Axiom Home Page Forums General Discussion The Water Cooler Bin Laden is Dead

Torture is effective in making the tortured want to do anything to make it stop. That torture provides reliable information is what's under debate here. You seem to be ignoring all the evidence that supports the opposing opinion.

I haven't seen any evidence. Statements by politicians or the US Military Manual after being massaged by the politically correct is not evidence.

Let's assume for the sake of the discussion that torture is, on occasion, when inflicted by masters of pain and persuasion, a method by which reliable and actionable information may be obtained quickly.

I assume we all agree that torture is terrible.

Now, when you weigh the terrible nature and negative consequences of torture, on the one hand, against the value of obtaining information in possession of a captive that if given would save one life, one hundred lives, a hundred million lives ... or for the militant PETA and ELF members, out there, the lives of 10 goldfish and a Pit Bull, the calculus cannot be so easy.

Let's take it furrher. Let's assume that one man has information affecting the fate of the entire universe.






Would you torture God?

Clever pmbuko, your style is to avoid the issue, make it go away. How brave of you.

You seem to think you have devised your own Kobayashi Maru. You haven't. It's a contrived situation with no connection to the real world.

In your scenario, the prisoner's guilt is a foregone conclusion, as well as his possession of all the details necessary to prevent an enormous tragedy. You're also assuming that torture will divulge precisely what you need, when you need it. As such, I could reply, "Sure! Torture the bastard until he tells us what we want to hear!" But then I'd be buying in to your fantasy. Since I don't buy into it, I choose not to play your game.

Capisce?

No, respectfully, you are incorrect. There are no certainties, only percentages. It is all well and good to take the high moral position that no threat can justify enhanced interrogation or torture. This is fatuous and avoids the difficult moral problem posed by a situation in which there is a high probability that person A is in possession of information which if divulged in a timely manner could to a high probability avoid a catastrophic loss of life. Such a situation is not so difficult to conceive of except for those who refuse to even engage in the discussion of the moral and ethical implications of such a situation.

It is easy to reject the idea of enhanced interrogation if you define it as torture. It is easy to reject the use of torture by a civilized society. However, there are situations in which a civilized society may have to choose between the value of 'NO-TORTURE' and survival.

Would torture be justified to save a single innocent life? A thousand? A million? 8 million?

Although such a hypothetical may have been inconceivable 100 years ago, that is no longer the case.

Weapons of mass destruction exist which could be transported by a single person and which could take the lives of millions of people.

So, what is the ethical mandate when faced with this choice? Does the calculation differ based on the number of people at risk?

How about it?

You can only ever operate on the information you have in front of you. I realize that in high stakes situations, more options are necessarily on the table, some of which probably walk the line between "enhanced interrogation" and torture. I still firmly believe if you feel you must resort to torture, it's only because you've already failed elsewhere.

It's a matter of how much time there is before the bad event is likely to take place and the nature of the harm threatened.

I don't understand what you're saying. You're saying that we need to go by the numbers, but... for the sake of conversation, let's assume that this very unlikely set of circumstances is in place. Which is it?

Risk analysis. The risk is a function of the likelihood of the occurrence of an event in relation to the degree of harm threatened.

If the likelihood is low that person A is in possession of information that could avoid the occurrence of a catastrophic event then there would be no question that the use of coercive interrogation would be inappropriate and immoral.

The ethical problem arises when you have high confidence that person B is in possession of information that could avoid the occurrence of a catastrophic event.

Here's where the calculus becomes terrible. What if person B is in possession of information that the operator is confident will result in the deliverance of an innocent person from otherwise certain death. Most would say, our values are such that the greater good is served by not using extremely coercive interrogation to save the innocent person. This would also be the case if 10 innocent persons were at risk.

But, what if person B were in possession of information the if secured within time (x) would avoid the risk of harm which is the release in a major international airport of a highly contagious, airborne virus worse than the Spanish Flu? The risk is a lethal pandemic that could reduce the world's population by a non trivial percentage.

What then? What is the moral choice?

The answer is clear. If you weigh the risk of harm (death of scores of millions of people), against the likelihood of the occurrence of the risk (100% unless the information is obtained), and a high likelihood (>50%) that person B is in possession of the information which if obtained would avoid the occurrence of harm. Turn on the faucet.

If it is just a matter of numbers, then why is it ethical not to use coercive interrogation in order to save a single innocent life?