7 ms·

Personally, whenever I find that I don't have to solve a moral dilemma (or any dilemma) because it's clear-cut either way (one way has all upsides), I tend to b

by edanm 9y ago

Personally, whenever I find that I don't have to solve a moral dilemma (or any dilemma) because it's clear-cut either way (one way has all upsides), I tend to be nervous that I'm missing something. Humans are really really good at cognitive dissonance. I'm not saying I know whether torture works or not, I'm just saying, it's awfully convenient that most people harp on the "it doesn't work" idea, and that means the burden of proof IMO should be much higher to show it doesn't work (assuming your default belief is that it does work, which is most people's default prior).

ChrisSD 9y ago
If we're thinking about this purely scientifically (ignoring the ethics for a moment) then you're asking the wrong question. The question is not "does torture work". The question is "which techniques get the interviewee to honestly reveal what they do (or don't) know". Or to put it another way, the relative results should be your focus.
- edanm 9y ago
  That's a good point. One of the reasons that I semi-assume that torture works, is that there are security agencies that continue to use it. That also means they choose to use torture versus other means, although there, you could argue that they're doing it as a time/cost-saving measure, and that you could theoretically get similar results with more work. That's actually a pretty strong argument against my "I assume it works because it's used" argument.
  - c22 9y ago
    Maybe it "works" on some other metric that is being selected for. Masturbation "works", but not if you're trying to have a kid.
    - LanceH 9y ago
      Generally the people saying it doesn't work all claim that a person will say anything under duress. While this is true, interrogation is generally not done in a complete vacuum. The interrogator will know things that can help determine whether the target is lying or not. If he confirms things you know but he doesn't know you know, you're probably on the right track. It's never like in the movies where they just ask, "Who's in charge?" and ratchet up the torture until the guy answers. That would have near zero intel value. We also talk about torture as a binary. There is really a whole range from mild discomfort to extreme pain, injury and threat of death. There is a whole range of activities to debate whether they are torture. Is threat alone torture? Some have committed suicide while facing legal threats alone. Others shrug off mere threats as just talk -- demonstrative torture could make those threats real to some and thus work. On the flip side, the consensus (30 years ago anyway) was that if you're captured, you're going to give up everything when faced with torture, so go ahead and do so, just try to hold on for 24 hours before you do.
      - michaelmrose 9y ago
        If a reasonably person has to ask is this torture its probably torture.
        f137 9y ago
        What is a reasonably person?
        michaelmrose 9y ago
        A common ethical standard.
        michaelmrose 9y ago
        That ought to have been reasonable thanks.
  - roywiggins 9y ago
    There are a thousand and one reasons why organizations do things that don't work.
  - michaelmrose 9y ago
    Assuming its worked because its used is circular reasoning that could be used to justify ANYTHING. Its also amazingly pretending our government is remotely competent.
addicted 9y ago
Wait, so you think we should be torturing people by default, and that the burden of proof should lie on the people who think we shouldn't be torturing people to show it doesn't work? You don't think that maybe the burden of proof should lie on people to prove that torture does work before we even have a discussion about whether letting go of basic human rights is worth it in certain instances?
- dmix 9y ago
  He was just using that as an example where we should question our assumptions. Particularly when the subject comes with many 'common sense' automatic assumptions it's good to give extra scrutiny to the subject. You don't have to be doing something "by default" in order to prove or disprove an hypothesis. There is more the enough historical evidence that any type of violence or extreme pressure creates false confessions. Nor do you have to rip off someone's fingernails to find out humans will tell you anything to make it stop. You can always extrapolate from more humane experiments, if data from a previous era is not available.
- edanm 9y ago
  I wasn't talking either way about the morality of torture (in that comment), or whether we should be torturing anyone. I was simply saying that I find the "common knowledge" that torture doesn't work, to be unlikely. It just seems very convenient that things we find morally wrong end up also being bad for other reasons, making it unnecessary to deal with the morals. That sounds like motivated reasoning, not actual truth seeking. "You don't think that maybe the burden of proof should lie on people to prove that torture does work before we even have a discussion about whether letting go of basic human rights is worth it in certain instances?" That's a complicated question, and to be honest I have no idea. I actually think that practically speaking, no one should be routinely torturing anyone else. I just don't think it's a moral (or practical) slam-dunk - I think there are situations where it is morally justified, and that it would probably work.
  - thaumasiotes 9y ago
    > It just seems very convenient that things we find morally wrong end up also being bad for other reasons An evolutionary argument can explain this, and is the standard way to explain large chunks of traditional morality. (e.g. incest taboos.) As applied to the modern torture debate, I agree with you that this is more of a case of "when neither the law nor the facts are on your side, pound the table".
michaelmrose 9y ago
I don't believe the burden of proof shifts based on what you personally think or what you suppose most people think. In fact the burden of proof ought to lie with those who suppose we commit egregious acts of immorality in the name of a nebulous greater good to prove that this is morally acceptable and that said greater good actually exists. Back on the topic of if torture works. Nobody is arguing that you can't coerce someone into giving true testimony if you know you have a bad party and you can verify what he tells you immediately but in such cases you almost wouldn't have to anyway. The problem is the world is rarely cut and dry and we are all much much safer if the powers that be aren't allowed to pull out our fingernails. Terrorism kills less people than bathtubs and far less than cars imagining that we ought to eliminate basic protections to keep a relative handful from dying is insane.
- thaumasiotes 9y ago
  > Nobody is arguing that you can't coerce someone into giving true testimony if you know you have a bad party and you can verify what he tells you immediately That's not accurate; that argument is very common. You can see someone making this exact stupid argument here in this very thread at https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15465836 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15465836 .
Nomentatus 9y ago
Agreed. We have a good historical example. Torture worked wonderfully well for the Gestapo in France and nearby countries (they actually rolled up and crushed the whole resistance network) until something like 1942 but after that point it didn't work and was pointless. A new resistance movement grew and remained strong. Torture couldn't dent it. The reason for the change was that the Allies (British spymasters really) responded by adopting "cell networks" and properly limited information to a need-to-know basis - something pioneered by the Soviets. Torture works vs a naive opponent network. It doesn't work vs a sophisticated opponent.
memracom 9y ago
Most interviewers who use torture do that because the believe that the evil criminal deserves a punishment, and the interviewer derives great satisfaction from doing the torture. But you have to admit that criminals are not normal people. They are in fact, insane, in a specific way that our laws will not give them diminished responsibility. It is dangerous to think that the criminal is not a sadist. You have to maintain control over the criminal and over the interview. And you must maintain full control over your own psyche and emotions. Never be bored or frustrated. Have infinite patience. Map out the criminal's psyche to learn what makes them tick. Listen to your own intuitions because as you learn more about criminal psychology, your subconcious becomes a more powerful tool.

by edanm 9y ago

ChrisSD 9y ago

If we're thinking about this purely scientifically (ignoring the ethics for a moment) then you're asking the wrong question. The question is not "does torture work". The question is "which techniques get the interviewee to honestly reveal what they do (or don't) know". Or to put it another way, the relative results should be your focus.

edanm 9y ago
That's a good point. One of the reasons that I semi-assume that torture works, is that there are security agencies that continue to use it. That also means they choose to use torture versus other means, although there, you could argue that they're doing it as a time/cost-saving measure, and that you could theoretically get similar results with more work. That's actually a pretty strong argument against my "I assume it works because it's used" argument.
- c22 9y ago
  Maybe it "works" on some other metric that is being selected for. Masturbation "works", but not if you're trying to have a kid.
  - LanceH 9y ago
    Generally the people saying it doesn't work all claim that a person will say anything under duress. While this is true, interrogation is generally not done in a complete vacuum. The interrogator will know things that can help determine whether the target is lying or not. If he confirms things you know but he doesn't know you know, you're probably on the right track. It's never like in the movies where they just ask, "Who's in charge?" and ratchet up the torture until the guy answers. That would have near zero intel value. We also talk about torture as a binary. There is really a whole range from mild discomfort to extreme pain, injury and threat of death. There is a whole range of activities to debate whether they are torture. Is threat alone torture? Some have committed suicide while facing legal threats alone. Others shrug off mere threats as just talk -- demonstrative torture could make those threats real to some and thus work. On the flip side, the consensus (30 years ago anyway) was that if you're captured, you're going to give up everything when faced with torture, so go ahead and do so, just try to hold on for 24 hours before you do.
    - michaelmrose 9y ago
      If a reasonably person has to ask is this torture its probably torture.
      - f137 9y ago
        What is a reasonably person?
        michaelmrose 9y ago
        A common ethical standard.
        michaelmrose 9y ago
        That ought to have been reasonable thanks.
- roywiggins 9y ago
  There are a thousand and one reasons why organizations do things that don't work.
- michaelmrose 9y ago
  Assuming its worked because its used is circular reasoning that could be used to justify ANYTHING. Its also amazingly pretending our government is remotely competent.

addicted 9y ago

Wait, so you think we should be torturing people by default, and that the burden of proof should lie on the people who think we shouldn't be torturing people to show it doesn't work? You don't think that maybe the burden of proof should lie on people to prove that torture does work before we even have a discussion about whether letting go of basic human rights is worth it in certain instances?

dmix 9y ago
He was just using that as an example where we should question our assumptions. Particularly when the subject comes with many 'common sense' automatic assumptions it's good to give extra scrutiny to the subject. You don't have to be doing something "by default" in order to prove or disprove an hypothesis. There is more the enough historical evidence that any type of violence or extreme pressure creates false confessions. Nor do you have to rip off someone's fingernails to find out humans will tell you anything to make it stop. You can always extrapolate from more humane experiments, if data from a previous era is not available.
edanm 9y ago
I wasn't talking either way about the morality of torture (in that comment), or whether we should be torturing anyone. I was simply saying that I find the "common knowledge" that torture doesn't work, to be unlikely. It just seems very convenient that things we find morally wrong end up also being bad for other reasons, making it unnecessary to deal with the morals. That sounds like motivated reasoning, not actual truth seeking. "You don't think that maybe the burden of proof should lie on people to prove that torture does work before we even have a discussion about whether letting go of basic human rights is worth it in certain instances?" That's a complicated question, and to be honest I have no idea. I actually think that practically speaking, no one should be routinely torturing anyone else. I just don't think it's a moral (or practical) slam-dunk - I think there are situations where it is morally justified, and that it would probably work.
- thaumasiotes 9y ago
  > It just seems very convenient that things we find morally wrong end up also being bad for other reasons An evolutionary argument can explain this, and is the standard way to explain large chunks of traditional morality. (e.g. incest taboos.) As applied to the modern torture debate, I agree with you that this is more of a case of "when neither the law nor the facts are on your side, pound the table".

michaelmrose 9y ago

I don't believe the burden of proof shifts based on what you personally think or what you suppose most people think. In fact the burden of proof ought to lie with those who suppose we commit egregious acts of immorality in the name of a nebulous greater good to prove that this is morally acceptable and that said greater good actually exists. Back on the topic of if torture works. Nobody is arguing that you can't coerce someone into giving true testimony if you know you have a bad party and you can verify what he tells you immediately but in such cases you almost wouldn't have to anyway. The problem is the world is rarely cut and dry and we are all much much safer if the powers that be aren't allowed to pull out our fingernails. Terrorism kills less people than bathtubs and far less than cars imagining that we ought to eliminate basic protections to keep a relative handful from dying is insane.

thaumasiotes 9y ago
> Nobody is arguing that you can't coerce someone into giving true testimony if you know you have a bad party and you can verify what he tells you immediately That's not accurate; that argument is very common. You can see someone making this exact stupid argument here in this very thread at https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15465836 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15465836 .

Nomentatus 9y ago

Agreed. We have a good historical example. Torture worked wonderfully well for the Gestapo in France and nearby countries (they actually rolled up and crushed the whole resistance network) until something like 1942 but after that point it didn't work and was pointless. A new resistance movement grew and remained strong. Torture couldn't dent it. The reason for the change was that the Allies (British spymasters really) responded by adopting "cell networks" and properly limited information to a need-to-know basis - something pioneered by the Soviets. Torture works vs a naive opponent network. It doesn't work vs a sophisticated opponent.

memracom 9y ago

Most interviewers who use torture do that because the believe that the evil criminal deserves a punishment, and the interviewer derives great satisfaction from doing the torture. But you have to admit that criminals are not normal people. They are in fact, insane, in a specific way that our laws will not give them diminished responsibility. It is dangerous to think that the criminal is not a sadist. You have to maintain control over the criminal and over the interview. And you must maintain full control over your own psyche and emotions. Never be bored or frustrated. Have infinite patience. Map out the criminal's psyche to learn what makes them tick. Listen to your own intuitions because as you learn more about criminal psychology, your subconcious becomes a more powerful tool.