Torture is always wrong

[Trevorum 24]

 

In the original thread, Beavah asks, what proof do we have that torture is morally wrong? That got me to thinking.

 

When my daughter was about 4 years old, she was invited by her best friend to attend Sunday School with her. My wife and I agreed that it might be a good idea to expose her to other ways of thinking, so we said sure. After the Sunday School was over, the neighbors drove my daughter home and she burst out of the mini-van, hysterically crying. We ran to her, not knowing what to expect. She was nearly incomprehensible but through her tears and blubbering, we made out the words, "... and they were torturing him! They hammered nails into his hands!" She had been traumatized by a telling of the crucifixion story.

 

We had never told her this bit of Christian lore and she was totally unprepared for the brutality of the story. She was four years old, had never been exposed to the concept of torture and immediately found it horrifying.

 

In answer to Beavah, I submit that as proof that torture is wrong.

 

 

[packsaddle 753]

His exact words were, "What irrefutable evidence is there that torture is wrong?"

'Proof' is something else entirely. But OK, I get the point.

 

I accept your anecdote as evidence that torture might not be in human nature, at least not revealed by the age of your daughter. I can't remember how I responded the first time I heard the crucifixion story. However, I did, a few years ago, marvel at the strong positive reaction to the Mel Gibson film. I considered it to be a Christian snuff film. It was wildly popular around here.

 

A few weeks ago, a white man killed a black man and dragged him behind his pickup truck for about 10 miles. The victim's head was essentially worn off. It reminded me of the Emmett Till case. Those same people who loved the Mel Gibson film just shrugged at this brutal crime.

"Oh what a wonderful world"

[JoeBob 606]

A kidnapper has buried your child in a box with limited air.

 

The police have caught him, but it's in his best interest not to tell where under the earth your child is suffocating. If he doesn't tell, he can deny doing it to a jury.

 

If you tell me that you don't want some police sergeant to apply a little pain or mental distress to the psychopath to find your dying child, I don't believe you.

 

Other scenarios:

Bomb on a plane.

Nuclear bomb in NYC.

Plane hijacking into the World Trade Centers.

 

You wouldn't condone torture if it could prevent any of those?

[Eagle92 110]

Trev,

playing Devil's Advocate so bear with me. Once upon a time, Eastern Woodlands Indians believed that how a captured enemy behaved under torture signified how much of a man he was. Singing their death song, hurling insults at their captors, not crying you tin pain, etc symbolized the bravery and manliness of the captured, and if he "died a good death," he would be honored by the enemy after his death. I believe the author Axtell goes into a lot of detail on this.

 

 

[frank10 12]

Trevorum: If I applied your standard to my son, we can conclude that all green vegetables are also always wrong.

[sheldonsmom 10]

Define torture.

[packsaddle 753]

Heh, heh, Trev, I think you found your torture advocates.

Me, my definition of torture starts with having to listen to rap music (which, I suspect, wouldn't be very effective against Al Qaida, I could be wrong)

On the other hand, I sometimes amuse myself and torture my students while they wait for lecture to start...by playing one of my own favorite torture songs.

"How much is that doggie in the window? arf arf!"

...simple pleasures....could be worse, I could sing them myself.

[Trevorum 24]

JoeBob, your examples do not argue that torture is not wrong, they merely present it as the lesser of two evils. In answer, yes, I probably would condone it in those limited scenarios. That wouldn't make it any less wrong and I would share the guilt.

 

Eagle92, again your example does not make an argument that torture is not wrong. Bravery in the face of evil is common to all societies.

 

Wingnut, your example gave me pause until I realized that a mature adult would know that eating green vegetables, while possibly distasteful to some, is nonetheless not inherently evil. He would not need to look for confirmation for this from the pure, unsoiled humanity of a 4 year old. On the other hand, torture is a confusing moral issue for many mature adults, as we can see by these comments. If we look to the 4 year old as a litmus test, the fundamental evil of torture is revealed.

 

Sheldomsmom, an evil does not need a thorough dictionary entry to be evil. I dont have a definition and I hope I never need one. Can I say that youd know it if it happened to you?

 

[frank10 12]

Pack: I make no statement either way, this is just a logic problem for me. Too many years of years as a comp sci / Electrical engineering student will do this to you...

 

Trevorum: Many things are beyond the grasp of a child. For example, a child may not be able to understand that a dog needs to be put down after an attacking a third mail man, an adult would understand that the risk of not doing so could be too great. Again, not saying your wrong, only that your method of arriving at your conclusion is flawed.

[evmori 11]

I don't know that torture is every the right thing to do but sometimes it is necessary.

[OldGreyEagle 5]

I do beleive the statement "Torture is always wrong" is an absolute statement and as we all know, there are no such things as an absolute

[CalicoPenn 729]

Zero degrees Kelvin. About as close to an absolute as we'll ever get.

 

Sheldonsmom says "define torture" - and I agree - we need to develop a definition common to all as to what torture is - do we use the FBI definition? The Geneva Convention definition? Our own definitions?

 

But I think we need to take that a step further. It does no good to define torture if we haven't defined the larger concept. It's the biggest barrier we have to coming up with an absolute answer. So I put it out there:

 

Define right and wrong.

 

Until society, which has been struggling to define right and wrong for millenia, can come up with that definition, we will never be able to agree that anything is truly right or wrong. All we'll have is divergent opinions and its those divergent opinions which makes the issues and politics threads so fascinating, interesting and frustrating.

 

[evmori 11]

Define right and wrong.

 

Right = opposite of left.

Wrong = opposite of right.

[Beavah 205]

In answer to Beavah, I submit that as proof that torture is wrong.

 

Yah, Trevorum, that is what is called an argument from Natural Law. It's da longest-standing and most predominant response to Calico's question. Even among da young, partially formed members of ordinary intellect and temperament, most people and cultures would reject da behavior, at least by and against members of their own community.

 

Of course, that doesn't mean that there aren't individual members of unusual temperament who don't delight in da torture of animals and others. We know there are kids like that, eh? So not every member of a culture agrees by temperament. And yeh can learn, choose, or even teach behaviors contrary to da Natural Law, as demonstrated by da recent willingness of a few of our public officials to embrace the practice of torture. Natural law is an inclination for the majority's conscience, not a determiner of personal belief or behavior.

 

Da problem, as others have pointed out, is that your daughter has grown up and already been enculturated in a Western, Judeo-Christian culture. Da fact that she even has a word for "torture" with negative connotations is a product of her upbringing and the majority culture. Da fact that she is willing to see someone of a remote tribe other than her own as sharing in common humanity is a product of a culture grounded in religion which espouses universal human relationships with God. It doesn't matter if you and your family don't have that religious background, da Judeo-Christian ethic is pervasive in our culture, from Saturday morning cartoons to preschool to your behavioral expectations to the very language you use with your daughter. So others would argue that it's difficult to separate Natural Law from cultural influences at the least, or that Natural Law is strictly a cultural phenomenon.

 

Either way, whether the source is human or ultimately divine, da cultural phenomenon that determines ethical mores is grounded in religion.

 

Now here's da problem for you. Da same natural law argument can be made for homosexuality, eh? Da majority of ordinary members of most cultures have a negative reaction to it. Only a few members seem to enjoy it, and they are generally viewed as aberrant. Yah, just like torture, yeh can convince a greater number of the community that it's permissible by argumentation contrary to the prevailing religious/cultural thought. We've seen some folks here embrace torture as OK for some people/cases, just as we've seen some embrace homosexuality in da same way.

 

So your Natural Law argument against torture, which I do support and agree with, has a philosophic and religious basis. And it also applies to homosexuality.

 

Beavah

(This message has been edited by Beavah)

[Trevorum 24]

Beav, thanks for your thoughts. You say that ethical mores are "grounded in" (that is, are derived from) religion. I would argue just the opposite. I am certain that religious mores are derived from fundamental humanity. That's why all societies have the Golden Rule (or some variation theron). You see religion as coming first and giving us our humanity. I see our natural humanity as giving rise to religions. So, I am afraid that we'll just have to disagree on this issue without any possibility of resolution.

 

I will also disagree with you that homosexuality is against -as you call it- Natural Law. Take the prototypical 4 year old. I am pretty certain that a four year old will view any form of sex as shocking (normal activity can be very vigorous and can easily be misinterpreted as violent). This would hold true for sex between a man and a woman as well as between two men. On the other hald, I am pretty sure that the same four year old would accept at face value two adults of any gender holding hands, being affectionate, and expressing their bond of love. Four year olds know that love is a good thing.