I don't know how you define "moral." I've said that I could envision a situation where torture would be the lesser of two evils. I don't consider it to be a good thing. I've said that as a civilized society, we have to have laws against torture. I support those laws. But this is simply a theoretical discussion over whether it's immoral to ever use torture. I guess it just depends on how you define it. I think you could envision a situation where torture would be the lesser of two evils.
Can a Christian support torture?
- Thread starter Christian Liberty
- Start date
-
- Tags
- torture
I don't know how you define "moral." I've said that I could envision a situation where torture would be the lesser of two evils. I don't consider it to be a good thing. I've said that as a civilized society, we have to have laws against torture. I support those laws. But this is simply a theoretical discussion over whether it's immoral to ever use torture. I guess it just depends on how you define it. I think you could envision a situation where torture would be the lesser of two evils.
Christian Liberty
Member
- Joined
- Feb 15, 2013
- Messages
- 19,707
Let's define torture...
It's not worse than abortion. Abortion is always done against an innocent person. These cases of torture were likely done against really bad people, though probably not always. (Not defending it, but I just don't think it's as bad as abortion) There also isn't a situation when abortion is done for a reason to protect others and save the lives of others, except for when the life of the mother is in danger, and I think that abortion should be legal in that particular situation.
William Tell
Member
- Joined
- Jan 3, 2014
- Messages
- 12,146
Torture Is Not a Partisan Issue . . . George Washington – Who Was Neither a Democrat or Republican – Forbid All Torture
Posted on June 3, 2009 by WashingtonsBlog
Those trying to make torture into a partisan issue should look to the founding father of our country: George Washington.
Washington was president before political parties even existed.
As Scott Horton wrote in 2007:
Posted on June 3, 2009 by WashingtonsBlog
Those trying to make torture into a partisan issue should look to the founding father of our country: George Washington.
Washington was president before political parties even existed.
As Scott Horton wrote in 2007:
“Should any American soldier be so base and infamous as to injure any [prisoner]. . . I do most earnestly enjoin you to bring him to such severe and exemplary punishment as the enormity of the crime may require. Should it extend to death itself, it will not be disproportional to its guilt at such a time and in such a cause… for by such conduct they bring shame, disgrace and ruin to themselves and their country.” – George Washington, charge to the Northern Expeditionary Force, Sept. 14, 1775…
After the battle [of Trenton, New Jersey on December 26, 1776.], the Continentals were preparing to run some of the British Empire’s German mercenaries through what they called the “gauntlet.” General Washington discovered this and intervened. As … explained in the Huffington Post, Washington then issued an order to his troops regarding prisoners of war:
“‘Treat them with humanity, and let them have no reason to complain of our copying the brutal example of the British Army in their treatment of our unfortunate brethren who have fallen into their hands,’ he wrote. In all respects the prisoners were to be treated no worse than American soldiers; and in some respects, better. Through this approach, Washington sought to shame his British adversaries, and to demonstrate the moral superiority of the American cause.”
In the worst of times – when foreign troops literally occupied American soil, torturing and murdering American patriots – and few believed that the cause of the revolution could ultimately win against the might of the British Empire, the first Commander in Chief of the U.S.A. set the precedent that this society is to lead even our enemies by “benignant sympathy of [our] example.” To win the war against the occupying army of Redcoats, the American revolutionaries needed right on their side.
And it worked. Many of the German Hessians in fact joined the revolutionaries in their fight against the English and stayed here in America to be free when the war was won.
http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2009...emocrat-or-republican-forbid-all-torture.html
After the battle [of Trenton, New Jersey on December 26, 1776.], the Continentals were preparing to run some of the British Empire’s German mercenaries through what they called the “gauntlet.” General Washington discovered this and intervened. As … explained in the Huffington Post, Washington then issued an order to his troops regarding prisoners of war:
“‘Treat them with humanity, and let them have no reason to complain of our copying the brutal example of the British Army in their treatment of our unfortunate brethren who have fallen into their hands,’ he wrote. In all respects the prisoners were to be treated no worse than American soldiers; and in some respects, better. Through this approach, Washington sought to shame his British adversaries, and to demonstrate the moral superiority of the American cause.”
In the worst of times – when foreign troops literally occupied American soil, torturing and murdering American patriots – and few believed that the cause of the revolution could ultimately win against the might of the British Empire, the first Commander in Chief of the U.S.A. set the precedent that this society is to lead even our enemies by “benignant sympathy of [our] example.” To win the war against the occupying army of Redcoats, the American revolutionaries needed right on their side.
And it worked. Many of the German Hessians in fact joined the revolutionaries in their fight against the English and stayed here in America to be free when the war was won.
http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2009...emocrat-or-republican-forbid-all-torture.html
Well, I could say the opposite about your position. You don't see any moral problem at all with the idea of people being tortured for all eternity, but you think that temporary torture for the purpose of getting information to stop terrorist attacks is the worst thing anyone can possible do.
Again, I support laws against torture, see torture as being immoral 99% of the time, and view it as being an evil choice even in the situations where it may have to be used. So I'm not taking the same position as the Fox News people are. I come down somewhere in the middle on this.
presence
Member
- Joined
- Dec 20, 2011
- Messages
- 19,330
Christian Liberty
Member
- Joined
- Feb 15, 2013
- Messages
- 19,707
I just don't think I have a right to tell God himself that he's being immoral. I don't like the idea of eternal torment either. But, God knows best. Unlike neocons, I utterly refuse to replace "God" with "The CIA" in that sentence.
presence
Member
- Joined
- Dec 20, 2011
- Messages
- 19,330
Shoving crunchy peanut butter up someone's ass to encourage them to give answers to questions they know nothing about?
I just don't see how you can say that torture is immoral in every single situation anymore than you can say that all violence is immoral in every single situation. If you say that in order to follow Jesus' teachings, you have to follow a policy of non violence and never use violence in any situation, then that's at least a consistent position. But it's not consistent to say that if someone is holding a gun to your child's head, it's not immoral to kill that person, but if someone kidnaps your kid, it's completely immoral to use force to get information about where your child is. That's a completely inconsistent position.
Christian Liberty
Member
- Joined
- Feb 15, 2013
- Messages
- 19,707
I didn't say it was worse than abortion. I said it was worse than "legal" abortion.
Not wanting the government to prohibit something is different than saying you'd actually do it. No, I'm not in favor of keeping abortion legal. But still...
Christian Liberty
Member
- Joined
- Feb 15, 2013
- Messages
- 19,707
Ron Paul is always against torture but not killing. Have you ever wondered why?
Torture is inherently barbaric and repulsive.
Agreed. If we are going to define "torture", I do not consider the situation or motive at all in the definition. When I refer to torture, I just mean deliberately causing another human being to suffer greatly, for ANY REASON. There are some potential reasons which would make torture an acceptable course of action. Saying, well if it was justified then it's not torture, defeats the purpose of the conversation.
I don't believe that position is consistent. I'm against killing unless it's done in self defense or defense of others. I'm against torture unless it's done in defense of others in extraordinary situations. To me, that seems like a more consistent position.
Last edited:
Christian Liberty
Member
- Joined
- Feb 15, 2013
- Messages
- 19,707
Why only extraordinary situations then? Also, why are you opposed to it being legal then? You wouldn't make self-defense immoral. You seem inconsistent to.
I would only do it in extraordinary situations because of the real possibility of torturing in innocent person, and I would have laws against it for the same reason.
Because in ordinary situations, there are plenty of other options short of torture that can be used in defense of others. When there are no other options, that would be an extraordinary situation.
Christian Liberty
Member
- Joined
- Feb 15, 2013
- Messages
- 19,707
By contrast its far more difficult to kill "the wrong guy" when someone has a gun pointed at you.
Even if the person is "guilty" though, torture is still a monstrous thing to do and I'm convinced that its immoral.
I don't think torture is ever justified as a punishment. It is only justified if it is the only option in the defense of others, or if an even greater amount of torture to even more people would occur if you fail to torture the one person. For any great evil you can think of, there is always an even greater evil. And if you pit the two up against each other in a choice, then the lesser of the evils is always justified, and in my opinion, moral (although still repulsive)
I believe that torture is always immoral if it's being done for the sake of vindictiveness, if it's being done simply for the sake of punishing people. I don't necessarily believe it's immoral in every single situation in which it's used to get information. An example of torture being done simply for the sake of vindictiveness was in Abu Graib, when we tortured people simply for the sake of humiliating them.
Similar threads
