Hell

[Jane_the_Bane]

By the way, the German judiciary works quite differently from the US (and is considerably more just, IMHO).
For example, while repeat offenders WILL receive more severe sentences and less chance of parole, there is NO way an imnate will serve more time for, say, possession of five grams of pot than an actual murderer. You'll never see someone sentenced to insanely lengthy incarceration such as 150 years. Even for murder, the cap is at about 15 years, with special protective measures against culprits that are deemed a constant and continuing threat to the rest of society. Genuinely dangerous individuals can potentially be held captive for the rest of their lives, but even they are occasionally re-examined to see if "security containment" is still justified.

 

[createdtoworship]

That is the question.
Gradyll, you seem to assume that a larger number of infractions somehow justifies torture, but - as I replied many, many posts ago - it does not. Al all. Even finite torture is a crime against humanity, but stretching it to encompass infinity (which is considerably more than the largest possible number you can think of) renders it utterly insane and monstrous. It's never just, no matter how severe the crime or how large the count of transgression. If you support torture, you are simply wrong.

as far as duration, being outside of time, does not equate thousands of years, it's technically no years, no time. Secondly, would you allow the government to torture someone to release information on the location of a suitcase nuclear bomb somewhere in the united states. Torturing that person, lets say waterboarding, would save millions. Would you agree that torture is justified? If no, then you support mass killing of millions. Which is far worse.

 

[Jane_the_Bane]

as far as duration, being outside of time, does not equate thousands of years, it's technically no years, no time. Secondly, would you allow the government to torture someone to release information on the location of a suitcase nuclear bomb somewhere in the united states. Torturing that person, lets say waterboarding, would save millions. Would you agree that torture is justified? If no, then you support mass killing of millions. Which is far worse.

No. What's worse is a "the end justifies the means"-morality that causes people to betray the very ideals they supposedly set out to defend. And I already specified why torture is not only morally indefensible, but also nonsensical from a mere practical standpoint. There is no evidence to support coercion as an effective form of interrogation. In fact, there is evidence showing that non-coercive forms of interrogation are much more effective than coercion. For example, Goodman-Delahunty and colleagues interviewed 64 law enforcement practitioners and detainees from five different countries, who were involved in high-stakes cases, mainly in alleged acts of terrorism. They found that reported confessions and admissions of guilt were four times more likely when the interrogators adopted a respectful interview strategy that aimed at building rapport with the detainee.

Sources:
Goodman-Delahunty, J., Martschuk, N. &. Dhami, M. K. Appl. Cognitive Psych. 28, 883–897 (2014).
Russano, M. B., Narchet, F. M., Kleinman, S. M. & Meissner, C. A. Appl. Cognitive Psych. 28, 847–859 (2014).
Holmberg, U. & Christianson, S.-A. Behav. Sci. Law 20, 31–45 (2002).

We could also look directly at what "advanced interrogation methods" actually achieved:
On 16 April 2009, a set of memoranda was released — now widely referred to as the torture memos — that provided legal arguments to justify the CIA (Central Intelligence Agency)'s use of “enhanced interrogation techniques” on high-value terror detainees during the Bush administration. The techniques had been devised by two psychologists with no expertise in interrogation, James Mitchell and Bruce Jessen, and have been widely discredited, including by a detailed report of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence produced in 2012 and declassified in 2014.
Abu Zubaydah was the first detainee to be subjected to the CIA's enhanced interrogation techniques. Over 17 days in August 2002, he was subjected to walling, attention grasps, slapping, facial hold, stress positions, cramped confinement in a coffin, white noise and sleep deprivation for almost 24 hours a day. He was waterboarded 2–4 times a day, which led to spasms, vomiting and, occasionally, loss of consciousness. He was described as “distressed to the level that he was unable to effectively communicate”.
The CIA's enhanced interrogation of Abu Zubaydah yielded absolutely no intelligence. On the other hand, under non-coercive interrogation, Abu Zubaydah had previously provided copious useful intelligence, including the identification of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed as the mastermind of the 9/11 attacks.

 

[durangodawood]

as far as duration, being outside of time, does not equate thousands of years, it's technically no years, no time. Secondly, would you allow the government to torture someone to release information on the location of a suitcase nuclear bomb somewhere in the united states. Torturing that person, lets say waterboarding, would save millions. Would you agree that torture is justified? If no, then you support mass killing of millions. Which is far worse.

What if torture doesnt work on them. Sometimes it doesnt.

Perhaps we should torture their children in front of them? If you dont support that, you support mass killing.

Lets says its a "regular" bomb that could kill 100 people, and torture fails. Try torturing the kids? No? Well then you support mass killing.

 

[JackRT]

Lets says its a "regular" bomb that could kill 100 people, and torture fails. Try torturing the kids? No? Well then you support mass killing.

You would torture an innocent to get at the parent? I am not sure that the "lesser of two evils" is a valid moral stance.

 

[durangodawood]

You would torture an innocent to get at the parent? I am not sure that the "lesser of two evils" is a valid moral stance.

I'm just testing his torture stance.

 

[createdtoworship]

No. What's worse is a "the end justifies the means"-morality that causes people to betray the very ideals they supposedly set out to defend. And I already specified why torture is not only morally indefensible, but also nonsensical from a mere practical standpoint. There is no evidence to support coercion as an effective form of interrogation. In fact, there is evidence showing that non-coercive forms of interrogation are much more effective than coercion. For example, Goodman-Delahunty and colleagues interviewed 64 law enforcement practitioners and detainees from five different countries, who were involved in high-stakes cases, mainly in alleged acts of terrorism. They found that reported confessions and admissions of guilt were four times more likely when the interrogators adopted a respectful interview strategy that aimed at building rapport with the detainee.

Sources:
Goodman-Delahunty, J., Martschuk, N. &. Dhami, M. K. Appl. Cognitive Psych. 28, 883–897 (2014).
Russano, M. B., Narchet, F. M., Kleinman, S. M. & Meissner, C. A. Appl. Cognitive Psych. 28, 847–859 (2014).
Holmberg, U. & Christianson, S.-A. Behav. Sci. Law 20, 31–45 (2002).

We could also look directly at what "advanced interrogation methods" actually achieved:
On 16 April 2009, a set of memoranda was released — now widely referred to as the torture memos — that provided legal arguments to justify the CIA (Central Intelligence Agency)'s use of “enhanced interrogation techniques” on high-value terror detainees during the Bush administration. The techniques had been devised by two psychologists with no expertise in interrogation, James Mitchell and Bruce Jessen, and have been widely discredited, including by a detailed report of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence produced in 2012 and declassified in 2014.
Abu Zubaydah was the first detainee to be subjected to the CIA's enhanced interrogation techniques. Over 17 days in August 2002, he was subjected to walling, attention grasps, slapping, facial hold, stress positions, cramped confinement in a coffin, white noise and sleep deprivation for almost 24 hours a day. He was waterboarded 2–4 times a day, which led to spasms, vomiting and, occasionally, loss of consciousness. He was described as “distressed to the level that he was unable to effectively communicate”.
The CIA's enhanced interrogation of Abu Zubaydah yielded absolutely no intelligence. On the other hand, under non-coercive interrogation, Abu Zubaydah had previously provided copious useful intelligence, including the identification of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed as the mastermind of the 9/11 attacks.

so you posted alot of information, but you refused to answer the question. If you could save 100,000 people, would you torture a single individual? As in the case of a terrorist that knows the location of a nuclear bomb. IF you would, you would be more moral, than letting 100,000 people die.

 

[Jane_the_Bane]

so you posted alot of information, but you refused to answer the question. If you could save 100,000 people, would you torture a single individual? As in the case of a terrorist that knows the location of a nuclear bomb. IF you would, you would be more moral, than letting 100,000 people die.

No.
I am not the only one who pointed out why this stance is both morally bankrupt, repugnant, and not even all that prudent when in need of vital information that might save lives.
As I established, torture is not an effective interrogation technique.

 

[durangodawood]

so you posted alot of information, but you refused to answer the question.....

I noticed you refuse to answer my question. Post #284

 

[createdtoworship]

No.
I am not the only one who pointed out why this stance is both morally bankrupt, repugnant, and not even all that prudent when in need of vital information that might save lives.
As I established, torture is not an effective interrogation technique.

and that would be illogical. So you in essence just killed 100,000 people.
The logic of Hell is as follows: you can't just put someone in prison for 30,000 sins. The punishment must be cumulative.

 

[createdtoworship]

What if torture doesnt work on them. Sometimes it doesnt.

Perhaps we should torture their children in front of them? If you dont support that, you support mass killing.

Lets says its a "regular" bomb that could kill 100 people, and torture fails. Try torturing the kids? No? Well then you support mass killing.

their children would be innocent and that would be stepping beyond. However non christian countries, specifically islamic countries torture, kill rape your family if you are a christian. So what you are describing actually happens. Just not by christians.

 

[durangodawood]

their children would be innocent and that would be stepping beyond. However non christian countries, specifically islamic countries torture, kill rape your family if you are a christian. So what you are describing actually happens. Just not by christians.

You dont know if the terrorist is guilty either. Do we wait for jury trial?

Either way, youre ok with letting 100,000 people die if you forgo a method (torturing the terrorist's child) that has a reasonable chance of success.

There's clearly some moral roadblock in you thats more important than 100,000 people.

 

[createdtoworship]

You dont know if the terrorist is guilty either. Do we wait for jury trial?

Either way, youre ok with letting 100,000 people die if you forgo a method (torturing the terrorist's child) that has a reasonable chance of success.

There's clearly some moral roadblock in you thats more important than 100,000 people.

you don't torture innocent people. That is poisoning the well and non sequitur (does not follow).

 

[durangodawood]

you don't torture innocent people. That is poisoning the well and non sequitur (does not follow).

By your reasoning, if there's a moral line you wont cross to save 100,000 people, then youre ok with 100,000 dying.

For Jane the line is torturing anyone. For you the line is torturing a person unrelated to the incident. But both of you are "ok with 100,000 people dying", because you have moral lines you wont cross.

 

[Jane_the_Bane]

and that would be illogical.

Mate, you don't seem to even understand what logic is.

So you in essence just killed 100,000 people.

Bull.

The logic of Hell is as follows: you can't just put someone in prison for 30,000 sins. The punishment must be cumulative.

There's no logic in that, because no matter if you take 30,000, 3 billion, 10^27, or a googolplex of sins, you've still got a finite number of (sometimes ridiculously minor) offenses requited not only with the most inhumane and monstrous punishment imaginable, but also an INFINITE one.
In contrast to infinity, even the largest possible number of sins a person could ever commit in a lifetime becomes nothing more than a speck of dust, a particle so minuscule as to be practically nothing within the endless sea of eternity.

If there was a deity, and if that deity resembled the cosmic torturer you believe in, I'd feel morally compelled to oppose it to the best of my ability, even if my efforts could never hope to make any major difference.
Luckily, I don't believe that an all-knowing, all-powerful god would ever be so petty and monstrous.

 

[cvanwey]

There's almost as many conceptions of hell as there are Christians, but I want to talk about a very specific one, and ONLY that.

So if you believe that Hell is God's absence, or his presence as experienced through the mind of the unregenerate sinner, or annihilation, or a temporary place of purification, or a conundrum to be solved by trusting that a just God would find a way to do the right thing and save all - this thread might not be for you.

The conception of hell that I address here is a place of literal torment, where sapient beings are deliberately sent by God for failing to be as flawless as a deity, and where they'll spend eternity with no chance of redeption or mercy.

To me, such a conception of hell reflects *extremely* badly on the corresponding conception of deity, and no argument from authority ("who are YOU to question an all-powerful being?????") will resolve the matter.

So, if you believe that it is literally impossible for any of us to measure up to God's standard, and we are then punished for it - that's like torturing a dog with a branding iron for its failure to comprehend algebra. Or setting up an eight-meter pit (with poisoned spikes at the bottom) for people to jump over when you *know* they'll never get further than 6 m.

And I'm sorry, but basically extending a pardon to all who wave the right party membership card doesn't solve the moral dilemma here, either, because people are still being sent to Cosmic Auschwitz.

In short: how do you manage to reconcile this belief with anything remotely resembling justice?

Putting aside the apparent moral implications, as once someone asks how the believer in a 'literal hell of torture' can justify the 'said punishment' might then place one into the realm of passing an absolute or objective 'moral standard' of some flavor; I would instead like to offer my 2 cents....

The real question here appears to be... What do we define as justice?

I mean, for the Christian, is it simply 'whatever God says', because the Christian is under the impression that God is only purely capable or morally 'good' acts? Or, is justice simply placing everyone where they 'deserve'? Or other?

It almost raises more questions than answers quite frankly, as more terms need 'absolute' definitions (i.e.) 'good', 'bad', 'justice', etc... And I doubt anyone here can provide such 'absolutes' for such definitions?

And though I am late to the party here, and have not yet to read all given responses, I am also interested to know how such literalists can 'reconcile' the apparent quandary presented. Meaning, as the OP stated, God knowingly watches billions, knowing their abilities will fall short to the necessary 'glory of grace' on their own accord, and that the only refuge, or method of salvation, if you will, is to apply belief and surrender to the risen Christ. And if one is doubtful or rejects such an anecdotal proposition, due to their needed lack in evidence that such a proposition is even factual, then the only alternative is to experience discomfort/pain/torture for eternity? Seems odd that such a deity would not at least make it crystal clear that such a deity even exists? Which instead also brings up other possible implications of 'divine hiddenness' etc.....

This topic opens up a virtual 'can of worms' for the believer in the literal interpretation of the Bible's rendition of the term 'Hell', which poses many questions of 'discomfort'...

 

[createdtoworship]

By your reasoning, if there's a moral line you wont cross to save 100,000 people, then youre ok with 100,000 dying.

For Jane the line is torturing anyone. For you the line is torturing a person unrelated to the incident. But both of you are "ok with 100,000 people dying", because you have moral lines you wont cross.

but my view has the guilty not the innocent being tortured, so no relation to hers or your view.
and thus saving 100,000. In conclusion, I am actually concerned about your moral stance suggesting it is ok to torture children of parents who are criminals.

 

[durangodawood]

but my view has the guilty not the innocent being tortured, so no relation to hers or your view.
and thus saving 100,000. In conclusion, I am actually concerned about your moral stance suggesting it is ok to torture children of parents who are criminals.

I'm questioning your idea that you (the interrogator) are personally responsible for the actions of other people (the terrorist) if any personal moral limits hold back the investigation.

 

[createdtoworship]

By your reasoning, if there's a moral line you wont cross to save 100,000 people, then youre ok with 100,000 dying.

For Jane the line is torturing anyone. For you the line is torturing a person unrelated to the incident. But both of you are "ok with 100,000 people dying", because you have moral lines you wont cross.

lets go back to this post for a second, here you are saying that Jane killing 100,000 people because of refusing to interrogate and torture one terrorist is a "moral line, she will not cross." I would not call it a moral line, this is begging the question. It is not moral to kill 100,000 for the sake of one.

 

[durangodawood]

lets go back to this post for a second, here you are saying that Jane killing 100,000 people because of refusing to interrogate and torture one terrorist is a "moral line, she will not cross." I would not call it a moral line, this is begging the question. It is not moral to kill 100,000 for the sake of one.

Nooo.

Her moral line is: torture is immoral. Thats it.

Like for you, the moral line is: torture of a person unrelated to the incident is immoral.

All this stuff about the interrogator killing people or being ok with them dying, in either case, thats your conclusion. Not mine.