Is Torture Ever Justified?

[anthro-nerd]

In my eyes, NO. Absolutely not

But then I'm sure there are people who will disagree with me! Especially after having this conversation last night with a few of my friends...

[ummmm]

Torture isn't just about inflicting pain.

[vetuste_ennemi]

Well, I like the truth serum suggestion, but for the purpose of the OP let's assume that no such thing exists, or that there will be situations when it would be unavailable.

Justified ever? Yes, in my opinion there are situations when it would be justified: you can easily devise thought experiments to argue that case and Ludwig has done just that while adding the qualification "Whether it would be effective or not is another matter. Anyone will say anything to stop being tortured.".

In the Ludwig thought experiment the torture stops once the children are found.

[hereIam]

NoM at 12:53 - and other people like him .....

[ummmm]

They got a few hidings but it was sleep deprivation that tipped them.

Read Paul Hill 'The Stolen Years' He explains it well.

[EDDIE51]

NO Never justified.There are too many cases of people giving false /misleading information just to avoid torture for the argument put forward dannyK13 to be valid.
I also believe that information gained through torture can not be used as evidence in court under international law.

[ummmm]

Prove they were tortured, Eddie.

[ichkeria]

Torture is a great way of extracting the information you want to hear out of somebody.

[EDDIE51]

Here , as I thought information gained or thought to have been gained through torture is excluded from evidence under international law.
https://www.apt.ch/en/evidence-obtained-through-torture/

[dannyk13]

Eddie, my post had nothing to do with confessions.

[vetuste_ennemi]

//...yes torture people if you want false confessions.//

Of course, Spathiphyllum: that's why torture is illegal in civilised countries. (I think it was abolished in England, though not Scotland, in the late 17th century.) But AnthroNerd's question is "Is torture ever justified? In the Ludwig example the intention is not to extract a false confession, but to extract true information in order to save lives.

This distinction in itself doesn't mean that the torture thereby becomes justifiable; there may be other general considerations that mean that we should never resort to torture even if upholding that principle incurs an immediate local human cost.

[EDDIE51]

^ You say to gain information that would lead to the saving of lives.
Same argument applies , they will say anything to avoid torture so will give incorrect information. Even as far back as Ancient Rome it was realised that torture was useless as a means of extracting information,as the victims will say exactly what the torturer wants to hear in order to avoid the pain.

[ummmm]

It's not just pain that is torture. Tell someone who hasn't been allowed to sleep for 2 days that you'll kill his wife and children. Mental torture.

[vetuste_ennemi]

//Torture is a great way of extracting the information you want to hear out of somebody.//

Yes, nobody is contesting this point. "Did you bed your sister the Queen?". The King wants to convict the Queen; he gets the "information" needed to effect that result.

In Ludwig's example the aim is to find out where the children are. The abductor stops the pain by revealing the location, which is (in this case) " the information you want to hear".

If you allow that torture was effective in the first case, then surely you should allow that it might be equally effective in the second

To repeat, this may not constitute a moral justification for torture, but there are more nuances in the issue than there might seem at first blush.