5 ms·

>> So, if torture would have prevented 9/11 should we have done the torture or should we have let 9/11 happen? > The problem with these kind of "if torture wou

>> So, if torture would have prevented 9/11 should we have done the torture or should we have let 9/11 happen? > The problem with these kind of "if torture would prevent..." scenarios is that there is generally no way of every being in a situation where you know that torture would prevent the harm that is hypothesized to justify it. Just as in my example of a surgical intervention after a traffic accident, this is no guarantee of 100% success. The question to ask is not will every time be successful, but statistically will it be successful. Just because you aren't 100% certain that torture would prevent a 9/11, or any other terrorist attack doesn't mean one shouldn't try the intervention. Also, the fewer successful attacks, the less likely terrorists will keep attempting them, so it has a form of community effect when you prevent any victim from terror. Empathy is key. Talk with victims of terror who have survived, but are injured. Speak with loved ones of terror victims. Get to know them and their feelings. The problem with those who criticize interventions that can save lives from terrorists, is there lack of empathy for the victims that survive and the loved ones of those who don't. The child without the parent. The parent of the child. For example, an American 13-year-old girl was recently killed by a terrorist in Israel. If torture could have saved her, then it should have been used. Palestinian Man Stabs and Kills 13-year-old Israeli Girl Asleep in Her West Bank Home http://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/1.728013 http://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/1.728013

davidf18 10y ago
That's right. It is easier to down vote my posts suggesting empathy for terror victims than to think about a conversation with them. Try to imagine talking to the parents of this 13 year old American girl. While one can't show 100% causation, statistically you can prevent these attacks and if you can, you should.
- casiotone 10y ago
  Statistically, how many attacks have been prevented by torture?
  - davidf18 10y ago
    Well, that's a good question, but I might rephrase it: How many lives and injuries have been saved. Also, there is the situation of "the ticking bomb" where an appropriate intervention to get information could save lives.
    - dragonwriter 10y ago
      > Also, there is the situation of "the ticking bomb" where an appropriate intervention to get information could save lives. The idea that you know for a fact that a ticking bomb exists and know for a fact that a particular target has information about it which could save lives, but don't know enough to act without information from that subject and don't have a more reliable way of extracting information from the target than torture is implausible on a whole number of levels.
    - detaro 10y ago
      What is the answer for the rephrased question? The CIA and other organisations have been torturing "terrorists" quite a bit, they are remarkably quiet when it comes to naming examples to justify their actions. I'd honestly assume they have tortured more people that didn't have any knowledge about terrorism than they saved with the intel from those that did. Can you name examples for your ticking bomb scenario? (as in, someone with the necessary information was in custody and known to have the information?) As far as I know, this wasn't the case for any of the high-profile attacks you appeal to. There is little evidence torture actually works, and allowing it as a tool is way to ripe for abuse, even if you don't believe that torturing people is generally amoral. The data to support it just is not there.
    - casiotone 10y ago
      You have neatly sidestepped answering both my question and your rephrasing of my question. Would you care to answer either of them?
dragonwriter 10y ago
> Just as in my example of a surgical intervention after a traffic accident, this is no guarantee of 100% success No, with torture there is no scenario, given everything I've seen on the issue including from experts in interrogation, in which you can conclude that torture is more likely than other techniques which you will have the capacity to perform if you have the capacity (e.g., control of the target, access to trained interrogators) to perform torture. Its not that torture lacks a guarantee of success, it is that there is no way to identify (and, thus, limit) torture to any set of circumstances where torture is even most likely to be the most effective approach. And, therefore, any policy which ever chooses torture will be suboptimally effective in preventing the harms it seeks to prevent. That's the problem with torture, even within the framework of a relatively myopic utilitarianism. And torture gets worse from the perspective of a more holistic utilitarianism, once you consider the effects of actually performing torture on the broader society and, including on those who actually perform it.

davidf18 10y ago

That's right. It is easier to down vote my posts suggesting empathy for terror victims than to think about a conversation with them. Try to imagine talking to the parents of this 13 year old American girl. While one can't show 100% causation, statistically you can prevent these attacks and if you can, you should.

casiotone 10y ago
Statistically, how many attacks have been prevented by torture?
- davidf18 10y ago
  Well, that's a good question, but I might rephrase it: How many lives and injuries have been saved. Also, there is the situation of "the ticking bomb" where an appropriate intervention to get information could save lives.
  - dragonwriter 10y ago
    > Also, there is the situation of "the ticking bomb" where an appropriate intervention to get information could save lives. The idea that you know for a fact that a ticking bomb exists and know for a fact that a particular target has information about it which could save lives, but don't know enough to act without information from that subject and don't have a more reliable way of extracting information from the target than torture is implausible on a whole number of levels.
  - detaro 10y ago
    What is the answer for the rephrased question? The CIA and other organisations have been torturing "terrorists" quite a bit, they are remarkably quiet when it comes to naming examples to justify their actions. I'd honestly assume they have tortured more people that didn't have any knowledge about terrorism than they saved with the intel from those that did. Can you name examples for your ticking bomb scenario? (as in, someone with the necessary information was in custody and known to have the information?) As far as I know, this wasn't the case for any of the high-profile attacks you appeal to. There is little evidence torture actually works, and allowing it as a tool is way to ripe for abuse, even if you don't believe that torturing people is generally amoral. The data to support it just is not there.
  - casiotone 10y ago
    You have neatly sidestepped answering both my question and your rephrasing of my question. Would you care to answer either of them?

dragonwriter 10y ago

> Just as in my example of a surgical intervention after a traffic accident, this is no guarantee of 100% success No, with torture there is no scenario, given everything I've seen on the issue including from experts in interrogation, in which you can conclude that torture is more likely than other techniques which you will have the capacity to perform if you have the capacity (e.g., control of the target, access to trained interrogators) to perform torture. Its not that torture lacks a guarantee of success, it is that there is no way to identify (and, thus, limit) torture to any set of circumstances where torture is even most likely to be the most effective approach. And, therefore, any policy which ever chooses torture will be suboptimally effective in preventing the harms it seeks to prevent. That's the problem with torture, even within the framework of a relatively myopic utilitarianism. And torture gets worse from the perspective of a more holistic utilitarianism, once you consider the effects of actually performing torture on the broader society and, including on those who actually perform it.