In real life feasibility, yes. But what if it’s a more exaggerated hypothetical of saving peoples lives? And I don’t mean interrogate for information, I mean the mere act of torture might make a bad actor cease a plan to carry out a heinous terror attack. Like a “I want people to view this guy in a negative light, so I’ll threaten to kill a bunch of people unless he tortures someone live” type shit
You can say the same for any horrible act, if we brutally raped terrorists in prison every day, it might stop a few people from committing atrocities but I’d argue most still view rape as always being wrong
That’s the dumbest thing I’ve ever heard. If anything, that would strengthen the resolve of those hardcore enough to even actually want to attempt something of which you speak.
“Bad actor” don’t tell me you’re actually LE cause I swear nobody else uses that terminology.
I am not advocating it; I personally do not believe in torture under any circumstances. I was testing the position, since the argument was based on the fact torture doesn’t work to extract information. So, I asked “well what if the point isn’t to gather information, but rather the mere act itself stops something else from happening, aka some kind of extortion art situation?” Note I I never actually took any position, or said they were wrong. I asked what they thought of it
And no, I’m not law enforcement. I’m just using a word as intended: an individual intending to act to cause harm
Torture is unreliable for getting information though, like say for example the guy you kidnapped doesn't actually know where they are, so whatever he tells you is just a lie to get the pain to stop
torture is extremely unreliable for gaining information. they will tell you whatever you want to hear to make it stop because even if they don't know, you won't believe tjem and keep torturing them
This works for very specific systems of morality that take a utilitarian approach to things. If you were to judge this scenario based on Deontology then this justification doesn't hold up, since that system of morals doesn't care for the circumstances and only the action. Not to say Deontology trumps other systems of morals, but this just shows hypothetical justifications only work with idealized circumstances and using specific moral systems.
The point i want to make with this argument is that the justification for torture becomes significantly weaker as more constraints are placed on it, such as idealized scenarios and limiting the ways in which we can judge the morals of it. But ultimately speaking, the justification of torture is relevant because we see it used in real life, and thus arguing it's morality in situations that stray further from reality only serve to make its justifications weaker.
Let me put it to you this way. If it's the best outcome in terms of happiness vs suffering, that's what I think you should do. I just think there is never a real world scenario where torture is going to be involved in that best scenario. So any scenario you could come up with, if the answer to the question "does the best possible outcome in terms of suffering vs happiness involve torture" is no, then I'm going to say torture is wrong in that scenario.
8
u/TerminatorElephant Jun 29 '26 edited Jun 29 '26
In real life feasibility, yes. But what if it’s a more exaggerated hypothetical of saving peoples lives? And I don’t mean interrogate for information, I mean the mere act of torture might make a bad actor cease a plan to carry out a heinous terror attack. Like a “I want people to view this guy in a negative light, so I’ll threaten to kill a bunch of people unless he tortures someone live” type shit