23 ms·

I haven't seen the movie and I don't know what's depicted in it, but I'm pretty sure torture can be morally justified in some cases. Consider a real-life exampl

by chroma 11y ago

I haven't seen the movie and I don't know what's depicted in it, but I'm pretty sure torture can be morally justified in some cases. Consider a real-life example of torture described in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.[1] At a gas station, a woman briefly leaves her car to pay for fuel. In the minute she's gone, a man hops in and drives away. Unbeknownst to the car thief, the woman's infant is sleeping in the back seat. The thief soon discovers this and ditches the car. Police quickly catch him at a nearby train station. He's carrying valuables from the car. There is video of him stealing the car. Despite his denials, there is no question this man is the car thief. It's over 100ºF out. The police need to find the car before the baby dies of heat stroke. A police officer describes the incident: > In the police truck on the way to the police station: “Where did you leave the Hyundai?” Denial instead of dissimulation: “It wasn't me.” It was—property stolen from the car was found in his pockets. In the detectives' office: “It's been twenty minutes since you took the car—little tin box like that car—It will heat up like an oven under this sun. Another twenty minutes and the child's dead or brain damaged. Where did you dump the car?” Again: “It wasn't me.” > Appeals to decency, to reason, to self-interest: “It's not too late; tell us where you left the car and you will only be charged with Take-and-Use. That's just a six month extension of your recognizance.” Threats: “If the child dies I will charge you with Manslaughter!” Sneering, defiant and belligerent; he made no secret of his contempt for the police. Part-way through his umpteenth, “It wasn't me”, a questioner clipped him across the ear as if he were a child, an insult calculated to bring the Islander to his feet to fight, there a body-punch elicited a roar of pain, but he fought back until he lapsed into semi-consciousness under a rain of blows. He quite enjoyed handing out a bit of biffo, but now, kneeling on hands and knees in his own urine, in pain he had never known, he finally realised the beating would go on until he told the police where he had abandoned the child and the car. > The police officers' statements in the prosecution brief made no mention of the beating; the location of the stolen vehicle and the infant inside it was portrayed as having been volunteered by the defendant. The defendant's counsel availed himself of this falsehood in his plea in mitigation. When found, the stolen child was dehydrated, too weak to cry; there were ice packs and dehydration in the casualty ward but no long-time prognosis on brain damage. I think the actions of the police are unimpeachable. Had they not tortured the thief, an innocent child would be dead. Now, does that mean I think torture should be legal? Of course not. Do I think the CIA has committed atrocities and violated human rights? Yes! But that doesn't mean torture doesn't work. 1. http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/torture/#CasStuBea http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/torture/#CasStuBea

CamperBob2 11y ago
I haven't seen the movie and I don't know what's depicted in it, but I'm pretty sure torture can be morally justified in some cases. It can be, as long as the perpetrator of the torture is willing to be held accountable for it. In the stereotypical '24' scenario, what happens if you torture somebody and don't find out where the bomb that's about to destroy the city is hidden? In a just world, if you save the city, the governor or the President will likely pardon your crime, so it's all good. If you don't, you should go to prison for a very long time. But it never seems to work out that way, does it? It's all upside for the torturer, no downside. That's about as close to the definition of "evil" as you can get in my book. We see it in action every time we read about police who step over the line (as in your anecdote) or a berserk prosecutor who seems bent on setting an example or furthering his own career rather than seeking justice. When it comes to violating peoples' rights in the name of Truth, Justice, and the American Way, there are almost never any consequences for failure.
ridgeguy 11y ago
"I think the actions of the police are unimpeachable." No, they're not. Their actions were effective but illegal. Effective in that they forced disclosure of the child's location. Illegal for excessive force, denial of due process, etc. Their illegal behavior weakened the rights all of us depend on. More broadly, we'd probably convict more criminals if we ditched the legal presumption of innocence and other defendant protections. And of course, it can be heartbreaking and enraging when a palpably guilty defendant escapes justice because of prosecutorial error or other "technicality". Just as those cops were heartbroken and enraged at the arrestee's callous disregard of the child's life. I can imagine how they felt, and I don't know if in their place I'd have had the courage to follow the law. My point is that the rights we've agreed any of us should have as a defendant in a state criminal action do lead to occasional awful circumstances like those cops faced. I think the more awful the circumstance, the more important it is to uphold those rights. They're fundamentally important, and they're not much use if we only enforce them when it's easy or convenient.
- chroma 11y ago
  > Their illegal behavior weakened the rights all of us depend on. I disagree. It's good to be wary of this sort of thing, but Australia (where this happened) doesn't seem to have a police brutality problem. Had the police done the legal thing, an innocent child would have been cooked alive. So in this case, I'm glad they broke the law. Laws and morals don't always agree. When they disagree, that is a failing of laws, not morals. Many things are illegal, but moral. For example, it may be necessary to steal or trespass to help save a life. Sometimes, despite your best efforts, those actions are for naught, and the person dies anyway. Does that make those actions wrong? No. And in those cases, you'd be hard-pressed to find a DA willing to prosecute. I'm OK with that. Again, I think torture should be illegal. I think programs like the CIA's extraordinary rendition are abhorrent. I think Guantanamo Bay will be rightfully condemned by future generations. I'm certain the post-9/11 institutionalization of torture has caused far more harm than good. But I also think that torture can, in some cases, be morally justified. And I think my example demonstrates that.

by chroma 11y ago

CamperBob2 11y ago

I haven't seen the movie and I don't know what's depicted in it, but I'm pretty sure torture can be morally justified in some cases. It can be, as long as the perpetrator of the torture is willing to be held accountable for it. In the stereotypical '24' scenario, what happens if you torture somebody and don't find out where the bomb that's about to destroy the city is hidden? In a just world, if you save the city, the governor or the President will likely pardon your crime, so it's all good. If you don't, you should go to prison for a very long time. But it never seems to work out that way, does it? It's all upside for the torturer, no downside. That's about as close to the definition of "evil" as you can get in my book. We see it in action every time we read about police who step over the line (as in your anecdote) or a berserk prosecutor who seems bent on setting an example or furthering his own career rather than seeking justice. When it comes to violating peoples' rights in the name of Truth, Justice, and the American Way, there are almost never any consequences for failure.

ridgeguy 11y ago

"I think the actions of the police are unimpeachable." No, they're not. Their actions were effective but illegal. Effective in that they forced disclosure of the child's location. Illegal for excessive force, denial of due process, etc. Their illegal behavior weakened the rights all of us depend on. More broadly, we'd probably convict more criminals if we ditched the legal presumption of innocence and other defendant protections. And of course, it can be heartbreaking and enraging when a palpably guilty defendant escapes justice because of prosecutorial error or other "technicality". Just as those cops were heartbroken and enraged at the arrestee's callous disregard of the child's life. I can imagine how they felt, and I don't know if in their place I'd have had the courage to follow the law. My point is that the rights we've agreed any of us should have as a defendant in a state criminal action do lead to occasional awful circumstances like those cops faced. I think the more awful the circumstance, the more important it is to uphold those rights. They're fundamentally important, and they're not much use if we only enforce them when it's easy or convenient.

chroma 11y ago
> Their illegal behavior weakened the rights all of us depend on. I disagree. It's good to be wary of this sort of thing, but Australia (where this happened) doesn't seem to have a police brutality problem. Had the police done the legal thing, an innocent child would have been cooked alive. So in this case, I'm glad they broke the law. Laws and morals don't always agree. When they disagree, that is a failing of laws, not morals. Many things are illegal, but moral. For example, it may be necessary to steal or trespass to help save a life. Sometimes, despite your best efforts, those actions are for naught, and the person dies anyway. Does that make those actions wrong? No. And in those cases, you'd be hard-pressed to find a DA willing to prosecute. I'm OK with that. Again, I think torture should be illegal. I think programs like the CIA's extraordinary rendition are abhorrent. I think Guantanamo Bay will be rightfully condemned by future generations. I'm certain the post-9/11 institutionalization of torture has caused far more harm than good. But I also think that torture can, in some cases, be morally justified. And I think my example demonstrates that.