Can two forces be in conflict, both believing themselves to be good?
- Thread starter Alexander123
- Start date
- Status
Alexander123
First Post
To say that torture itself is evil is kind of like saying that to kill another person in self-defense who is trying to kill you is evil because it's murder therefore man shouldn't defend himself. The possibility of obtaining information which can save the child's life certainly does justify it and I don't see how it will be made worse. Past deeds certainly are justified by present outcomes. If the investment in a certain stock led to you making money which is a present outcome then that investment which is a past deed is justified. How else are you going to justify something? We are assuming that torture is the only way to save the child's life. And you have to choose to torture this man to save the child's life or not torture him and let the child die. Can you personally live with yourself knowing that by refusing to torture an evil man you have resulted in the death of a child?
Last edited:
jonesy
A Wicked Kendragon
What? No it's not. It's the exact opposite. You're the one doing the attacking when you torture someone.
Do you understand what the word possibility means? With that argument I would be justified in torturing you right now, because you might know something. That's insane.
And you really can't see how allowing a world where torture is a standard makes things worse?
You're missing my point.
I'm not saying that you shouldn't do everything you can to save innocent lives.
I'm saying this:
If the only option you see for accomplishing good is an evil act, then go ahead and do it. But don't sugarcoat it. Don't pretend it makes someone a shining beacon of good. It's not you getting redeemed for your actions by the consequences. It's you giving up your humanity in order to accomplish something good. It's you choosing the evil path to a better world. Not the path to a better you.
It's the path of the anti-hero. At the very best it's neutral.
I'm not. I'm assuming there's always other options. If you can get the information from someone by torturing him, you can also get it by offering him something he wants.
Besides, torture isn't some sort of magic bullet. You torture someone enough he'll tell you anything. Lies just to make you stop.
Whether you consider torture to be intrinsically evil or not, there is the ancillary question that is equally important: is it effective?
Most American professional interrogators who have gone on the record (in books, on NPR, etc.) assert that it is not.
And if it is not, then even if it is not intrinsically evil, it's use would still be evil because you are inflicting pain without a reasonable chance of achieving your end goal (i.e. for no good reason).
Most American professional interrogators who have gone on the record (in books, on NPR, etc.) assert that it is not.
And if it is not, then even if it is not intrinsically evil, it's use would still be evil because you are inflicting pain without a reasonable chance of achieving your end goal (i.e. for no good reason).
Last edited:
Alexander123
First Post
It certainly is effective in my opinion, it is simply common sense that if a man knows something and refuses to reveal it and this information is vital to the security of the lives of the citizens of your country then if he refuses to reveal it willingly then the only option is to force him to reveal it against his will by inflicting pain on him.
As far as people telling you what you want to hear, if there is a reasonable possibilty that this man knows something it is worth it to torture him. You certainly cannot get information by offering the man something he wants for two reasons. One is that he may want something immoral, the second reason is that soldiers can be trained to resist temptation if it was only temptation and no pain. And there are ways of determining the probability of whether a man knows something or not.
It is up to you to evaluate all information which you receive, information which is obtained through torture is no exception. Information received through torture only has the added authority that this man if he knew something would be willing to do anything to end his pain and therefore was motivated to reveal what he knew.
Of course there are always innocent people, no one would advocate for the elimination of laws and courts because sometimes innocent people are punished. To advocate for such a thing is sheer foolery. Torture is the same.
I do consider it moral by the way to torture an evil person to save a child's life and I do not think that a world where torture exists would be worse than a world where children die because some person chooses not to use torture. I do not consider it an evil act because how you measure actions are by the end result not the action itself. Physical force is a fact. It is not itself evil. It is only when physical force is used to violate a persons individual rights (the right to life, liberty, property and the pursuit of happiness.) that it becomes immoral. And the same physical force when used in retaliation, in self-defense and in the defense of individual rights becomes moral.
As far as people telling you what you want to hear, if there is a reasonable possibilty that this man knows something it is worth it to torture him. You certainly cannot get information by offering the man something he wants for two reasons. One is that he may want something immoral, the second reason is that soldiers can be trained to resist temptation if it was only temptation and no pain. And there are ways of determining the probability of whether a man knows something or not.
It is up to you to evaluate all information which you receive, information which is obtained through torture is no exception. Information received through torture only has the added authority that this man if he knew something would be willing to do anything to end his pain and therefore was motivated to reveal what he knew.
Of course there are always innocent people, no one would advocate for the elimination of laws and courts because sometimes innocent people are punished. To advocate for such a thing is sheer foolery. Torture is the same.
I do consider it moral by the way to torture an evil person to save a child's life and I do not think that a world where torture exists would be worse than a world where children die because some person chooses not to use torture. I do not consider it an evil act because how you measure actions are by the end result not the action itself. Physical force is a fact. It is not itself evil. It is only when physical force is used to violate a persons individual rights (the right to life, liberty, property and the pursuit of happiness.) that it becomes immoral. And the same physical force when used in retaliation, in self-defense and in the defense of individual rights becomes moral.
Alexander123
First Post
It is self-defense because you are doing it to save your child's life who will die without your torturing this man. You would not torture this man under normal circumstances, you are only doing it to save your child's life. He is initiating physical force to violate your child's individual rights by putting your child in such a situation and witholding valuable information which can save this child's life.
Of course for those noble paladins who would not wish to snoop to the level of the enemy you can simply allow the 24 hours to expire and have this man executed for murder. This will get you out of having to torture at the price of losing your child.
As far as magic is concerned, you simply have to assume that the persons required to do the torturing do not have access to such magics for some reason and cannot gain access to them in 24 hours at which time your child will die.
Of course for those noble paladins who would not wish to snoop to the level of the enemy you can simply allow the 24 hours to expire and have this man executed for murder. This will get you out of having to torture at the price of losing your child.
As far as magic is concerned, you simply have to assume that the persons required to do the torturing do not have access to such magics for some reason and cannot gain access to them in 24 hours at which time your child will die.
Still haven't heard if my PCs can preemptively kidnap their enemy's children to ensure the safety of their own get, and it probably isn't worth the trouble.
Bowing out of the discussion that I've hand in leading off topic, but not before quoting this sig-worthy snippet:
Alex, sir, tonight I am toasting you with a big smile. Carry on.
Bowing out of the discussion that I've hand in leading off topic, but not before quoting this sig-worthy snippet:
Alex, sir, tonight I am toasting you with a big smile. Carry on.
Alexander123
First Post
Thanks for the idea Filcher, I might in fact use that as my signature. (unfortunately if was too long for use as a sig, apparently it has to be shorter than one life. Odd considering that many signatures I find are longer than a line.)
Last edited:
Again I'll reiterate that professional (American) interrogators have a decidedly different opinion: info gained by torture is generally considered unreliable.
- Status
Similar Threads
