This is a simple question that may seem rather obvious at first glance. It is however, far more complex than that which is somewhat evidenced by the continued debate on the subject in academic circles.

Now a few definitions.

Justifiable only means whether torture is the right thing to do. By this I don't mean whether torture is actually a morally right practice (it would be incredibly difficult to argue it is) but whether in any certain circumstance torture is the more correct action than not torturing someone.

Torture is not limited to the dictionary definition. While it does include pain either psychological or physical against the person's will, it also includes any loss of personal control against a person's will. For example, a 'truth serum' such as Sodium Pentothal is often cited as an interrogation method that can be used instead of torture. These drugs work by making it more difficult to use higher brain functions. Lying is a more complex action for the brain than telling the truth so it is more likely that elements of truth will be told when under the influence of this drug. Alcohol has similar effects. Besides this being very ineffective (which could be relevant in this discussion) it also forces a person to possibly say things against their conscious will. Therefore this too would constitute torture.


If anyone has a problem with those definitions then please post and we'll try to find definitions that will suit the discussion, however those definitions tend to lead to an effective discussion.

For a variety of reasons I won't be taking a large part in this topic. I have posted it and will throw in my opinions when the debate starts to stagnate or if it seems consensus has been reached in order to continue the debate. However, this debate id for all the people who visit this board who tend to get shut out of some debates as HB, Simplicity, Nevi, myself, MB and others tend to flood the debates. As much as I (and I'm sure the others) enjoy it it does tend to flood the voices of other users here. Well, this is your chance to get involved in a serious ethical and moral debate rather than the love and relationship topics that have begun to frequent this board.

So, discuss!

Very true. Though I'd love to get involved in this discussion, if you and the other board-members would rather I stayed out of this, then I'd be happy to sit back and watch the action instead, but I would like to add some thoughts and opinions later (unfortunately, right now I'm flooded with work, and I assume that you probably are too...?).

Great topic, btw. I hope this gets people talking.

And just to start things off, I voted that: No, torture is never justifiable (my definitions vary a little from yours, but I'll get into that later). Once I'm done losing the will to live due to essay deadlines, I'll come back and back up that statement with some more thoughts on this, but for now I'll have to hope that someone else will fight the good fight instead. ^_^

Once I'm done losing the will to live due to essay deadlines, I'll come back and back up that statement with some more thoughts on this

XD. Actually I'm writing my last essay today. Huzzah! But exams start in a month... :angry:

I perfectly understand your plite. This topic isn't going anywhere, and we - and with hope;others - can take it up then.

This topic wasn't specifically designed to keep up us out of it but was rather an opportunity for all the people that have their opinions and thoughts swallowed by our posting in the other serious topics a chance to get involved in a major ethical discussion. I planned to stay out until I was needed to clean the debate up or help remove it from stagnation.

There was no limit on anyone else, though I had hoped some discretion would be shown in trying maintain the aim of the topic.

However, there has been absolutely no interest from those users to take part as of yet. So I'm essentially throwing that idea out the window until someone decides to take interest. I must say I'm somewhat dissapointed after their seemed to be a strong group of people dissatisfied with being unable to discuss ideas such as abortion and homosexuality. Further, I thought this was a fairly easy, but engaging topic to discuss. Evidently, I was wrong.


Here's to hoping it will pick up.

Hey Raist--sorry, but I'm currently ill right now. But I won't leave without you getting something outta me. I am not exactly certain as to how to answer this topic. I would like to say 'no, it is never justifiable' but something keeps nagging at the back of my mind like, 'would you say this if something close and personal to you were at stake?'.

I'd have to say I honestly don't know, even if I don't like the fact that I can't seem to come to a certain answer on this just yet. It's not a situation I've ever seen myself in or doing.

If my cousin's life were at stake and someone was withholding information that could save his life, I would probably try verbal pleading for a while before breaking limbs. It's not a respectable answer, probably, but it's an honest one.

Well, this topic certainly didn't attract the attention I thought it might have done.

This might just be because people hadn't noticed it (though I doubt it) so this post will solve that problem if it exists.

I said earlier that I'd like some of the heavier and more prominent debaters here to stay out of this to give other people a chance to debate a fairly significant philisophical topic but this hasn't occurred so I leave this topic open to all who are keen. I'm looking at you Inuyatta, HB, MB and several others. You know who you are.

I encourage everyone to post in this topic, but to help out I'm going to post the initial point in this debate. With hope, this topic will see some action.

I'm going to make the assumption that the majority of posters here believe that torture is ok if it saves the lives for other people. For example, if a bomb is set to blow in New York City, threatening to kill a few hundred people, I'm sure most people here would agree that torturing the person who planted the bomb in order to save those people's lives would be justified. I may be wrong in this assumption, but I'll continue on with it anyway.

However, while at the face of this question the answer seems obvious it is not nearly so clear cut. I assume we are arguing from a utilitarian standpoint (that all actions are considered good or bad, justified or unjusitified according to the good they entail and not whether they are inherently good or bad, justified or unjustified). Now if we considdr this we can't simply leave our judgement at the base of present situation. Yes, torture in this immediate instance will surely entail greater good, the pervertion and loss of one's rights and free will for the lives of hundreds is certainly a good swap - or at least one could argue so. However, we also have to consider the wide ranging effects of this one action.

Let's assume that the perpetrator in question was an Iranian terrorist. We have gievn legitimate reasons for this person's torture. Iran excepts this. However, they now tell us that they then have the right to torture the 20 or so American prisoners they have with them because the information they have may save the lives or future lives of many Iranians. So, the first question is, are you willing to accept this?

Now some of you may very well be able to do so. Both sides, you might argue, have legitimate reasons for doing so. However, you now open the door to revenge torture and the perhaps more serious problems of slippage. In the French-Algerian war the French originally used torture for methods in which they believed it could save the lives of many innocent civilians. When the Algerians heard there was a distinct increase in tenacity noticed amongst their troops. As time progressed torture was no longer being used out of necessity but now for expediency. If torture is faster, why not use it? If torture is more efficient, why not use it? So suddenly the use of torture has greatly slipped out of the original boundaries. It has been well noted that this was one of the main reaons that the Algerians were able to win this war. Even further, the more torture was used the more the Algerians became prepared for it and suddenly not even expediency could be found in its use and it is likely that in many cases invaluable time was lost in its use. This brings me to my last point.

Torture has never been proven to be reasonably effective, nor efficient. While there are a variety of cases in which it has worked it is far from reliable. Some effective torture has quite literally taken days, far too long - one would think - to really require its use. If their is a reasonable risk that torture could be ineffective then surely there is no justification for its use?



Well, I'll leave it at that. I've left at least two reasonable holes in that argument to try and help this debate along.

So, go for it!