The morality of torture: An Osama bin Laden scenario

[Arthur_Tuxedo]

You can't resolve ethical dilemmas by simply quoting axioms such as "the ends do not justify the means". The obvious retort is WHY NOT?

Let's take a more explicit, albeit unlikely scenario: you have captured a terrorist in downtown Chicago. He has just armed a nuclear weapon which will go off in two hours. The device is quite sophisticated and could easily be set off if you attempt to move it or defuse it improperly. The only way to defuse it safely is to enter the disarm code, and there is no way you can get the entire population of Chicago to safe distance in two hours. The man has an airline ticket on him. It is obvious that he did not plan to die here.

Do you torture him for the disarm code? Do you strap him to the bomb? Or do you do the noble thing and evacuate him along with everyone else you can get out in time, so that he can receive a fair trial in safety?

That's an easy one. What if he was planning to martyr himself and is highly unlikely to break. Do you torture him anyway, just in case?

[Spyder]

That's an easy one. What if he was planning to martyr himself and is highly unlikely to break. Do you torture him anyway, just in case?

The families of the 300 people might not be too impressed if someone said to them "well, our plan might not have worked so we did nothing."

[Illuminatus Primus]

That's an easy one. What if he was planning to martyr himself and is highly unlikely to break. Do you torture him anyway, just in case?

Everyone breaks under torture. Everyone.

[RogueIce]

Wasn't there already a situation like this?

I seem to remember hearing of a US commander over in Iraq, who had a prisoner that apparently knew of an ambush being plotted against US soldiers. The commander shot his gun off near the Iraqi, probably scaring the piss out of him and making him think the crazy American was going to kill him. But, it was enough to make him break; the Iraqi gave the information, and the ambush was avoided (I think they may've ambushed the ambushers, but I'm not sure).

In the end, though, I think the commander was busted for it, despite the outcome. So, even though it may be morally justified, legally, you're probably going to be in some shit for it.

At any rate, on topic, yes, I think it would be justified. It's your only choice, but you have to try and make it quick, or dependent on success. In the "it's just him" scenario, make it clear that if the bomb goes off or he lied, he's a dead man. Or, in the "we got your family" scenario, make it abundantly clear that those agents will await an "all clear" from you, and if they don't get it within a certain amount of time, they're all dead anyway. And I'd probably move him out of the blast zone, so he knows he'll not only see his family get killed, but that he gets to live with it, too, which should apply some more leverage I'd think.

As to which method I'd use, well, I guess it depends on the situation: who you're dealing with, their willingness to die, time involved, etc. Normally I'd say that there might be certain lines not to be crossed if you can help it, but if time demands, hooking his balls up to some electrodes and turning up the juice, or killing his family, may be what stands between you and the deaths of hundreds, thousands, or more innocent people.

[Durandal]

Assuming it was practical, would it be the same thing though? Direct, time-dependent threat ie "I'm gonna order those masked men to kill your child right now, you've got 5 seconds" as opposed to indirect, no time dependent threat ie "Your family will die in the explosion you caused."

Legally, you'd probably catch less flack for putting his family in the city, since you're not really doing anything to them other than arresting and detaining them. You could always just say that you were flying them in to have them try and convince him to recant; he just happens to be in the city that's about to get nuked.

Also, it puts a burden on the terrorist. Blowing up a city full of people you don't know is easy. But if your family is in that city, then things get a lot more complicated.

Would the family be together? Or will they be separated ie unable to communicate with each other? If they were together the possibility exists that the wife is just as much a fanatic as her husband, and she'll give some kind of encouragement to our happy terrorist. What I mean is, there's a difference between some masked agent breaking into your home and holding a gun to your head, with the finger on the trigger waiting for the "Go!" signal, and sitting on your arse waiting for a bomb, that your husband planted, to explode and take you up to Allah (or whoever).

Absolutely not, but it's a really hypothetical scenario anyway. It's probably going to be a lot more practical to just work with that country's security forces and have his family arrested and detained.

[Shortie]

Everyone breaks under torture. Everyone.

Well yeah, but not everyone breaks usefully.

I'll leave aside the practical arguments (torture doesn't work because you get the answers the victim thinks your torturers think their bosses want), and the moral ones (I prefer 'Means are ends in the making' - Gandhi), and the selfish ones (if we're evil, we'll get even more evil in return).

My real objection however, is that all these scenarios about morality rely on magic. In this case, it's "You know he's guilty and that torture will work". In reality, we don't. And that's why we shouldn't do it.

[Bob the Gunslinger]

Precisely. If he was going to get out of Dodge, then he's not willing to die for his cause, hence he'll break when tortured personally.

Now, how about a more interesting scenario from the TV show 24?

You've got a terrorist in custody, and he knows the location of a nuclear bomb set to go off in a city like Los Angeles, Chicago or New York. This guy obviously was going to stay in the city for the detonation, so he's willing to die for his cause. (On 24, the guy was a Muslim terrorist.)

So you can torture the guy all you want; he won't break. He is your only hope of finding this bomb in time. But, you have one piece of leverage: his family. You can coordinate with Saudi Arabian security forces and have his family arrested and taken into custody. From there, you can set up a live video feed and show them to him, threatening to kill them, one by one, if he doesn't give up the information you need.

Do you threaten and possibly kill his family to break him?

So, if you live in LA and you fail, your entire family dies.

Then it becomes your family or his family.

I would choose for my family to live. My children may never forgive me for torturing a terrorist bastard, but they'd live.

If I fail, I want his seed wiped from the face of the earth anyway. When it comes to my family, I'm a very Eye-for-an-eye kind of guy.

[Darth Wong]

You can't resolve ethical dilemmas by simply quoting axioms such as "the ends do not justify the means". The obvious retort is WHY NOT?

Let's take a more explicit, albeit unlikely scenario: you have captured a terrorist in downtown Chicago. He has just armed a nuclear weapon which will go off in two hours. The device is quite sophisticated and could easily be set off if you attempt to move it or defuse it improperly. The only way to defuse it safely is to enter the disarm code, and there is no way you can get the entire population of Chicago to safe distance in two hours. The man has an airline ticket on him. It is obvious that he did not plan to die here.

Do you torture him for the disarm code? Do you strap him to the bomb? Or do you do the noble thing and evacuate him along with everyone else you can get out in time, so that he can receive a fair trial in safety?

That's an easy one. What if he was planning to martyr himself and is highly unlikely to break. Do you torture him anyway, just in case?

If you have a better solution, let me know.

[Solauren]

IMHO, anyone that crosses the line and becomes a terrorist has forfeitted all rights NOT to be tortured.

Bin Laden crossed that line long ago
Anyone hold a city hostage is a terrorist.

Both cases, torture the fucker

[Arthur_Tuxedo]

That's an easy one. What if he was planning to martyr himself and is highly unlikely to break. Do you torture him anyway, just in case?

If you have a better solution, let me know.

You're reading an implied statement I did not make. I would also torture the fucker, even if only to hear him scream, but I was trying not to make it clear what my position was.

[R. U. Serious]

I think trying to be a decent, moral person does not mean trying to be a perfect human and making everything right all the time. IMHO it rather means trying best as we can, but also recognizing when we are failing.

So how does that help us answer this question? Well, I believe that as a (human) society we can in no way start pushing/changing the limits and so torture would (still) be a no-no.
However individually we can choose to act "immorally" if we believe it to be beneficial to others. So what would be the morally correct way to behave in such a situation? Well IMHO torture to save the lives, and afterwards confess to the court, pledge guilty and bear the consequences. The "Savings" is the same, however the cost is a lot less, because society and its rules stays intact.

I know, I am basically saying "to act moral, act immorally", which is kind of paradox, but hey, the question was begging for such a "solution", wasn't it...

[Skelron]

In answer to the basic question of why can the ends not justify the means I suppose I would answer because... Because when we as a society or a group of people accept the concept of the Ends Justifying the means we open a can of worms. We cannot stand inj front of people and hold up our principles as something good and decent if we do not actualy follow them. It's easy to believe in something when everything is going well, when your succesful safe and the day is nice then hell it's easy to be a nice person.

It's harder to hold your morals when it carries real consquences, it's harder to say I Believe in this and I will lose something because I believe in it, but I believe this is something worth believing in.

Do we believe in the rule of Law, of a fair trial, of Justice being done to all no Matter who that person is? if we do, then you cannot torture ANYONE... Do we believe in Human Rights that are applied to everyone? If so then you cannot Torture anyone. Because the moment you willingly as a society break those principles you claim to admire you lose the right to say they are your ideals, and it's harder to get that right back than it is to lose it.

((Or of course as an individual, but I suspect such questions as the one above would be more aimed at being an action given State Approaval))

[Kazuaki Shimazaki]

But what about in situations where two of your principles contradict. For instance, a government generally should have principles regarding the Protection of its Citizens. Therefore, we have things like the police and the army. Of course, democratic governments generally also have principles like Fair Trial, Freedom of Speech ... etc.

[Lancer]

But what about in situations where two of your principles contradict. For instance, a government generally should have principles regarding the Protection of its Citizens. Therefore, we have things like the police and the army. Of course, democratic governments generally also have principles like Fair Trial, Freedom of Speech ... etc.

those rights are associated citizenship, but citizenship in most countries can be nullified under certain conditions (such as if they joined a hostile countrie's militia or army). Had President Bush chosen to do so, the Americans that went off to join Al Qaeda and the Taliban could have had their status as US citizens revoked. Or, he could have alternatitively had them charged with treason, which is still a capital offense.

[Sokartawi]

Morals are more important then anything else. ANYTHING. Even if everyone on this planet gets killed otherwise I'd still oppose torture of any kind.

[Durandal]

That's the dumbest thing I've read all day.

[Predator]

Morals are more important then anything else. ANYTHING. Even if everyone on this planet gets killed otherwise I'd still oppose torture of any kind.

Morals are the basis of performing torture in these cases. Torture on its own is immoral. But an action you take with the aim of achieving a greater good, if its consequences are on the whole better/best, is the morally right thing to do, to a consequentialist (ends-justify-the-means proponent).

I always have to wonder why some who say "torture is never justified", on the grounds that torture is immoral, often never say that war, or killing is never justified on the same grounds.

If the basis for arguing that torture should never be done in any circumstances is that torture is inherently immoral, then in order to not be a complete pacifist, you'd have to believe that (non-consentual) killing is not inherently immoral, a strange position to be in.

If you do consider killing to be inherently wrong in the same way as torture, you'd need to support the removal of firearms from the police arsenal, and the dismantling of the army (or at least, if it continues to exist, to only act as a phantom deterrant on false claims that they'd actually use force to defend the country).

Of course I doubt any of those who've opposed torture in absolutely any circumstance here would agree (non-consentual) killing is not also morally wrong, or would support complete pacifism and oppose killing under absolutely any circumstance. So it comes down to an inconsistent moral philosophy on their part.

[Bob the Gunslinger]

Morals are more important then anything else. ANYTHING. Even if everyone on this planet gets killed otherwise I'd still oppose torture of any kind.

Good lord, you're a weenie!

You wouldn't beat someone up to save the human race? Maybe we ought to return the favor.

[Sokartawi]

Morals are more important then anything else. ANYTHING. Even if everyone on this planet gets killed otherwise I'd still oppose torture of any kind.

Morals are the basis of performing torture in these cases. Torture on its own is immoral. But an action you take with the aim of achieving a greater good, if its consequences are on the whole better/best, is the morally right thing to do, to a consequentialist (ends-justify-the-means proponent).

I do not share the 'end justifies the means' POV.

I always have to wonder why some who say "torture is never justified", on the grounds that torture is immoral, often never say that war, or killing is never justified on the same grounds.
If the basis for arguing that torture should never be done in any circumstances is that torture is inherently immoral, then in order to not be a complete pacifist, you'd have to believe that (non-consentual) killing is not inherently immoral, a strange position to be in.

Killing is just as wrong with the exception of euthenesia, duels and a few other exceptions.

If you do consider killing to be inherently wrong in the same way as torture, you'd need to support the removal of firearms from the police arsenal, and the dismantling of the army (or at least, if it continues to exist, to only act as a phantom deterrant on false claims that they'd actually use force to defend the country).

A lot of police officers do not carry weapons with them all the time over here anyway. And I support demilitarization, however having nuclear weapons as a deterrant with no plans to use them anyway should work quite nicely.

Of course I doubt any of those who've opposed torture in absolutely any circumstance here would agree (non-consentual) killing is not also morally wrong, or would support complete pacifism and oppose killing under absolutely any circumstance. So it comes down to an inconsistent moral philosophy on their part.

What's morally inconsistant with complete pacifism? Or do I not read your statement correctly?

[Predator]

Of course I doubt any of those who've opposed torture in absolutely any circumstance here would agree (non-consentual) killing is not also morally wrong, or would support complete pacifism and oppose killing under absolutely any circumstance. So it comes down to an inconsistent moral philosophy on their part.

What's morally inconsistant with complete pacifism? Or do I not read your statement correctly?

In your case, since you are a complete pacifist your moral system is not inconsistent - you did read my statement incorrectly. I seriously disagree with your point of view, but I'm glad that at least it is consistent and that you are willing to admit to complete pacifism.

I doubt however, that the 33% odd who have voted no to the torture example are predominantly pacifist like yourself. So I'd like them to post their explanations for how they can be non-pacifists, in believing it is sometimes justified to kill, but that it is absolutely never justified to torture somebody. As I said, you have to choose ebtween being a complete pacifist, or believing that while torture is inherently morally wrong, (non-consentual) killing is not.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

I don't see any question about this. How could you live with yourself if you didn't try everything possible to save the lives of the people in question? And torturing someone would be quite justifiable mentally, at least, if it did in fact save those lives. The law may not see it that way, but there are situations where your gut instinct works just fine to guide you in a correct direction: Are you going to sleep better at night having not tortured the man and letting hundreds or thousands die, or thoroughly torturing him, perhaps onto death, and getting the information to save them? Even if you fail, at least the effort was made, and I couldn't conceive of living with myself without making that effort.

The ethical argument, I think, compares nicely to what it seems almost any sane individual could understand about the situation. The choice is obvious. Granted, the situation may be contrived as presented, but views are being canvassed on that type of situation, however unlikely it is, thus leaving the answer quite clear.

[Skelron]

The question of as I am against Torture am I against War in any situation is a fair one, in short answer I will say no.

a Little more indepth answer would be that I am against most wars but history has shown us that there are times when a War must be fought, the best guide to when this is the case is still the Just war Theory, with any religious baggage removed it makes an excellent guide to when a War is justified. (defence of yourself or another against unjustified aggresion, etc.) however I do not feel that even in the moral grey area of this slanted example Torture can be justifed.

In the Just war theory a people can still hold their heads up afterwards and say we stuck by our principles, with torture, the west at least, couldn't and so that I feel is what marks the main differance between the two situations.

[Predator]

Cannot the general principle of Just War Theory be applied to Torture also? Just Torture Theory - torture in defence of yourself or another against unjustified aggresion. Once again it comes down to the morality of torture versus the morality of killing - both involve an act that may be immoral on their own, but can be committed towards the end goal of saving lives.

Do you agree with Sokartawi that even if the lives of everybody on Earth were at stake, you would not commit torture? If so, how can you rationalise your belief that war/killing can be justified if it saves X number of lives, but torture is a crime so heinous, so much more evil than killing, that all in the world should die before it is committed? And if not, what number of people's lives must be at stake to justify torture, compared to how many to justify war?

Your argument is, war/killing can be justified, and torture cannot. The conclusion that can be drawn is that you believe killing is less of a crime than torture. Considering that many who die in war (and many who dont) experience extreme pain and suffering, and that torture victims do not necessarily die, that seems very strange indeed.

In the Just war theory a people can still hold their heads up afterwards and say we stuck by our principles, with torture, the west at least, couldn't and so that I feel is what marks the main differance between the two situations.

What are our principles? I know if I, my countrymen, or any other person committed torture in order to secure the greater good, I would feel that good principles had been upheld.

[Skelron]

Okay firstly before I answer this I guess I better post what the Just war consists of, just in case anyone dosn't know.

Principles of the Just War
A just war can only be waged as a last resort. All non-violent options must be exhausted before the use of force can be justified.

A war is just only if it is waged by a legitimate authority. Even just causes cannot be served by actions taken by individuals or groups who do not constitute an authority sanctioned by whatever the society and outsiders to the society deem legitimate.

A just war can only be fought to redress a wrong suffered. For example, self-defense against an armed attack is always considered to be a just cause (although the justice of the cause is not sufficient--see point #4). Further, a just war can only be fought with "right" intentions: the only permissible objective of a just war is to redress the injury.

A war can only be just if it is fought with a reasonable chance of success. Deaths and injury incurred in a hopeless cause are not morally justifiable.
The ultimate goal of a just war is to re-establish peace. More specifically, the peace established after the war must be preferable to the peace that would have prevailed if the war had not been fought.

The violence used in the war must be proportional to the injury suffered. States are prohibited from using force not necessary to attain the limited objective of addressing the injury suffered.

The weapons used in war must discriminate between combatants and non-combatants. Civilians are never permissible targets of war, and every effort must be taken to avoid killing civilians. The deaths of civilians are justified only if they are unavoidable victims of a deliberate attack on a military target.

((Taken from [Html=http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/feros-pg.htm]Just war[/Html] and I hope this link works))

anyway firstly there is the point of Legitimate authority let us assume for a second that I am the legitimate authority to make sure the matter is as fair as possible.

we still have the rather skewed theory that the Torture has a reasonable chance of success... I would say that it dosn't. BUT the thread creator made the hypothetical argument that it will work so... that being the case, it does meet that criteria. However already I am moving beyond the realms of what might actually be the case in reality and being asked to accept several things which I would hold to be insane.

still all on all on the face of the skewed position here would seem to hold up. Except the Just War theory is based upon the actions of nations state versus State, not on the personal level. So while it can be used in regards to how states should operate, it is weak in regards to how a state should deal with a single citizen. It is not a part of the greator theory, and so no cannot be applied to the question as presented here.

So would I torture one man to save the planet...

I cannot honestly answer that question, on the one hand my values scream at me to say no, on the otherhand, a part of me knows that to be a flippent answer. I will say that Moral relativty when it comes to numbers is a bad game to start playing. 5Billion lives are at risk... Yes, how about 4 4 Billion, 1 Million where do you draw the line? I don't want to have to draw a line.

[Durandal]

Well what do you want? A precise number? I can't give one to you; such cases have to be dealt with individually. The inability to form a general rule for these situations does not exonerate your stance that abstract moral principles are more important than thousands or perhaps millions of lives.