When I've discussed this issue here on CF, everyone has used this argument. My question is: why do we assume that torture is the one and only way to either protect ourselves from terrorism or retrieve our children from kidnappers?
Everyone uses this argument also. I don't say that to discredit you but to simply point out that these arguments are not new. We should remember that real life doesn't work like the TV show '24'.
No...I don't think my mind would be changed. If torture is wrong when it is done by terrorists, it's wrong when we do it - regardless of lives supposedly being saved or the reasons why we're using torture to achieve our goals.
Ringo
Why point out my arguments are not new....when IN THE FIRST PARAGRAPH I say that clearly. I INTENDED to be fully clear that I am not plowing new ground and am restating old points, MAYBE using them a little differently maybe not. But don't besmirch an argument that is OPENLY stated as old, by saying that it is....well, old. Please.
Where do you get the idea that I assume torture is the one and only way?
In the example, the very narrow example about family.....can you just toss out 2 or 3 ideas that may work in a limited time? Another question, are you suggesting there is ALWAYS another option? Be clear....OF COURSE the option to not torture always exists...thats not the question....Im asking is there always a proactive intentional effort that one can put forth? If so, do tell.
The point here is indeed to build a scenario that is so well conceived as to be at once unrealistic, but also leave NO wiggle room for the one answering. Save me having to do that round and round and just assume I can create a scenario where it is painfully obvious, you have x time, and thats it, and you are with one person who knows what you need to save someone. Youve tried bribes and begging and threats....clock ticking, your child is on the line......tell me the other strategies, please. Im saying you have 2 choices....torture, or not. If there is another, do tell. I will change the circumstance, eliminate that choice, and ask again. The point is not that you will yield to my seemingly brilliantly conceived scenario and finally aggree that you would torture. Nope not at all....just to see the answer that impeaches.....YES I would torture, NO I would see my child murdered.
Or again, show me a 3rd way, that is ALWAYS present in EVERY scenario.
Minus the 3rd way....you have that choice. My point is neither pro or con on torture in this particular case. It is to illustrate that it is possible to be faced with that choice, and that most folks have no idea if they would or would not torture. Frankly I dont care what they say....they cannot KNOW. Thats why I mentioned the academic excercise about the lifeboat. Lifes not like that.
IF, someone has a tiny miniscule notion there is a millionth of a chance they could torture in those most extreme circumstances.....but doggedly simultaneously insists torture should never be done.....there are serious problems.
Torture is ALWAYS wrong....I agree. I cannot deign to imagine myself ever intentionally harming someone that way....it sickens me, and maybe I would not do it...maybe I'd let my kid die unable to do that thing....I dont know.
Try not to see this as so simple as for or against torture....at least with me, because Im against torture and cannot imagine anyone truly FOR torture. Im trying to break up the simplistic notion that this is such a simple debate as to just proclaim our beliefs, condemn those who dont share them, and move on....when some who may be flippantly dismissed as pro-torture and war mongers actually have a (lacking better word) TORTURED view on this. Its an agonizing thing, and that someone smugly tells me so simply, so dismissively (which ringo you have not done incidentally) that Im just a horrible man for even pondering these things.....it lacks maturity.
I believe my position is at least respectable, even if disagreed.