3 ms·

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 she

by 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.
vacri 11y ago
Making decisions on whether torture is moral based on extreme outliers is the same as arguing about the morals of abortion based on third-trimester abortions, which in the US comprise 0.4% of abortions. It's not the main event. Yes, it is useful to discuss these items, as long as it is clearly understood that these are outliers. It's also significant to note that even though police thought it was a 'ticking bomb' situation, it actually wasn't. "But the police honestly believed X" is a real example of the 'slippery slope', that we see violated time and time again. There have been sting operations to expose the misuse of "honestly believed X" - my favourite being the guys (in Texas, from memory) who put high power heat lamps in an empty house, pointed at a christmas tree. Police helicopters illegally using FLIR noted the heat, and had an officer walk past and "smell cannabis" coming from the house, which lead to a SWAT raid. All caught on cameras positioned inside the empty house.
arca_vorago 11y ago
Threatening to torture and actual torture are two very different things. Your first source doesnt back up the first claim you made.

by nickff 11y ago

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.

vacri 11y ago

Making decisions on whether torture is moral based on extreme outliers is the same as arguing about the morals of abortion based on third-trimester abortions, which in the US comprise 0.4% of abortions. It's not the main event. Yes, it is useful to discuss these items, as long as it is clearly understood that these are outliers. It's also significant to note that even though police thought it was a 'ticking bomb' situation, it actually wasn't. "But the police honestly believed X" is a real example of the 'slippery slope', that we see violated time and time again. There have been sting operations to expose the misuse of "honestly believed X" - my favourite being the guys (in Texas, from memory) who put high power heat lamps in an empty house, pointed at a christmas tree. Police helicopters illegally using FLIR noted the heat, and had an officer walk past and "smell cannabis" coming from the house, which lead to a SWAT raid. All caught on cameras positioned inside the empty house.

arca_vorago 11y ago

Threatening to torture and actual torture are two very different things. Your first source doesnt back up the first claim you made.