Recently on a BBC radio program called the "Moral Maze", the issue under discussion was torture. The central question was whether there is ever a time when torture is acceptable. The panelists, in addition to the guests, involved were of radically different opinions on the matter.The situation they were given was if a man in police custody claimed to have knowledge of a bomb that would potentially kill hundreds or even thousands of people and would not share that information willingly, would it be acceptable to torture that man for information? Some argued torture was immoral in any situation. Others said that in some particular situations torture may be an effective means of getting valuable information that may save lives. Others still suggested that torture should in fact be legalized. How would you respond to this extremely difficult moral choice?
12 comments:
I don't know the definition of "torture." Torturing a person means beating him (physical torture) or monitoring him, following him everywhere (mental torture)? Or both?
If it is beating him or any physical harms, I will say torture is immoral in any situation. In order to save lives from potential harms or damages could be misused or abused as an excuse for torture.
I believe effective governments/people can get information they want through more moral ways and torture is the worst one.
Mei-ling
I'd like to say that it's everywhere.
"Torture" here, "Torture" there, "Torture, torture" everywhere ~
Sometimes, people torture me with their "eyes", with their "language", or merely with their "carelessness." I might torture somebody with my meaningless "laugh" or "smile", with my innocent "kindness", or purely "care."
Your family, your friends, your teachers, even strangers (not only opponents or enemies) may hurt you or torture you mindlessly.
Take it 'cause torture is everywhere that you simply cannot escape from ~~~~
-- endurant Sheba
Mei-Ling:
We are refering primarily to physical torture here. Yet since mental and physical torture are often interwined, the distinction isn't entirely clear.
The difficulty that arises with governments, that as you said should "get information they want through moral ways", is that moral ways severly limit and constrain. These limitations will be seen as a weakness by enemies and ruthlessly exploited. Going down the moral road is also very time consuming and in a situation demanding an instantaneous response the moral choice might not be the right choice.
Interestingly, one the panelists, on the program I listened to, suggested that torture used to extract information in hope of preventing more deaths could be seen as self-defense. A delightfully twisted argument.
- Paul
Sheba:
You are not alone:
"I assess the power of a will by how much resistance, pain, torture it endures and knows how to turn to its advantage."
Friedrich Nietzsche
A cynic for a cynic.
- aul
I know the difficulty and the limitation of good choices and the immediate need to do something at that time. However I still cannot accept using torture as a tool to get information. That is using violence against violence. It sounds very negative.
About "seeing torture as self-defense", I wonder if someone suggests "why don't we just kill that person to remove the threat forever?" If that person dies, all the potential threats are removed immediately. That is also the reason that someone uses assassination around the world. I don't see any big difference between killing and torture here. Is it moral to use torture because that man still has his life?
When facing a person who is nut or really dangerous, I suggest to use isolating. Maybe it also doesn't sound very positive.
Last thing, how do I recall my comment from the blog if I don't want it to post? Thanks a lot.
Mei-ling
I think asking people if they are acceptable to torture a person to get anything is just like asking people if they agree or disagree with abolishing capital punishment. There will never be a common answer. When an issue that refers to a moral question or human rights, it becomes kind of complicated to judge. I think most people cannot accept torture a person to get what they want.I cannot,either. But,I agree that torture used to extract information in hope of preventing more deaths could be seen as self-defense. We can see that when two countries are at war. It's a way people use to survive and to save people's lives during a war and that is the way with the world even if it's cruel and sucks.
-Rachel
Mei-Ling:
You wrote:
About "seeing torture as self-defense", I wonder if someone suggests "why don't we just kill that person to remove the threat forever?"
Excellent! Those were almost exactly the same words used by one of the panelists in the BBC debate. I also think that is a very compelling point.
Regarding removing previous comments - I don't think you can. If there is something you really want removed, you can tell me and I can remove it for you. I'm curious though as to why you'd want to remove such insightful comments.
- Paul
Rachel:
Spoken like a true realist. It's lousy, but in times of war what else can we do? Perhaps the next question would be how to define when one is truly "at war." Currently, the U.S. is "at war" with terrorism which many people have argued gives them far too much freedom to torture people they judge to be a threat to national security. There has been a lot of news discussing the wrongful treatment of prisoners in Guantanamo Bay.
- Paul
Regarding removing previous comments - I am just curious to know more about blogs.
It is so nice to know that I am not alone when talking if torture is immoral or not.
Mei-ling
I am going to give you another reason why I want to recall my comment sometimes. I felt I sound like a cold fish in the previous comment. After sending every comment out, I always think to resent my comment to replace them.
Thank you very much for everything you do for us in this blog. I really enjoy this blog and I found that I am very "talkative".
Mei-ling
Mei-Ling:
Thanks. Your comments are always appreciated and I can tell you in all honesty that you have never sounded like a cold fish. I have a lot of sympathy for your stand on "torture", but like Rachel, I am also conflicted on the issue.
I think being "talkative" is excellent and in fact I urge you to write more as I think that frequent writing allows a person to find their "writing voice."
Keep those comments rolling in!
- Paul
Paul,
In reality, I do have the same thought/feeling on torture, just like you, two thoughts are fighting. When you said that I spoke like a true realist, don't you think that a realist he/she is so “realistic”, perhaps he/she just doesn’t want to touch or face that pain or feeling, because in their hearts, they are actually a more sensitive person than others, so, he/she doesn’t want to show their true feelings just in order not to get any hurt they may have. Sometimes, the world is just so cruel. I think perhaps when a person cannot fact reality; he/she chooses to be a “realist” instead.
--Rachel
Post a Comment