When Is Torture Morally Permissible?

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

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Post Reply
User avatar
fiveredapples
Posts: 156
Joined: Sun Oct 31, 2010 10:47 am

When Is Torture Morally Permissible?

Post by fiveredapples »

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

Re: When Is Torture Morally Permissible?

Post by ken »

Before we could even begin to discuss this properly, how do you define 'torture' and 'morally permissable'?
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 »

ken wrote:Before we could even begin to discuss this properly, how do you define 'torture' and 'morally permissable'?
Don't encourage him, ken, the man is obsessed with torture. I dread to think what he's got in his cellar.
User avatar
fiveredapples
Posts: 156
Joined: Sun Oct 31, 2010 10:47 am

Re: When Is Torture Morally Permissible?

Post by fiveredapples »

Before we could even begin to discuss this properly, how do you define 'torture' and 'morally permissable'?
A definition of torture will be the conclusion to this thread. We can certainly start the discussion by finding out about other people's conception of torture. One way to do that is by answering the question for yourself. I didn't ask anyone to defend their answer: simply state it 'yes' or 'no.'

Does your conception of torture include the idea that it's morally impermissible? If you answer no, then you will answer 'never' to the questions about when it's morally permissible. If you answer yes, then we can do further analysis.
surreptitious57
Posts: 4257
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 6:09 am

Re: When Is Torture Morally Permissible?

Post by surreptitious57 »

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. Now
I dont think you have evidence or an argument for that belief other than Its what I believe but I honestly dont 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
Morality is not objective. So using it as the benchmark for torture in some circumstances is rather
problematic. Because arguments could be produced to both support and reject such a proposition

You also need to determine who precisely is doing the torturing. If it is democratic governments then they are bound by international law
that forbids torture under any circumstances whatsoever. However If it is private individuals then they are only bound by their conscience
User avatar
fiveredapples
Posts: 156
Joined: Sun Oct 31, 2010 10:47 am

Re: When Is Torture Morally Permissible?

Post by fiveredapples »

surreptitious57 wrote:Morality is not objective.
I disagree. Morality may be relative (to a degree), but it's clearly objective. Morality, like language, is a social phenomenon, so the objective standard for morality -- what's right and wrong -- is determined by the group. In America incest is wrong simply because we as a group have decided that it's wrong. So, if now you come along and say, "It's not wrong for me (as an American living in America)," then you're wrong. We have an objective standard: the group's determination. And this objective standard can be applied to you because you have chosen (if tacitly) to abide by the group's morality as part of membership in our group.
So using it as the benchmark for torture in some circumstances is rather
problematic. Because arguments could be produced to both support and reject such a proposition
How does this make any sense? If someone objects that 2 + 2 = 4, then suddenly it's a subjective fact that can't be implemented across the board? Arguments can be produced to support anything -- that the world is flat, but that doesn't make them cogent. It's unimportant that you or anyone objects to anything. What's important is what makes most sense, and that is not a subjective matter -- but an objective one based on Reason, Common Sense, and facts.
You also need to determine who precisely is doing the torturing.
If this is an important factor for you, then I have your answer: You think torture can be morally permissible. Got it. The rest of what you said I will ignore as it is irrelevant. I don't care about the implementation of torture by any government. I just want to understand what conceptions of torture people have. That doesn't require talk of actual acts of torture.
ken
Posts: 2075
Joined: Mon May 09, 2016 4:14 am

Re: When Is Torture Morally Permissible?

Post by ken »

fiveredapples wrote:
Before we could even begin to discuss this properly, how do you define 'torture' and 'morally permissable'?
A definition of torture will be the conclusion to this thread.

So you want us to discuss when is some thing, namely torture, morally permissable but you do not want to tell us what the some thing, namely torture, actually is nor even describe what is involved in torture? And, only the end of our discussion will the definition of toture be revealed. Seems a funny way to do things to Me.

We can certainly start the discussion by finding out about other people's conception of torture. One way to do that is by answering the question for yourself.

But I asked you to start by defining 'torture' and you do not want to provide anything, yet you are now asking for others and Me to start the discussion by disclosing My conception of 'torture'. I am not the one with a belief either way, You are the one who believes torture is morally permissable, and you want to find/discover an argument that will back your belief up.
fiveredapples wrote: I didn't ask anyone to defend their answer: simply state it 'yes' or 'no.'


And I also did not ask you to defend any thing. I just asked you a simple question for clarity.

How can I correctly answer 'yes' or 'no' if I do not yet know what your conception or definition of torture is yet?
fiveredapples wrote:Does your conception of torture include the idea that it's morally impermissible? If you answer no, then you will answer 'never' to the questions about when it's morally permissible. If you answer yes, then we can do further analysis.


If, as you suggest, if I answer no, then I will answer 'never' to the questions about when torture is morally permissible, then does this mean that if your conception of torture includes the idea that it is morally permissible you will 'always' answer yes to the question is torture morally permissable?

If so, then I await your sound, valid argument and reasoning. But first you will have to provide us with your conception and/or definition of the word 'torture'.

After that I will then try again to obtain your definition and/or conception of 'morally permissible'

By the way can you only do further "analysis" with the people who have the same views as you?

It seems strange to Me that you can only do further "analysis" with the ones who answer yes.
ken
Posts: 2075
Joined: Mon May 09, 2016 4:14 am

Re: When Is Torture Morally Permissible?

Post by ken »

fiveredapples wrote:
surreptitious57 wrote:Morality is not objective.
I disagree. Morality may be relative (to a degree), but it's clearly objective. Morality, like language, is a social phenomenon, so the objective standard for morality -- what's right and wrong -- is determined by the group. In America incest is wrong simply because we as a group have decided that it's wrong. So, if now you come along and say, "It's not wrong for me (as an American living in America)," then you're wrong. We have an objective standard: the group's determination. And this objective standard can be applied to you because you have chosen (if tacitly) to abide by the group's morality as part of membership in our group. .
But NO person chooses what "group" they are born into, and thus are brought up in. Are you suggesting people can not object to any morality thing in the group, of which they have an unsubscribed membership in?
fiveredapples wrote:
So using it as the benchmark for torture in some circumstances is rather
problematic. Because arguments could be produced to both support and reject such a proposition
How does this make any sense? If someone objects that 2 + 2 = 4, then suddenly it's a subjective fact that can't be implemented across the board? Arguments can be produced to support anything -- that the world is flat, but that doesn't make them cogent. It's unimportant that you or anyone objects to anything. What's important is what makes most sense, and that is not a subjective matter -- but an objective one based on Reason, Common Sense, and facts. .
What do you think makes "most" sense, to the group commonly known as human beings, torture is permissible or torture is not permissible?
fiveredapples wrote:
You also need to determine who precisely is doing the torturing.
If this is an important factor for you, then I have your answer: You think torture can be morally permissible. Got it. The rest of what you said I will ignore as it is irrelevant. I don't care about the implementation of torture by any government. I just want to understand what conceptions of torture people have. That doesn't require talk of actual acts of torture.
I also want to understand your conception of torture, which allows you to believe that that conception is mrally permissble to do to a human being, which by the way includes yourself.

What you believe can be done to another human being you must also accept that I can do the same to you also.
surreptitious57
Posts: 4257
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 6:09 am

Re: When Is Torture Morally Permissible?

Post by surreptitious57 »

fiveredapples wrote:
Morality may be relative ( to a degree ) but it is clearly objective. Morality like language is a social phenomenon so the objective standard
for morality - what is right and wrong - is determined by the group. In America incest is wrong simply because we as a group have decided
that it is wrong. So if now you come along and say It is not wrong for me ( as an American living in America ) then you re wrong. We have
an objective standard: the groups determination. And this objective standard can be applied to you because you have chosen ( if tacitly )
to abide by the groups morality as part of membership in our group
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
User avatar
fiveredapples
Posts: 156
Joined: Sun Oct 31, 2010 10:47 am

Re: When Is Torture Morally Permissible?

Post by fiveredapples »

ken wrote:So you want us to discuss when is some thing, namely torture, morally permissable but you do not want to tell us what the some thing, namely torture, actually is nor even describe what is involved in torture?
Are you being intentionally obtuse? I asked you for YOUR CONCEPTION of torture. Why are you asking about mine? Why are you saying I have to define these terms first? The question is about your conception. If you don't have one, then why are you littering this thread with your nonsense?
And, only the end of our discussion will the definition of toture be revealed. Seems a funny way to do things to Me.
And yet it's how philosophy is done. Imagine that.
But I asked you to start by defining 'torture' and you do not want to provide anything, yet you are now asking for others and Me to start the discussion by disclosing My conception of 'torture'.
Your request is not important in the slightest. You should start your own thread instead of insisting that I follow what you want to happen here. There was a simple yes/no question. If you can't or won't answer it, then fine -- don't. But to say I should define torture first is you hijacking this thread.
I am not the one with a belief either way, You are the one who believes torture is morally permissable, and you want to find/discover an argument that will back your belief up.
I don't need an argument. The general definition doesn't include a clause stipulating that it's morally impermissible. It's people who think it is morally impermissible that need to provide an argument. But I wasn't asking for even that much. I simply asked whether your conception -- I don't care where you got it from or if it's right or wrong -- includes the idea that it's morally impermissible. Any idiot can answer that question for himself, I would have thought. But you're proving me wrong.
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!!!
Last edited by fiveredapples on Mon Feb 27, 2017 7:41 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
fiveredapples
Posts: 156
Joined: Sun Oct 31, 2010 10:47 am

Re: When Is Torture Morally Permissible?

Post by fiveredapples »

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.
surreptitious57
Posts: 4257
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 6:09 am

Re: When Is Torture Morally Permissible?

Post by surreptitious57 »

For morality to be objective there cannot be any degree of relativity within it at all
Because relativity is subjective. And so if morality is relative it cannot be objective
User avatar
fiveredapples
Posts: 156
Joined: Sun Oct 31, 2010 10:47 am

Re: When Is Torture Morally Permissible?

Post by fiveredapples »

surreptitious57 wrote:For morality to be objective there cannot be any degree of relativity within it at all
Because relativity is subjective. And so if morality is relative it cannot be objective
My God, what passes for thought here? You're just making grand pronouncements. You do not explain anything. You do not argue for anything.
If you're going to throw around words like "subjective", "relative" and "objective", then define them. I doubt you can. Heck, I doubt you can with the help of the internet.

You're just INSISTING that something relative cannot be objective. Where's the argument? Where do you even explain how that's supposed to make sense? You do nothing that can be called 'thought.' You just have a bunch of dumb opinions and you think that by announcing them you're doing philosophy. ARGUE FOR YOUR PREMISES. Do you even know how?

Premise: Relativity is subjective. NO EXPLANATION. Makes almost no sense.
Premise: That which is relative cannot be objective. NO EXPLANATION/NO ARGUMENT. Patent falsehood.
Conclusion: Because morality is relative it cannot be objective. Basically, you have false premises and a false conclusion for all anyone knows -- because you don't know how to explain or argue. You know, just the very thing that philosophy dictates.
Last edited by fiveredapples on Mon Feb 27, 2017 8:26 pm, edited 1 time in total.
surreptitious57
Posts: 4257
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 6:09 am

Re: When Is Torture Morally Permissible?

Post by surreptitious57 »

I am insisting that something relative can not also be objective based upon the standard definitions
of those words. Nothing therefore to do with my opinion. And those words as defined are mutually
incompatible. You appear to be suggesting the opposite. That they are not mutually incompatible
User avatar
fiveredapples
Posts: 156
Joined: Sun Oct 31, 2010 10:47 am

Re: When Is Torture Morally Permissible?

Post by fiveredapples »

I am insisting that something relative can not also be objective based upon the standard definitions
of those words. Nothing therefore to do with my opinion. And those words as defined are mutually
incompatible. You appear to be suggesting the opposite. That they are not mutually incompatible
That's not enough. Define "relative" and define "objective" and then explain why these are mutually exclusive. Explain why something can't be relative at one level (say, the group level) but objective at a different level (say, the person level).

I'm suggesting you haven't a clue as to what you're saying. You're throwing philosophical terms around as if you understand them, as if you know what follows from them, but you don't. And the worst thing is you don't explain anything you say. I'm not here to do all your thinking and defining for you. If you're too stupid or lazy to explain yourself, then stop littering this thread.
Post Reply