Obviously for ANY unpleasant thing you can research or concoct SOME situation where it seems reasonable, and may be justified from expediency and the greater good, or rejected from humanity and morality.
There are many such situations depicted in the popular TV drama show "24". However, the key thing to note about television drama shows is that they're MADE UP, and you can't adopt the morals that work in their universe into the real world without checking to see if the universe in the show is simplified or contrived -- which is the case for most fiction.
Living in a world where gung-ho heroes are the only ones to see the need to adopt extreme measures from necessity, makes for good, exciting fiction. But wanting it in the real world leads to being much much too eager to look for those situations when they don't really exist.
Normally, giving two reasons not to do something is a sign of a weak argument hedging against uncertainty. It normally indicates that the real reason is only one of them, or something else entirely, but the speaker is sufficiently unsure people would agree that they pile on different arguments in the case that some of them will stick.
However, this is a case where normally EITHER "doesn't work" OR "evil" is sufficient reason not to do it. And two wrongs typically do not make a right, REALLY ESPECIALLY do not make a right when the wrongs are both done by the same person, to the same person.
If you look at the history of torture, you'll see a pattern. Much (by no means all) is done by an authority that isn't interested in finding the most efficient methods, but rather a subset of methods that they can in some way justify to themselves as "not really torture" for some contrived reason.
I would like to think that even if it's carried out by people with a modicum of common sense knowledge, at least as much as possessed by an average citizen with five minutes thinking (eg. "people who are tortured say anything to make it stop, including confessing to things that sound good to you but are completely made up") then it's STILL wrong and STILL typically not useful. But if it's carried out only by people who blind themselves to those facts, then it's COMPLETELY AND UTTERLY AND OBVIOUSLY wrong and useless and evil. OK?
Hm, that's maybe true. Maybe I should be pushing the message "torturing people just because you want them to suffer is EVIL EVIL EVIL". But people SAY they want to do it for tangentially sane reasons, it makes sense to point out those reasons are bullshit.
Also, "causing permanent physical damage" is often a component of torture, either as a side-effect, or for its psychological value, or from tradition. But "not causing permanent physical damage" doesn't magically make something "not torture", it typically makes it "worse torture".
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2010-11-05 02:41 pm (UTC)There are many such situations depicted in the popular TV drama show "24". However, the key thing to note about television drama shows is that they're MADE UP, and you can't adopt the morals that work in their universe into the real world without checking to see if the universe in the show is simplified or contrived -- which is the case for most fiction.
Living in a world where gung-ho heroes are the only ones to see the need to adopt extreme measures from necessity, makes for good, exciting fiction. But wanting it in the real world leads to being much much too eager to look for those situations when they don't really exist.
Normally, giving two reasons not to do something is a sign of a weak argument hedging against uncertainty. It normally indicates that the real reason is only one of them, or something else entirely, but the speaker is sufficiently unsure people would agree that they pile on different arguments in the case that some of them will stick.
However, this is a case where normally EITHER "doesn't work" OR "evil" is sufficient reason not to do it. And two wrongs typically do not make a right, REALLY ESPECIALLY do not make a right when the wrongs are both done by the same person, to the same person.
If you look at the history of torture, you'll see a pattern. Much (by no means all) is done by an authority that isn't interested in finding the most efficient methods, but rather a subset of methods that they can in some way justify to themselves as "not really torture" for some contrived reason.
I would like to think that even if it's carried out by people with a modicum of common sense knowledge, at least as much as possessed by an average citizen with five minutes thinking (eg. "people who are tortured say anything to make it stop, including confessing to things that sound good to you but are completely made up") then it's STILL wrong and STILL typically not useful. But if it's carried out only by people who blind themselves to those facts, then it's COMPLETELY AND UTTERLY AND OBVIOUSLY wrong and useless and evil. OK?
no subject
Date: 2010-11-05 11:30 pm (UTC)Rather, torture is the desired result in and of itself: we can do this, because we can. It is a demonstration of power.
no subject
Date: 2010-11-06 11:50 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-11-05 03:32 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-11-08 11:55 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-11-09 09:15 pm (UTC)