016 4:14 am

Re: When Is Torture Morally Permissible?

Post by ken »

fiveredapples wrote:
ken wrote:Why are you asking for other's conception? Are you still trying to find something, anything, that could help you defend your already held strong belief?
You're spending a whole bunch of time trying to cast doubt on my conception of torture, a conception I mostly work out in the "UN Definition of Torture" thread after much explanation and argument.
I am NOT and have NOT spent a "whole bunch of time" trying to cast doubt on your conception of torture. 1. I have only asked you a few very simple questions, which you have failed to answer, but not much time at all was spent. 2. One of those questions I asked was, in fact, to find out your conception of 'torture'. I asked you how you define 'torture', but you would not do that. So I can not cast doubt on that which I do not know. So again what is your conception of 'torture '?
fiveredapples wrote:Why aren't you there attacking one of my premises?
Because you have NOT given any prmises yet. You have only asked for people who would say yes to torture is morally permissble. You jave stated you are only seeking out those people, and then you will look into exactly what forms of torture is morally permissible. The real reason why you are doing this I hope we never really find out.
fiveredapples wrote:LOL...because you can't. So instead of taking me on in philosophical debate, addressing my very cogent arguments, you avoid them and come here to make pronouncements.
In case I am stupid or slow or both, or just blind, WHERE in this thread are your "cogent arguments". In fact where in this thread is ANY argument of yours? If you provide them in distinct clearly marked point form, then I would be more than happy to look at them. I may even then address them, as I see fit.

By the way I do NOT do debate. This is because I do NOT have a belief either way.
fiveredapples wrote: Look, Everybody, ken is here to tell you what to think without bothering to explain why you should think it.
If that is what I can achieve by just asking you some clarifying questions, then so be it. I am just trying to gain some insight from you, a person who is trying their hardest to find out if there is actually any kind of torture (which maybe they, themselves, can inflict on to others) that he/she could then "justify" to themselevs was "morally permissible".

By the way what do you believe it is exactly that I am suppsedly telling people what to think.
fiveredapples wrote:Feel free to ignore the person who provides arguments in a philosophy forum, but do listen to the guy who simply says "you're wrong" and "I really, really disagree." How fucking sad.
What is more sad is that I NEVER said you were wrong AND I NEVER said that I disagree with you. If you were not so full of yourself, then you would have noticed I have already agreed with you and answered your question with a yes. I then invited you to now start providing the examples of when torture is morally permissible. But for some reason you have not done this yet.
fiveredapples wrote:This thread is about hashing out the many implications of the general conception of torture most of us subscribe to. Everywhere I look, 'torture' is defined without a clause about its moral impermissibility.
I think you will find that is the case with ALL definitions of words, they do NOT have a clause about moral permissibility or not. I have yet to see other words like 'rape', 'murder', 'conflict', 'war', et cetera, defined with a clause about their moral permissibility.
fiveredapples wrote:In other words, torture is not by definition morally impermissible.
In breaking news, torture is not by defintion also morally permissible. You really do try to argue in the most ridiculous ways.
fiveredapples wrote: If you believe otherwise, where is your argument?

If you had read what I have alrwady written, then you would not state such a stupid statement.
fiveredapples wrote:Do you know how to give arguments?
Maybe, maybe not. Unlike you I do NOT profess to any thing. If you had noticed I have NOT taken a side. I am just trying to LEARN HOW torture could be morally permissible. But you really are NOT giving Me anything whatsoever here to learn from.
fiveredapples wrote:Do you know what an argument is? Seriously, do you know? It's obvious that you don't know when you owe one. I continue...
WHY ask Me a question when you believe you already know the answer?

I have NOT got a side to argue for anyway. I am just trying to grasp and understand your conception and view.
fiveredapples wrote:As torture is not by definition morally impermissible, it is possible that torture is sometimes morally permissible.
WHO says torture is not by definition morally impermissible? I asked you before to define torture, which you will NOT do. Now you are asking us to accept that the definition of 'torture' does not preclude it being morally impermissible. You seem to expect a lot? considering you do not give much.
fiveredapples wrote:That's an uncontroversial claim. And if morons object, it's still an uncontroversial claim.
So, just so I have your logic right, if a human being objects to your claim that 'torture is morally permissible', and that that is an uncontroversial claim, then they beome an instant moron. Is that right?
fiveredapples wrote:What I seek to do in this thread is to hash out the circumstances, the salient features, that render an act of torture morally permissible.
Well what are you waiting for? No one is stopping you. You can start right now by providing some examples and circumstances.
fiveredapples wrote:I say "render" but that's not actually a good term. That suggests that I have to turn an act of torture from impermissible to permissible, when in fact torture is not morally pre-loaded. In some contexts, torture is morally permissible; in others, it is morally impermissible.
What are the contexts AND what separates those contexts? A human being with your caliber of intellect and superiority of philosophy, as you profess to have, should be able to highlight and show this very easily. Even for an imbecile like Me.
fiveredapples wrote:The purpose of this thread is to better understand which salient features of a given circumstance are present in the 'morally permissible' cases and which are missing in the 'morally impermissible' cases.
Well again just show us the salient features. You are the one who believes and says there is morally permissble cases of torture. How do you expect us to gain a better understanding, in this thread, if you do not bring anything to light here?
fiveredapples wrote:It's only after we've done this conceptual work that we can apply our (now better understood) notion of torture to real life cases so that we can properly judge whether they are or are not morally permissible cases. But unless you subscribe to the view that torture is morally impermissible by definition -- and on what grounds do you believe that when every definition says otherwise? -- then we're very clear that torture is not inherently morally impermissible.
Your just saying the same things over and over again.
fiveredapples wrote:I will get started in earnest in a day or two. Until then, the Fake News Nincompoops will soon be here to litter this thread with gibberish and pronouncements -- but you'll see not one argument, believe me.
Instead of calling, or trolling, for what you really want, that is people with different views than you so you can then "try to" ridicule them, why not just start doing what you say you will start doing here? I invited you a day or two ago to get started with some examples of torture that is morally permissible.

With the time you wasted on this post you could have already started. Then I could start to better understand. Whatever it is that you think you want us to understand.
surreptitious57
Posts: 4257
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 6:09 am

Re: When Is Torture Morally Permissible?

Post by surreptitious57 »

Torturing someone in order to extract information from them that is better known than unknown as per utilitarianism for example
Not treating morality as a choice between the twin absolutes of black and white but a more complex one between shades of grey
uwot
Posts: 6093
Joined: Mon Jul 23, 2012 7:21 am

Re: When Is Torture Morally Permissible?

Post by uwot »

It depends on your morals. If it involves packing your son off to be nailed to a cross, that's hunky dory if you happen to be a Christian.
Walker
Posts: 14280
Joined: Thu Nov 05, 2015 12:00 am

Re: When Is Torture Morally Permissible?

Post by Walker »

fiveredapples wrote:This thread came to life from thought I put into the 'Analyzing the UN Definition of Torture' thread. In the 'UN Definition' thread we saw that the UN, by its own rationale, conceded that some acts of intentionally inflicting severe pain on someone were not acts of torture. We could then look at its definition of torture as an attempt to delineate the circumstances under which 'inflicting severe pain' (for short) were acts of torture. This is kinda the project here. So, the topic of this thread will be to understand under which circumstances acts of torture are morally permissible.

I realize that some of you believe that torture logically implies moral impermissibility, so your answer to the topic question will be 'never.' Now, I don't think you have evidence or an argument for that belief other than "It's what I believe," but I honestly don't care to challenge anyone who believes it. You may continue on your merry way believing it. This thread is only going to be fruitful for those who leave open the possibility that some acts of torture are morally permissible. I think that possibility exists simply because torture does not imply moral impermissibility.

I haven't put much more thought into this thread other than we'll have to think up some extreme and obvious cases in which torture would be morally permissible, and then analyze what about the particular conditions of those cases make torture morally permissible. This is how we can better understand our conception of torture.
Rules for torture are rules for a contest. Civilization corrupts the principle of war with rules that prolong war. The cause of war is morality. Rules are what permit morality to exist as a causal force in relationships among people. Unless the sides are closely matched, or handicapped by geography, or lack the purpose of ending war, war without rules ends quickly.

The act of war is immoral. Lack of rules permits immorality. The act of war is total annihilation until the enemy surrenders in order to continue existing according to the resumed rules of the winner, after the war. During war, the alternative to surrender is death.

Total annihilation is uncivilized. Actual war is uncivilized. Because the existence of a civilization requires enforced rules of morality, civilized societies that conduct war either suspend all rules during war, or they sugarcoat war with rules that make war a contest, in order to justify the morality that causes war.

The morality that causes war is self-cherishing. To be willing to die for one’s faith is to cherish faith to the extent that faith becomes identity. People metaphorically kill others and themselves in thought and words, slowly over the long haul in the course of civilian living, because of faith that what they are doing, by living life as they live it, is the right way. Any war combatant who literally kills or dies as a result of combat does so because of faith that what they are doing is right.

To understand that one’s life is precious, that the lives of loved ones are precious, or that the life of a nation is precious, is a faith in what one knows to be true. To see that the faith can be cherished and defended until death is not to say that the faith should not exist. To see that the faith exists is simply to see the way of things. The way of things is that faith in anything, even one's own conception of goodness, invariably leads to violence, and that torture is a form of violence.

Other actions, thoughts, and words can be forms of violence, which is invariably caused by faith.

Realization that one is not this body exclusively is required to realize that faith invariable leads to violence, because faith in non-violence invariably leads to violence against the non-violent. This in turn may or may not lead to non-violence, that lasts for awhile.
User avatar
A_Seagull
Posts: 907
Joined: Thu Jun 05, 2014 11:09 pm

Re: When Is Torture Morally Permissible?

Post by A_Seagull »

fiveredapples wrote:
surreptitious57 wrote:If morality is relative then it can not be objective. There is no such thing as relative objectivity. That is an oxymoron. Anything determined by human beings is subjective by definition. Furthermore different groups of human beings might have different interpretations making the
thing in question [ morality ] even more subjective. Though the correct terminology is actually inter subjective. For that is what morality is
You don't know what you're talking about. You should really get a handle of the terms you're using, because you're saying a bunch of nonsense. Don't use philosophical jargon when you clearly don't understand it.
You don't know what you're talking about. You should really get a handle of the terms you're using, because you're saying a bunch of nonsense. Don't use philosophical jargon when you clearly don't understand it!
User avatar
SpheresOfBalance
Posts: 5688
Joined: Sat Sep 10, 2011 4:27 pm
Location: On a Star Dust Metamorphosis

Re: When Is Torture Morally Permissible?

Post by SpheresOfBalance »

fiveredapples wrote:This thread came to life from thought I put into the 'Analyzing the UN Definition of Torture' thread. In the 'UN Definition' thread we saw that the UN, by its own rationale, conceded that some acts of intentionally inflicting severe pain on someone were not acts of torture. We could then look at its definition of torture as an attempt to delineate the circumstances under which 'inflicting severe pain' (for short) were acts of torture. This is kinda the project here. So, the topic of this thread will be to understand under which circumstances acts of torture are morally permissible.

I realize that some of you believe that torture logically implies moral impermissibility, so your answer to the topic question will be 'never.' Now, I don't think you have evidence or an argument for that belief other than "It's what I believe," but I honestly don't care to challenge anyone who believes it. You may continue on your merry way believing it. This thread is only going to be fruitful for those who leave open the possibility that some acts of torture are morally permissible. I think that possibility exists simply because torture does not imply moral impermissibility.

I haven't put much more thought into this thread other than we'll have to think up some extreme and obvious cases in which torture would be morally permissible, and then analyze what about the particular conditions of those cases make torture morally permissible. This is how we can better understand our conception of torture.
Well first lets get it straight that 'intellectually' I realize that anyone that murders is mentally disturbed in some way. That their action of murder was somehow determined, such that they had no choice, no matter how rational they seem to be after the fact. But 'emotionally' if someone murdered someone I loved, someone in my family, that was innocent of any wrong doings, especially toward their murderer or their kind, (it was a random event), if I had the opportunity, to capture them before the authorities, so that they would finally understand what it was that they had done, I would teach them by example, and would do to them exactly as they had done to my loved one, up until the point of death. And I would probably do it over and over again until my 'intellect' overrode my 'emotions,' or I believed they finally understood what it was that they had done. I'm just not sure that my aged, eye for and eye tooth for a tooth belief, wouldn't rear it's ugly head and finish them off. But then if it did, I'm really not sure how bad I'd feel about it, at least in the interim. 'Intellectually' I'm against capital punishment, but 'emotionally' I'm not sure I could contain myself if I experienced that which I've outlined above. And before anyone judges me, imagine you were in the shoes I've outlined above, that it was your loved one, maybe your child, can you honestly say you wouldn't 'feel' somewhat the same no matter what your 'intellect' told you?
WendyDarling
Posts: 31
Joined: Fri Feb 03, 2017 12:38 am

Re: When Is Torture Morally Permissible?

Post by WendyDarling »

Torture is never morally permissible. Suffering is permissible for learning.
Post Reply