Torture and Philosophy
Torture seems to be one of those events that is unequivocally bad when viewed philosophically, for it is intended to be a violation to the sanctity of life, as unethical as it gets, and is only really justified explicitly as a reciprocation for acts judged equivalently harmful. But it has been a constant throughout history and not only in the context of justice, engaged in by mobs, featured in religious practices, enjoyed vicariously via media.
No one wants to be tortured, at least not usually in a life-ending way (piercings, tattoos and rights of passage to adulthood not so undesirable), but everyone at least tacitly condones torture by tolerating solitary confinement, capital punishment, etc. Should we be accepting torture in our social institutions? Is it necessary, or does it have a prohibitively destructive influence on culture?
Why this disconnect between the philosophy and practices of torture? Does torture reveal an essential flaw in philosophizing, its hypocrisy, or is philosophical thinking simply incapable of altering the human propensity for accepting violation by pain no matter what its reasoning consists in?
Having been tortured myself, I know how pernicious torture can be, but perhaps this is not fully recognized?
No one wants to be tortured, at least not usually in a life-ending way (piercings, tattoos and rights of passage to adulthood not so undesirable), but everyone at least tacitly condones torture by tolerating solitary confinement, capital punishment, etc. Should we be accepting torture in our social institutions? Is it necessary, or does it have a prohibitively destructive influence on culture?
Why this disconnect between the philosophy and practices of torture? Does torture reveal an essential flaw in philosophizing, its hypocrisy, or is philosophical thinking simply incapable of altering the human propensity for accepting violation by pain no matter what its reasoning consists in?
Having been tortured myself, I know how pernicious torture can be, but perhaps this is not fully recognized?
Comments (49)
I don’t think torture is unethical as it gets, and certainly not because it violates sanctity of life. I do not believe life is sacred, although maybe we have different ideas of what that means.
Also, you are using “torture” far too broadly in my view. You seem to think suffering = torture? Would that be accurate? You even list capital punishment as “torture”. In what way?
Interesting, do you think torture as punishment would be unethical, but the other two reasons for torture ethical?
Can you expand on torture as a public deterrent?
:rofl:
No, that's mostly just 'mercans. The civilised world did away with that shit years ago.
Suffering exacted as a violation of one's humanity, or inhumane pain infliction is torture. Capital punishment is torture because the recipient is made to contemplate the moment of their own death for years. Not the worst form of torture of course, but extremely disturbing nonetheless.
Did they? Where in the “civilized world” did they do away with torture as described in the OP? Even in the US the things you quoted aren’t everywhere, only in parts.
And I can understand wanting to kill someone who murdered a family member or raped a loved one. But to give that power to the state, is problematic.
You know better than that.
here and here
Im still unclear. By that definition of torture, spanking a child is torture…is that the kind of thing you wish to include?
What kind of inflicted pain is humane? (Since you restrict torture to “inhumane” pain?
A woman piercing her ears is fairly humane. Threatening someone with a gruesome death or actually inflicting it is inhumane. Some grey area between.
Definitely yes, torture for the sole purpose of punishment is not only unethical but also uncivilized.
Quoting DingoJones
Torture in public, primary goal is to discourage committed crime or evil, punishment comes as "collateral" and is secondary.
Torture may be otherwise ethically acceptable as long as it doesn't result in death.
1. Specific deterrence prevents crime by frightening an individual defendant with punishment.
2. Incapacitation prevents crime by removing a defendant from society.
3. Rehabilitation prevents crime by altering a defendant's behavior.
4. Retribution prevents crime by giving victims or society a feeling of avengement.
I think torture goes beyond what is necessary for 1, 2 and 3. Sometimes nothing will satisfy #4.
There is, as says, the addition of information gathering.
I think torture is a sign of weakness. It's like the society or the soldier who must gin it/himself up with hate in order to kill. A professional doesn't need to hate to kill. You don't shoot a rabid dog because you are trying to deter other dogs, rehab, retribute, or whatever. It's just business. Punishment is business. Torture is weakness. But a professional will sometimes know human psychology and use business methods that seem untoward.
I got waterboarded and whatnot. They told us a password and told us not to repeat it. We all repeated it in short order. Things are pretty much set up now so that if you get captured, our people just change all the intel so you can sing like you are going to sing anyway. The intel won't be any good. The enemy knows this. So if they torture it's because they are weak. We have been weak too.
Ok I see. I just can’t agree with torture being so broadly applied. The threat of gruesome death as torture? We have to have a higher bar than that.
As punishment, unethical. As a deterrent, ethical.
They seem to have the same ethical standing to me, how have you made this distinction?
Quoting SpaceDweller
I can tell youve given this some thought and for that reason I suspect you see that explanation as expansive but Im not sure what you mean. First part is clear but the second part I need expanded. Punishment is collateral and “secondary”…collateral of what, and secondary to what?
Your question seems to be oriented toward physical torture, but there is also psychological torture.
Both have same effect but different outcome.
Quoting DingoJones
Not really, consider a person who attempts to pollute a water so that whole society would face serious issues for survival, and this attempt becomes publicly known. (but not committed)
Would you punish such a person in private (punishment) or in public (deterrent)?
What's the purpose of private torture if there is a whole host of potential people who might think doing such evil is actually a good idea?
Quoting DingoJones
Primary purpose of punishment in public is deterrence not punishment, for reasons in example above.
Put it another way, we face COVID pandemic, now somehow a person is found guilty who is responsible for this, such that it was his will to infect the whole world.
Would your just punishment be death penalty, torture in public or torture in private?
Sorry I wasnt clear. I was stating your stance not offering my own when I said “as punishment, ethical, as deterrent unethical.”. What I meant was I myself do not see a difference between the ethical standing of either is f those. The argument you proceed to make is a practical one, not an ethical one. I concede your point that its more practical, useful to torture publicly rather privately to deter a crime like that but what is the difference in the rightness or wrongness of the tortures themselves in each case?
Or are ethics about whats practical in your view?
Quoting SpaceDweller
Ok, gotchya. Thanks for clarifying.
Quoting DingoJones
You put ethical higher meaning than practical, while this sounds ethical and in most of the cases valid, there are cases where an issue isn't only a matter of ethical or not.
If you're a judge that is supposed to be just then in such extreme situations it's not only about you and defendant, you also need to care of yourself because there may be millions if not billions of those seeking justice :wink:
If that's sounds unethical to you then don't judge.
In my case it was psychological, years of an attempt at causing me to go insane, and physical to the extent that I suffered brain damage. I know firsthand that mind-centric torture seems very real and can eventually destroy your personality, so in my opinion this should be prevented however possible.
If Australia was huge, its crimes would be huge.
I think it's hard to prove, and even harder to prevent.
It depends on so many things I don't know what to say :meh:
It's all a question of degree. All nations imprison people. Removing me from my loved ones, eliminating my ability to contribute anything to the world, dictating my every move, housing me with those who wish me harm, is that not the worst torture imaginable? Is that more humane than 20 lashes?
No, I didnt mean to imply ethical above practical. Indeed, my view is that ethics are merely one of many priorities people have. When these priorities are in conflict, sometimes morality ethics lose out. Thats the main problem I have with many systems of ethics, they assume morality as the highest priority when its much more common for ethics to be 3-4th on the list of priorities for people. For example, many people put family before ethics or sadly most people put money above ethics and compromising ethics for money is so common they scarcely recognize their behaviour as unethical. (Some clever folks even call it “business ethics” to create the illusion that they still operate ethically.)
Quoting SpaceDweller
I think we agree. I would describe that as putting a higher degree of priority on social stability than ethics. This is what judges and lawyers are doing all the time, and why people often refer to lawyers as scum….they arent acting ethically first. They are acting in the interests of a system first, and MAYBE putting ethics second but more likely not at all because they do not recognize a distinction between what they do and ethics, therefore they dont consider ethics because they think they have already.
That’s interesting, I haven’t thought of it like that before. But…
Quoting DingoJones
Couldn’t, or shouldn’t, things like “social stability” just be incorporated into a person’s ethical theory? I feel like any form of consequentialism would necessarily have to consider things like social stability and the impact whatever moral choice has on it.
lol, indeed :grin:
Quoting DingoJones
Honestly (due to my English not being native), I didn't differentiate between morality and ethics, and it looks like it's not even universally defined, following quote seem to shade some light:
What’s the Difference Between Morality and Ethics?
Therefore if we agree on that definition, it all depends on society or an individual in question, what is fine for you or your society may be utter disgust for some other society or individual.
I'm not saying that majority should define what's right or wrong, but that's not up to judge to handle.
Quoting DingoJones
Agree, this is sadness of modern day society where money of few rules the world. (or more precisely love toward money).
Quoting DingoJones
Agree as well, abuse of system is not uncommon, but I don't think torture is subject of abuse, if fact such abuse doesn't even exist in today's times.
I think a better question would be, what is more acceptable? punishment that is merciful or punishment that is too harsh?
Regardless of answer it all depends whether either of these choices would be counterproductive, that is cause social instability whether in long term or short term and whether that is acceptable.
I mean, ethics is relative to society or an individual, and no society is perfect.
Interesting question.
The disconnect is not as stark as you suggest. For one thing, philosophical discourse is not limited to the narrow field of professional academic philosophers. Philosophical arguments for and against torture are often made outside philosophy departments by lawyers, politicians, pundits, and ordinary folks. For another, arguments in favor of torture in limited circumstances do sometimes appear in the literature of academic philosophy.
If there's a disproportionate representation of anti-torture arguments among academic philosophers, I'd wonder if this might be explained sociologically, by a sort of selection mechanism of the institution: Perhaps the sort of people who would be disposed to argue in favor of torture are less likely to become professors of ethics and morality in today's academy.
The SEP entry on torture, by Seumas Miller, supplies examples of the way arguments in favor of torture in limited circumstances appear in the literature of contemporary academic philosophy.
In Section 3, Miller reviews arguments in the literature that consider "one-off, non-institutionalised acts of torture performed by state actors in emergency situations", and reaches the conclusion that "there are likely to exist, in the real world, one-off emergency situations in which arguably torture is, all things considered, the morally best action to perform."
In Section 4, Miller reviews arguments in the literature that consider the "legalization or institutionalization of torture" in limited circumstances. Miller argues persuasively against legalization and institutionalization, but cites several authors who have taken an opposite stance.
Some pro-torture arguments outside the academy are provided by lawyers and politicians narrowly concerned with blowing loopholes into the law, for instance, in the notorious "Torture Memos" of 2002-2003.
Such efforts to promote institutionalized torture on narrow legal grounds are typically supported by moral and practical arguments provided by intellectuals and bullshit artists employed by right-wing think tanks and published in right-wing propaganda platforms like the National Review. Consider the profound inhumanity tucked into the flippant opening sentence of Deroy Murdock's defense of waterboarding, and belied by his shamefully squirming objection to characterizations of that practice as "repugnant". Murdock's despicable slimy gestures make arguments like those offered in 2005 by Andrew C. McCarthy seem thoughtful and moderate in comparison.
At a glance, Miller's arguments against institutionalized torture in Section 4 of his SEP article arguably undermine the considerations raised by McCarthy. But I doubt they would convert anyone who's already committed to promoting the practice of torture in our institutions.
Well there will be times when social stability and morality/ethics come into conflict. This isnt mutually exclusive to the point you're making. So the moral consideration of the consequences to society of an act should be included whenever they can be, I would agree with that. When the two are in conflict, they are competing priorities and one must choose.
This " disconnect between the philosophy and practices of torture" as you call it only exist if you discount the problem of the human condition. We exist in a flawed world and are flawed beings, the philosophy of ethics is merely theory on what we can or should do under mostly ideal circumstances, but even under ideal circumstances it is debatable as to what we should do.
When one claims torture is evil it is mostly an appeal to emotion fallacy since nobody wants to be tortured and it is all but a given that one believes that it would be evil for anyone to torture them much like it would be if someone murdered and robbed them. However people really don't think it is evil for themselves to torture or kill/rob someone if they had to do so in order to survive and/or protect those that they love such as family.
For example, most people in this world have no problem eating meat in order to stay alive. We raise the animals and them slaughter them in order to sustain our existence. Humans beings do this practically every day as almost as part of some ritual were we kill animals in order to rob them of the meat from their bodies (since they don't have anything else really to give us) and because we need food and the animals can't give us any resistance to us doing so, it is merely has become a simple process that we do and don't really think of it as evil when we do it. While we may not really torture the animals when we slaughter them, I'm pretty sure if the animals had some kind of sentience into their own condition it would almost no lesser of a evil of what we do to them than if we did torture them in the end.
In much the same way our society our society divides us into those that "have" and those that "have not" and when someone from the have nots is unhappy (or unhappy for any reason) and breaks societies rules then they are punished in was that are not all that different than torture. In many ways the laws of society are not really there to protect as much as to protect the status quo. Again if one is happy with the status quo then they have trouble seeing the evil that has to be done in order to protect it.
Read the following quote that has been attributed to George Orwell:
"People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf". - George Orwell
And ask yourself where does the line between good and evil start where one is protecting themselves and doing what needs to be done to protect themselves and where they are using excess force against other? Also ask yourself if this line is in the same place all the time or is it pliable due to the various environments one may be in.
It's hypocrisy, and the West has had this kind of hypocrisy always, look at Christianity and the supposed key rules that are supposed to be followed and measure that against what has been law and common practice historically in these very Christian nations. Now with humanism, certain things are condemned and yet supported and practised, the hypocrisy exists there too. When we look at trends, improvements occur and our society, laws and practices might exist in harmony with our philosophical ideals. It is a work in progress, to rectify these contradictions.
A lot of it comes down to humanising the victims, to hear the other side of the story and realise that our values are not being applied fairly. In this case, that might be that prisoners have a right to life and that these people might deserve compassion and forgiveness despite their crimes. I am confident that unless something terrible happens, the prison systems in the developed world will continue to be reformed to increase compassion, reduce cruelty and almost certainly do away with things like capital punishment and especially solitary confinement.
Though personally, I believe capital punishment can be acceptable in some cases, I lean towards its abolishment but a just system could include it depending on how it was handled.
When it comes to deterrence, I think many are not reasonable in their assertions about what kind of punishment can effectively deter. Let's imagine the punishment for murder is 5 years in prison, the prison serves decent food, you have access to resources for rehabilitation, basic entertainment, keeping you healthy and etc. By all accounts, a far better deal than what you'd get under most systems. Who in their right mind would think they shall commit murder because prison isn't "too bad?". That's five years of your life locked in a cell, away from your friends and family, not being able to do the things you want to do, not being free, leaving with a brand that hurts you for the rest of your life. Not saying that murder should be a five-year sentence but I don't think twenty-five to life in horrible conditions is anywhere near the minimum for an effective deterrent. Our society isn't kept safe by things like solitary confinement at all.
I think creative media should be allowed to portray immoral acts with near impunity. Whether it's good or bad, it should be allowed either way. Don't want to discuss whether it's good or bad.
I don't know what the threshold for something to become torture is, but I view it as severe to the extent that if torture is apt to describe a behaviour then it's almost certainly criminal or immoral as it would have to be quite extreme. Cruelty is often immoral but it's pretty subjective and I would require details in order to form an opinion on something called "cruel" by others. Not much more than that to say.
From what I know, we have a "better", comparatively exquisite in detail, description of hell in religion than heaven. Take any religion, any religion at all and look up hell, you'll see what I'm talking about. It's as if we're more familiar with suffering than joy. Religions tend to be very vague on what heaven is like. Most simply claim that it's a place of eternal happiness and if, like me, you were expecting a higher resolution image of what that actually looks like, I'm sorry to say, you'll be sorely disappointed. That in itself is a hell of its own kind.
How does what I said relate to torture? We know how to inflict pain but, relatively speaking, we're clueless about how to bring joy. This is problem number 1 for humanity.
1. I'm pretty sure a lot of those who got capital punishment wanted to escape but they couldn't.
2. If one has to choose between torture or death, I'm sure most would choose torture, as long as that torture isn't way too harsh to endure.
You said tortured victims would feel empathy for those around them, how about those who directly perform capital punishment? surely they either feel no empathy or they dream about their job, maybe even need to visit a psychiatrist sooner or later.
Why do I think earth is actually hell?
For one simple reason: We can't seem to be able to do good in a way it's truly good or, on the flip side, things that are truly horrific in the moral sense seem to have a place in our lives e.g. torture is, on certain occasions, justifiable. So, in our "wonderful" lives spent here on dear ol' earth, you'll be put in situations where you can't be/do good or, at other more lamentable circumstances, you will be asked/forced to cause injury or death. By comparison the Devil, yes Satan himself, has a better happiness score than the denizens of earth - at least Lucifer isn't burdened by moral dilemmas of the kind and complexity humans have to deal with at every turn. For The Deceiver, it's rather simple - fuck 'em and fuck 'em "good"! Not so for us who want to do the right thing but can't and let's not forget how bad we have to be just to do a little good. :joke:
That's an interesting supposition.
In my view, when an idea of what is Good is established, everything else is a matter of consistency. That's where most go wrong - consistency, or the lack of moral consistency: hypocrisy, as mentioned by .
Especially when an idea of what is Good conflicts with what is convenient in the present moment, one may try to bend their idea of Good to fit their current predicament, almost always to no avail.
I think what you describe as an inability to do Good, is rather an unwillingness to make the sacrifices required to be consistent.
So nothing is entirely good nor entirely bad. I can agree with that.
Sure, but your moral theory could simply prioritize one over the other. Something like “the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few.” So that way maintaining social stability necessarily trumps individual needs/concerns.
Even rape?
It might not be a bad thing to rape a rapist. Especially if it got him to quit raping.
Well…ok, but that doesnt do anything to address that the two are in conflict. All you're doing there is picking one over the other.
In this context it is the moral needs of the many outweighing the moral needs of the few. In other words the moral needs of society (what is good for society) outweigh the moral needs of an individual. (What is good for a person). The two will at times conflict, such as in the case of rule of law vs some morally justified vigilante justice.
Even if you have a personal ethic that puts society ahead of the the individual you will still get the conflict. You’ve just shifted where that conflict takes place from a dichotomy between societies good and the individuals good to a dichotomy between two tenets of a personal moral theory, the dichotomy is exactly the same in both cases. The conflict is still there, the choice between societies good or an individuals good must still be made.
Seems on point.
My short answer to this is people can say anything they want when there are no consequences for it.
"I would sacrifice my life and run into a burning building to save a baby." Sitting here at home with no real risk of this happening, I can feel very good about myself as I run the imagery through my mind. But then a real fire happens. There's a baby crying. Suddenly there are real consequences. If I die, who will take care of my dog? Maybe the building will collapse before I get out, and we'll both die. Maybe...
Lots of people can sit on their couch and talk about how moral and ethical they'll be. Then one day when you're walking down the street, a bank car overturns and millions of dollars fly out the back. Before you are several hundred dollars that could easily pay this months rent, and let you pay off some debt. There are tons of people in the street collecting money already. There's no way you'll get caught, or arrested, or even blamed. Heck, if you started collecting it to give you back, people would probably think you were a fool. Do you actually not steal in this instance?
Torture is about fear of loss. On paper you wouldn't do it. But then you don't know if that guy has information that could get some of your people killed. That bastard is an enemy who attacked us, with the intent to murder us. If we don't torture him, more people might die. Am I willing to let my own people die for some murderer who is here to kill my family and friends?
Sorry you've experienced it by the way. I'm not saying it was right. What I'm trying to say is being moral isn't just about knowing what is moral, it is about having the courage and conviction to follow it. Many people will have the former, fewer will have the later.
It's not only that we know how to inflict pain but not how to bring joy, it's hard to experience joy in the first place when you're in pain, and humans are in chronic physical and psychological pain. This is an even deeper aspect of the problem, being unresponsive to pleasurable stimulus because of baseline pain. Luckily sublimation and just knowing that someone cares can go a long way.
Quoting Philosophim
I think a case can be made that torture is justifiable or at least inevitable in war, though it should be minimized whenever possible. But if humans view much of what surrounds them in civilian society as an implicit war for justice or whatever it might be so as to validate their own impulse towards cruelty, tolerance for torture can become a major problem, compounding the issues with chronic pain I described.
That's why I'm beginning to think negative utilitarianism is just what's needed for the world as it is now. @180 Proof would agree I think. Maslow's hierarchy of needs also seems appropriate for the occasion.