8 ms·

I wouldn’t say it’s their value system, rather it’s a result of the enormous pressure they face. Torture should only be used as a last resort, and when there’s

I wouldn’t say it’s their value system, rather it’s a result of the enormous pressure they face. Torture should only be used as a last resort, and when there’s no other hope of getting information that is needed ASAP.

narrowingorbits 9y ago
What you describe there is a broken and unusable value system.
maxxxxx 9y ago
It's the value system. Either you follow the laws and values of your country always or you don't. You can't protect values by violating them.
- matte_black 9y ago
  Easy to say, but in the real world there is a conflict between values and results. Values don’t need protection, they are intangible. In the end what you are protecting is people.
  - catawbasam 9y ago
    People must speak up for values and ideals. Otherwise their power will fade. Results without values are hollow.
  - jacquesm 9y ago
    While utilitarian arguments can be a factor in an ethical framework they are not beneficial in isolation and will lead to grave injustices. If protecting people would be the real goal then many actions that were committed ostensibly for 'the greater good' were in fact ultimately net negatives and effectively harmed far more people than were protected. Part of the problem with utilitarian arguments is that we never have all the variables. It also should be noted that 'people' tends to be silently redefined as 'our people' and that this further skews the outcome towards the horrific. Before you know it you're torturing people, gassing them or doing other unspeakable things to them because you've worked out some kind of equation where your predicted outcome justifies your horrible actions. Values only matter when there is a price attached to them, it is very easy to have high standards for morality when they are essentially free.
- ImSkeptical 9y ago
  I think that's a bit extreme and a black and white way of thinking. For example, suppose you're heading an FBI group, and you've got a suicidal terrorist in custody who is part of a plot to detonate a nuclear bomb in LA. You have excellent evidence this guy is involved, and that the terrorists probably have a nuclear bomb in the country, and, if they realize their coconspirator has been captured, they are likely to detonate immediately. The terrorist demands to see his lawyer. Your specialists say you should deny that request, because his lawyer may signal, intentionally or otherwise, the other terrorists. Should you allow the terrorist to meet with his lawyer? Our society's laws say he should be able to see his lawyer. We value that kind of thing. And yet, if you would risk millions of lives to protect this right... Well, that seems perverse to me.
  - maxxxxx 9y ago
    Real life is not an action movie. Your scenario is totally made up and has probably almost never happened.
    - ImSkeptical 9y ago
      I hope my scenario has never happened, but nothing about it is implausible. The point though is to illustrate that there are moments where pragmatism must trump laws and values. If you look, there are many times throughout history where such tradeoffs have been made. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/torture/ https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/torture/ The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy lists a real life example along the lines of my hypothetical one. In this example, a child is stuck in a hot car that is parked in a spot known only to the in custody car thief who is refusing to talk. The police proceed to beat the thief until he talks and save the child's life. This is straightforward example of when pragmatism must overrule idealism.
      - maxxxxx 9y ago
        Then they should be honest, explain the situation and torture people at home with their own specialists immediately and not fly to them to some country with questionable torturing skills.
paganel 9y ago
Torture doesn't provide any valuable intelligence results for those doing the torturing, we're not living in "24", the TV series. I know for sure that if I were to be tortured I'd be ready to recognize even the killing of the biblical character Abel if those doing the torturing would ask that from me, and I guess I'm not the only person so predisposed.
- matte_black 9y ago
  That’s a myth, if you’re looking for objective verifiable facts you can get some useful information. Also, if you have enough statistical data on torture methods, you can have a probability that a person doesn’t know something based on how long they’ve been actively tortured.
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
  - xenadu02 9y ago
    All the scientific evidence disagrees with you and so do many former employees and directors of intelligence agencies, so I'd like to see some citations. You don't even have to go into physical torture: recent history is filled with cases where people confessed to crimes under police interrogation, only to have iron-clad evidence show up that they couldn't possibly be responsible. The most effective technique is befriending the suspect, doing nice things for them, then allowing the natural human tendency to reciprocate (and a desire for positive social interactions) work for you. It takes time but gets you much more reliable information - and much more extensive information.
  - mcguire 9y ago
    "...probability that a person doesn’t know something based on how long they’ve been actively tortured." I, actually, have nothing I can say to that. Are you listening to yourself?
    - xkcd-sucks 9y ago
      I mean, the APA does promote good research and also supported torture up until recently when it started attracting attention and became politically untenable. To the extent that it is possible to optimize torture, it has probably been optimized by some pretty competent people.

narrowingorbits 9y ago

What you describe there is a broken and unusable value system.

maxxxxx 9y ago

It's the value system. Either you follow the laws and values of your country always or you don't. You can't protect values by violating them.

matte_black 9y ago
Easy to say, but in the real world there is a conflict between values and results. Values don’t need protection, they are intangible. In the end what you are protecting is people.
- catawbasam 9y ago
  People must speak up for values and ideals. Otherwise their power will fade. Results without values are hollow.
- jacquesm 9y ago
  While utilitarian arguments can be a factor in an ethical framework they are not beneficial in isolation and will lead to grave injustices. If protecting people would be the real goal then many actions that were committed ostensibly for 'the greater good' were in fact ultimately net negatives and effectively harmed far more people than were protected. Part of the problem with utilitarian arguments is that we never have all the variables. It also should be noted that 'people' tends to be silently redefined as 'our people' and that this further skews the outcome towards the horrific. Before you know it you're torturing people, gassing them or doing other unspeakable things to them because you've worked out some kind of equation where your predicted outcome justifies your horrible actions. Values only matter when there is a price attached to them, it is very easy to have high standards for morality when they are essentially free.
ImSkeptical 9y ago
I think that's a bit extreme and a black and white way of thinking. For example, suppose you're heading an FBI group, and you've got a suicidal terrorist in custody who is part of a plot to detonate a nuclear bomb in LA. You have excellent evidence this guy is involved, and that the terrorists probably have a nuclear bomb in the country, and, if they realize their coconspirator has been captured, they are likely to detonate immediately. The terrorist demands to see his lawyer. Your specialists say you should deny that request, because his lawyer may signal, intentionally or otherwise, the other terrorists. Should you allow the terrorist to meet with his lawyer? Our society's laws say he should be able to see his lawyer. We value that kind of thing. And yet, if you would risk millions of lives to protect this right... Well, that seems perverse to me.
- maxxxxx 9y ago
  Real life is not an action movie. Your scenario is totally made up and has probably almost never happened.
  - ImSkeptical 9y ago
    I hope my scenario has never happened, but nothing about it is implausible. The point though is to illustrate that there are moments where pragmatism must trump laws and values. If you look, there are many times throughout history where such tradeoffs have been made. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/torture/ https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/torture/ The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy lists a real life example along the lines of my hypothetical one. In this example, a child is stuck in a hot car that is parked in a spot known only to the in custody car thief who is refusing to talk. The police proceed to beat the thief until he talks and save the child's life. This is straightforward example of when pragmatism must overrule idealism.
    - maxxxxx 9y ago
      Then they should be honest, explain the situation and torture people at home with their own specialists immediately and not fly to them to some country with questionable torturing skills.

paganel 9y ago

Torture doesn't provide any valuable intelligence results for those doing the torturing, we're not living in "24", the TV series. I know for sure that if I were to be tortured I'd be ready to recognize even the killing of the biblical character Abel if those doing the torturing would ask that from me, and I guess I'm not the only person so predisposed.

matte_black 9y ago
That’s a myth, if you’re looking for objective verifiable facts you can get some useful information. Also, if you have enough statistical data on torture methods, you can have a probability that a person doesn’t know something based on how long they’ve been actively tortured.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- xenadu02 9y ago
  All the scientific evidence disagrees with you and so do many former employees and directors of intelligence agencies, so I'd like to see some citations. You don't even have to go into physical torture: recent history is filled with cases where people confessed to crimes under police interrogation, only to have iron-clad evidence show up that they couldn't possibly be responsible. The most effective technique is befriending the suspect, doing nice things for them, then allowing the natural human tendency to reciprocate (and a desire for positive social interactions) work for you. It takes time but gets you much more reliable information - and much more extensive information.
- mcguire 9y ago
  "...probability that a person doesn’t know something based on how long they’ve been actively tortured." I, actually, have nothing I can say to that. Are you listening to yourself?
  - xkcd-sucks 9y ago
    I mean, the APA does promote good research and also supported torture up until recently when it started attracting attention and became politically untenable. To the extent that it is possible to optimize torture, it has probably been optimized by some pretty competent people.