4 ms·

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 "com

by 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".
jancsika 9y ago
> 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. There are plenty of well-researched examples of the ineffectiveness of systems of torture for getting reliable information out of the victims of that torture. Off the top of my head: The U.S. Senate report on torture[1]. In addition to laying out details of corruption surrounding the U.S.'s torture regime following 911, the 525-page report also concludes that the torture regime was not effective in achieving its stated goal of gaining actionable intelligence. And that's just a recent U.S. report. There are many more by reputable human rights groups, historians, and reporters from a vast swath of modern human atrocities. That is to say-- I don't think the concept of likelihood makes sense given that you are speculating seemingly without regard to the easily accessible written record on the subject. Even if your point is that the "common knowledge" could be right but for the wrong reasons (e.g., people trying to bolster their pre-existing moral position), the extant examples in your favor that I know ironically come mainly (solely?) from people who either participated directly in the Bush era torture regime or have a vested professional and/or legal interest in confirming torture to be effective. (E.g., Dick Cheney, the CIA consultants for Zero Dark Thirty, the Whitehouse spokespeople for Obama after the bin Laden raid, etc.) [1] https://web.archive.org/web/20141209165504/http://www.intelligence.senate.gov/study2014/sscistudy1.pdf https://web.archive.org/web/20141209165504/http://www.intell...
dragonwriter 9y ago
> I was simply saying that I find the "common knowledge" that torture doesn't work, to be unlikely Torture works exceptionally well at getting people to say whatever they think will satisfy the torturer in the short term. Which is actually why it's bad at getting actionable intelligence, but very good at getting confessions. > It just seems very convenient that things we find morally wrong end up also being bad for other reasons It's not really “for other reasons”, the morally repugnant thing about torture (the infliction of severe suffering) is why it doesn't work to get actionable intelligence. > That sounds like motivated reasoning, not actual truth seeking Entities for which torture would be acceptable even if morally repugnant (including military and Intelligence agencies who practiced it in the belief that it was effective) are foremost among those that have studied it and found it ineffective for gathering actionable ibtelkigence, compared to means which do not involve torture. > I think there are situations where it is morally justified, and that it would probably work. You are free to provide evidence supporting your conclusions about it's effectiveness; but without it you seem to just be providing what you'd like to be true, not what you rationally and justifiably believe to be true. And, conveniently, it seems to align with your moral preference...

by edanm 9y ago

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".

jancsika 9y ago

> 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. There are plenty of well-researched examples of the ineffectiveness of systems of torture for getting reliable information out of the victims of that torture. Off the top of my head: The U.S. Senate report on torture[1]. In addition to laying out details of corruption surrounding the U.S.'s torture regime following 911, the 525-page report also concludes that the torture regime was not effective in achieving its stated goal of gaining actionable intelligence. And that's just a recent U.S. report. There are many more by reputable human rights groups, historians, and reporters from a vast swath of modern human atrocities. That is to say-- I don't think the concept of likelihood makes sense given that you are speculating seemingly without regard to the easily accessible written record on the subject. Even if your point is that the "common knowledge" could be right but for the wrong reasons (e.g., people trying to bolster their pre-existing moral position), the extant examples in your favor that I know ironically come mainly (solely?) from people who either participated directly in the Bush era torture regime or have a vested professional and/or legal interest in confirming torture to be effective. (E.g., Dick Cheney, the CIA consultants for Zero Dark Thirty, the Whitehouse spokespeople for Obama after the bin Laden raid, etc.) [1] https://web.archive.org/web/20141209165504/http://www.intelligence.senate.gov/study2014/sscistudy1.pdf https://web.archive.org/web/20141209165504/http://www.intell...

dragonwriter 9y ago

> I was simply saying that I find the "common knowledge" that torture doesn't work, to be unlikely Torture works exceptionally well at getting people to say whatever they think will satisfy the torturer in the short term. Which is actually why it's bad at getting actionable intelligence, but very good at getting confessions. > It just seems very convenient that things we find morally wrong end up also being bad for other reasons It's not really “for other reasons”, the morally repugnant thing about torture (the infliction of severe suffering) is why it doesn't work to get actionable intelligence. > That sounds like motivated reasoning, not actual truth seeking Entities for which torture would be acceptable even if morally repugnant (including military and Intelligence agencies who practiced it in the belief that it was effective) are foremost among those that have studied it and found it ineffective for gathering actionable ibtelkigence, compared to means which do not involve torture. > I think there are situations where it is morally justified, and that it would probably work. You are free to provide evidence supporting your conclusions about it's effectiveness; but without it you seem to just be providing what you'd like to be true, not what you rationally and justifiably believe to be true. And, conveniently, it seems to align with your moral preference...