3 ms·

My question to anyone who believes this article to be correct is whether they would have found the same sources and type of evidence credible if it had produced

by nickff 11y ago

My question to anyone who believes this article to be correct is whether they would have found the same sources and type of evidence credible if it had produced the contrary result. If the answer is no, it shows that you should not expect this article to convince any of your intellectual opponents. For the record, I am not sure whether torture works or is morally justified in the circumstances where it has been applied over the last 20 years, but I find this article entirely unconvincing.

vacri 11y ago
One other thing to remember in discussions around torture is that the "ticking bomb" situation simply doesn't happen, as reported by professional interrogators. This means that "ticking bomb" is an outlier scenario and the base moral discussions should not start from there.
- pdkl95 11y ago
  If by some astonishing bad luck some that type of scenario did happen (highly unlikely, but the probability is not zero), that's what "extenuating circumstances" is for. We already have provisions in law to allow for the very rare and unusual situations where someone is guilty of a criminal act for a good reason. Therefor the people using the mythical "ticking bomb" scenario are asking for something else.
- nickff 11y ago
  It has actually happened in at least one case (, at least there was believed to be a 'ticking time bomb').[1] In addition, thought experiments are meant to shed light on the limits (if there are such limits) of certain moral principles, or problems with paradigms, much like reductio ad absurdum is a useful tool for reasoning.[2][3] This is not to say that the torture is justified in the case of a 'ticking time bomb', but it is both a possible situation, and a useful scenario to think about. [1] http://www.nytimes.com/2003/04/10/world/kidnapping-has-germans-debating-police-torture.html http://www.nytimes.com/2003/04/10/world/kidnapping-has-germa... [2] http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/torture/#CasStuTerTicBom http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/torture/#CasStuTerTicBom [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_absurdum https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_absurdum
  - angelbob 11y ago
    It is frequent that it's believed to happen. It's possible, but seems unlikely, that it has literally happened, torture has worked and then the US government has somehow not crowed about it. They are looking very hard for scenarios to justify their use of torture, and the results they have revealed (e.g. from waterboarding Al Qaeda members) aren't inspiring, so far. It appears, for instance, that waterboarding people many times (in a few cases, 100+ times) isn't enough to keep them from lying to you.
    - nickff 11y ago
      Whether the US government is 'good' at extracting information through torture is irrelevant to any discussion of the efficacy of torture, or its morality. Some might argue that the US was simply too restrained in the pain and suffering it subjected the subjects to; others might argue that the US 'tortured hard enough', but it is not possible to achieve 'better' results. Similarly, there could be a discussion of whether it was morally permissible for the US government to torture.
      - anon4 11y ago
        I feel the entire point is whether torture can work. Because if it cannot, there's no point to making people suffer. If we can get the information in some other way, then those should be tried instead. Bribing could work. Offering them a safe place to live for them and their family could work. A lot of things other than making them suffer could work.
      - angelbob 11y ago
        Whether the US gov't is good at it is irrelevant, if we assume somebody else could plausibly be better. But if they're anywhere near an upper bound, then whether they (a well-informed first-world superpower with a huge budget and a willingness to extradite people to places like Syria where there are effectively no rules) can make torture work is very relevant. Because if they can't, and torture is useless, then clearly the question is effectively resolved, at least in the real world. If torture is simply ineffective in real-world scenarios then the question goes away.
SilasX 11y ago
Exactly. You should also raise your guard whenever someone is trying to convince you that reality never presents you with hard choices: "So I never have to weigh my aversion to torture against my aversion to the loss of thousands of lives? Hooray!"
- haberman 11y ago
  Agreed. My skepticism about a claim is proportional to how much the person arguing it wants it to be true.
  - marklgr 11y ago
    Quite often, the person doesn't realize he wants it to be true, so this raises the question: don't you have similar motives unbeknownst to you, and are you skeptical about them too?
    - haberman 11y ago
      Yes I am skeptical about my ideas, often excessively and to my detriment! But I don't believe I or anyone else can completely remove this bias, and I think that beyond a certain point it's not healthy or productive to do so. Taken too far, you can find yourself unable to think any thought without arguing against it with twice as many counter-thoughts. It can lead to paralysis where you aren't able to do or think anything for long enough to actually accomplish something. I think we have to accept that sometimes we are, at least temporarily, operating according to ideas we can't fully justify. We have to be willing to be temporarily wrong or misguided.
- XorNot 11y ago
  No you literally never do. Stop thinking of Jack Bauer in 24 while you think about this subject.
  - SilasX 11y ago
    A civilization-ending meteor will probably never head toward the earth, but your ethical worldmodel should be able to handle this scenario without special exceptions, rather than just try to assure yourself that it can't happen so you don't have to think about it.

by nickff 11y ago

vacri 11y ago

One other thing to remember in discussions around torture is that the "ticking bomb" situation simply doesn't happen, as reported by professional interrogators. This means that "ticking bomb" is an outlier scenario and the base moral discussions should not start from there.

pdkl95 11y ago
If by some astonishing bad luck some that type of scenario did happen (highly unlikely, but the probability is not zero), that's what "extenuating circumstances" is for. We already have provisions in law to allow for the very rare and unusual situations where someone is guilty of a criminal act for a good reason. Therefor the people using the mythical "ticking bomb" scenario are asking for something else.
nickff 11y ago
It has actually happened in at least one case (, at least there was believed to be a 'ticking time bomb').[1] In addition, thought experiments are meant to shed light on the limits (if there are such limits) of certain moral principles, or problems with paradigms, much like reductio ad absurdum is a useful tool for reasoning.[2][3] This is not to say that the torture is justified in the case of a 'ticking time bomb', but it is both a possible situation, and a useful scenario to think about. [1] http://www.nytimes.com/2003/04/10/world/kidnapping-has-germans-debating-police-torture.html http://www.nytimes.com/2003/04/10/world/kidnapping-has-germa... [2] http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/torture/#CasStuTerTicBom http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/torture/#CasStuTerTicBom [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_absurdum https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_absurdum
- angelbob 11y ago
  It is frequent that it's believed to happen. It's possible, but seems unlikely, that it has literally happened, torture has worked and then the US government has somehow not crowed about it. They are looking very hard for scenarios to justify their use of torture, and the results they have revealed (e.g. from waterboarding Al Qaeda members) aren't inspiring, so far. It appears, for instance, that waterboarding people many times (in a few cases, 100+ times) isn't enough to keep them from lying to you.
  - nickff 11y ago
    Whether the US government is 'good' at extracting information through torture is irrelevant to any discussion of the efficacy of torture, or its morality. Some might argue that the US was simply too restrained in the pain and suffering it subjected the subjects to; others might argue that the US 'tortured hard enough', but it is not possible to achieve 'better' results. Similarly, there could be a discussion of whether it was morally permissible for the US government to torture.
    - anon4 11y ago
      I feel the entire point is whether torture can work. Because if it cannot, there's no point to making people suffer. If we can get the information in some other way, then those should be tried instead. Bribing could work. Offering them a safe place to live for them and their family could work. A lot of things other than making them suffer could work.
    - angelbob 11y ago
      Whether the US gov't is good at it is irrelevant, if we assume somebody else could plausibly be better. But if they're anywhere near an upper bound, then whether they (a well-informed first-world superpower with a huge budget and a willingness to extradite people to places like Syria where there are effectively no rules) can make torture work is very relevant. Because if they can't, and torture is useless, then clearly the question is effectively resolved, at least in the real world. If torture is simply ineffective in real-world scenarios then the question goes away.

SilasX 11y ago

Exactly. You should also raise your guard whenever someone is trying to convince you that reality never presents you with hard choices: "So I never have to weigh my aversion to torture against my aversion to the loss of thousands of lives? Hooray!"

haberman 11y ago
Agreed. My skepticism about a claim is proportional to how much the person arguing it wants it to be true.
- marklgr 11y ago
  Quite often, the person doesn't realize he wants it to be true, so this raises the question: don't you have similar motives unbeknownst to you, and are you skeptical about them too?
  - haberman 11y ago
    Yes I am skeptical about my ideas, often excessively and to my detriment! But I don't believe I or anyone else can completely remove this bias, and I think that beyond a certain point it's not healthy or productive to do so. Taken too far, you can find yourself unable to think any thought without arguing against it with twice as many counter-thoughts. It can lead to paralysis where you aren't able to do or think anything for long enough to actually accomplish something. I think we have to accept that sometimes we are, at least temporarily, operating according to ideas we can't fully justify. We have to be willing to be temporarily wrong or misguided.
XorNot 11y ago
No you literally never do. Stop thinking of Jack Bauer in 24 while you think about this subject.
- SilasX 11y ago
  A civilization-ending meteor will probably never head toward the earth, but your ethical worldmodel should be able to handle this scenario without special exceptions, rather than just try to assure yourself that it can't happen so you don't have to think about it.