Can two forces be in conflict, both believing themselves to be good?

[Alexander123]

Of course there is always writing in gnomish to allow it as a sig:

...ifthereisareasonablepossibiltythatthismanknowssomethingitisworthittotorturehim.

 

[Alexander123]

Information gained by torture in my opinion has to be evaluated in the same way that any information gained by any means has to be evaluated. Now the question is, why is it considered unreliable? Because the person can lie to get out of torture? Lying takes place outside of torture also, that is no reason not to use torture. If a person knows something, torture is the most effective method of getting him to reveal it in the same way that the most effective way to prevent crime is by punishing those who commit the crime. I do not see how it is anymore unreliable that information gained by other means. Machiavelli says "...a ruler should be slow to believe what he hears...", this is not an injuction against torture, simply against believing everything you hear.

Rulers would do well to study Machiavelli and his book The Prince. Especially his chapter on cruelty which is too long to quote so I will simply refer those of you who have access to the book to the chapter.

 

[Crothian]

Rulers would do well to study Machiavelli and his book The Prince. Especially his chapter on cruelty which is too long to quote so I will simply refer those of you who have access to the book to the chapter.

How does a ruler from Greyhawk read a book written in our world?

 

[El Mahdi]

...And you really can't see how allowing a world where torture is a standard makes things worse?

I agree that such a world is not something to be desired, but declaring torture itself as universally and objectively evil...I respectfully disagree with that. Allowing it as a standard thing...No. As an exception...Yes. But that's just me.

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...

Man, I really liked that. Very well said!

 

[The Shaman]

With that argument I would be justified in torturing you right now, because you might know something. That's insane.

"You must spread some Experience Points around . . ."

 

[Alexander123]

I'm sure that the equivalent of a Machiavelli exists in those worlds since these principles are universal and apply everywhere. lol.

 

[El Mahdi]

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).

As with most things, it isn't quite so black & white. In most cases, you're right, it's ineffective, and can actually produce misleading or inaccurate/unuseable results. But, on certain individuals, in certain circumstances, and if properly applied, it can yield very effective results. But again, it's the exception rather than the rule. And even more of an exception that torture would be the only way to aquire specific information, rather than using other means.

I do however, personally believe and agree that it's something to be abhorred. Something that at times may be necessary, but still abhorrent. But there are a lot of things like that which we humans engage in all the time. Hell, War is abhorrent. War is a crime against humanity. Ironically, I spent the majority of my adult life as a member of our military, so I know from first hand experience: War is something to be avoided at all costs, but is sometimes necessary...just like torture.

Mankind itself is a morally ambiguous lot. I honestly believe that if souls had color, and you brought together all the souls of mankind, it would make a rather dark shade of gray. We have our cultures and our morals wich we talk about and promote, but in the end, a human will choose survival over morals almost every time.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Information gained by torture in my opinion has to be evaluated in the same way that any information gained by any means has to be evaluated. Now the question is, why is it considered unreliable? Because the person can lie to get out of torture? Lying takes place outside of torture also, that is no reason not to use torture. If a person knows something, torture is the most effective method of getting him to reveal it in the same way that the most effective way to prevent crime is by punishing those who commit the crime. I do not see how it is anymore unreliable that information gained by other means. Machiavelli says "...a ruler should be slow to believe what he hears...", this is not an injuction against torture, simply against believing everything you hear.

It is considered unreliable because, perhaps counterintuitively, those being tortured tend to lie MORE than those who are not. Even in closely monitored police interrogations, there is a risk of false confession simply because the human being interrogated wants the process to end. When torture is added to the mix, the drive to end the process is stronger. And if the interrogator/torturer is a poor evaluator of truth, the interrogated is merely going to be looking to provide an answer that the interrogator wants to hear.

And that's just with the innocent.

If you have a genuine malfeasor, his drive to protect his mission will be even stronger. He will provide misinformation up until his success is assured.

In addition, if your regime is known to torture, you're less likely to be able to take prisoners alive TO torture.

There have been numerous interviews & articles on NPR about this, such as this one:

Officer 'Unpopular' For Opposing Interrogations

In another one from around 2006, an interrogator stated that in his 20 years of working in intelligence, he had never found information gathered by torture (from non-USA sources) to prove true, nor had he ever encountered the "ticking time bomb" crisis so popular in fiction.

In contrast, methods in which interrogative forged bonds of understanding with their subjects generally reaped positive results: IOW, they got good info.

Now, is torture 100% ineffective? I doubt it. But judging from what he pros say, the odds of success seem alarmingly tiny, and building a case for it as a useful tool seems as difficult as asserting that plutonium-laced sarin gas is perfect for home defense...

 

[Herremann the Wise]

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 two cases are completely different. You cannot logically make moral conclusions of one based upon the other.

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.

Things can of course get much worse for the paladin in question. Firstly what happens if he tortures the man and does not get the information required to save the life? He inflicts violence upon someone for no benefit, he still loses the child and his paladinhood is in tatters. Secondly as a result of losing his paladinhood, he is not in a position to save numerous lives in the future. Rather than being the arm of his deity, he instead is lost completely. All on a premise that torture was the only way something could possibly (but not definitely) be achieved. Under the conditions you have given, torture is never a reasonable answer.

Can you personally live with yourself knowing that by refusing to torture an evil man you have resulted in the death of a child?

And if playing that paladin, I would try every other non-evil method possible to secure that child's safety. Failing that, and the child dying due to the actions of evil (not at his hand for refusing to commit evil), I would then have him pay for the child's resurrection if such were warranted.

Best Regards
Herremann the Wise

 

[FireLance]

Right, but the difference is not between LG and CG. I am saying that a paladin who allows his child to die to avoid engaging in torture and any group that considers this torture to be evil is evil and immoral. I do not consider this conflict to be between LG and CG, but a paladin by refusing to engage in torture to save this childs should be considered evil and immoral.

Well, since those who are opposed to torture, even if it is for "the greater good", probably also consider themselves to be "good", it looks like you've answered your own original question.

It's the age-old argument about ends and means, or, to use some fancy-schmancy language, deontological ethics versus consequentialism.

It's at the root of several moral "dilemmas", such as the train track scenario: A runaway train is going to hit and kill five workers who are on the track. You can prevent the train from killing the workers by pushing a fat man next to you onto the track (killing him, of course). Getting onto the track yourself is not an option because you're not heavy enough to stop the train. There isn't enough time to discuss this with the man and get him to volunteer. Do you push the man?

Similarly, Ursula K LeGuin's story, The Ones Who Walk Away From Omelas, raises the question: would you accept utopia if it was dependent on the suffering of a forsaken child?

That said, there may be a second, more subtle point that needs to be made. The absolute conviction with which you have declared anyone who refuses to engage in torture under those circumstances as "evil and immoral" suggests to me that you have very definite ideas about good and evil, and that for you, there will almost always be a good side and an evil side in any conflict (your examples of the druid and the pacifist spellcaster also seem to support this). If that is your starting point, then of course you will hardly ever be able to find a scenario in which two sides which you consider to be good find themselves in conflict.