4 ms·

> Even if it was effective, it is still a terrible idea that should never be entertained by a supposedly modern/advanced society. Are you sure about that? Tort

> Even if it was effective, it is still a terrible idea that should never be entertained by a supposedly modern/advanced society. Are you sure about that? Torture is ineffective: the intelligence you get is very likely to either confirm (incorrect) biases you already have, and failing that to lead you to new and incorrect wrong conclusions. Even if the fate of the world depended on it, resorting to torture is - at best - a gamble with very long odds. Aside from the ethical concerns, the main issue with torture from an intelligence perspective is that it usually makes the problem worse. It makes you stupider, not smarter (assuming you are actually doing torture to obtain real, actionable intelligence). But what if it were effective? What if doing torture on a single individual was provably likely to make you 10% more effective at your job, and your job at the moment happens to involve trying to save a million lives? Don't get me wrong, I fucking hated 24 for the way it glamorized torture - it would be disgusting for doing that even if torture were effective. But if torture were effective it seems like you could build some utilitarian calculus around when to use it, and that sometimes it would be a good idea to do it.

pdkl95 11y ago
Depending on what your goals are, VX gas can be very effective. There are quite a few situations where thermonuclear devices are very effective. So why don't we use them? Why are certain types of bio/chem/nuclear weaponry considered to be generally banned internationally? Why are they seen in such a poor light the use of e.g. sarin gas by a country can create a multi-national scandal with sanctions, UN observers, and even military threats? My point, which you seem to have missed, is that that effectiveness for intelligence is not the question that should be asked, as it ignores the rest of the effects that happen when you torture (or use nuclear weapons, or VX, ...). Reputation matters. PR matters. In a conflict, these concepts are especially important because escalation matters. Bringing out a gun in a knife fight might win you the current battle, but it practically guarantees that the next battle will be fought with guns from the start. You should probably look up the history of what we did to the Japanese when they tortured Allied soldiers in WW2. A major goal about not torturing people is that we don't want our current soldiers to have to face similar treatment. Torturing (or otherwise escalating conflicts) increases risk to our soldiers.
- deciplex 11y ago
  I didn't miss your point at all, only tried to add to it. The effectiveness of torture absolutely should be questioned, and happily the real answer aligns with the answer we would like, and contributes to the argument against torture, rather than the one for it. And even if it were effective, most of the time we would still rule it out for the reasons you already mentioned, however its effectiveness could no longer be used as an argument against it. Not asking that question, and mentioning the answer, is just going to make your argument weaker either way: if it is effective you'll be ignoring a strength in your opponent's position, and if it isn't effective you'll be ignoring one of your own strengths.

pdkl95 11y ago

Depending on what your goals are, VX gas can be very effective. There are quite a few situations where thermonuclear devices are very effective. So why don't we use them? Why are certain types of bio/chem/nuclear weaponry considered to be generally banned internationally? Why are they seen in such a poor light the use of e.g. sarin gas by a country can create a multi-national scandal with sanctions, UN observers, and even military threats? My point, which you seem to have missed, is that that effectiveness for intelligence is not the question that should be asked, as it ignores the rest of the effects that happen when you torture (or use nuclear weapons, or VX, ...). Reputation matters. PR matters. In a conflict, these concepts are especially important because escalation matters. Bringing out a gun in a knife fight might win you the current battle, but it practically guarantees that the next battle will be fought with guns from the start. You should probably look up the history of what we did to the Japanese when they tortured Allied soldiers in WW2. A major goal about not torturing people is that we don't want our current soldiers to have to face similar treatment. Torturing (or otherwise escalating conflicts) increases risk to our soldiers.

deciplex 11y ago
I didn't miss your point at all, only tried to add to it. The effectiveness of torture absolutely should be questioned, and happily the real answer aligns with the answer we would like, and contributes to the argument against torture, rather than the one for it. And even if it were effective, most of the time we would still rule it out for the reasons you already mentioned, however its effectiveness could no longer be used as an argument against it. Not asking that question, and mentioning the answer, is just going to make your argument weaker either way: if it is effective you'll be ignoring a strength in your opponent's position, and if it isn't effective you'll be ignoring one of your own strengths.