Can a Christian support torture?

[presence]

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.

Can we at least agree that rectal infusions of extra chunky skippy is not even applicable in extraordinary situations? Like... even for the missing children and such.

 

[Brett85]

Can we at least agree that rectal infusions of extra chunky skippy is not even applicable in extraordinary situations? Like... even for the missing children and such.

Yeah, I don't really think that would be any more successful in getting information than less intrusive means anyway. I've also said that I'm opposed to the CIA torture program and what happened. I simply brought up a theoretical argument and disagreed with the idea that using torture is immoral in every single situation.

 

[presence]

glad to be back on the liberty coalition path

 

[Crashland]

Suppose you are captured by some really sick evil people in some god-forsaken part of the earth, and they want to mess with your head. They put you in front of 2 people and tell you that if you torture person A, then they will let person B go free and they will let you go free, but if you do not torture person A, then they will torture both person A and B and will keep you captive. Let's say the first few times they give you this choice with fresh people each time, you manage to keep your "moral" high ground and you refuse to torture person A. But every time you watch as they torture both people. Do you not think that it would be the correct choice at least one time, to torture person A in order to see if they really do let you and person B go, or if any kind of better outcome can be achieved than what keeps happening?

It's a ridiculous hypothetical, but if you are going to claim that it is a black-and-white issue and that torture is ALWAYS immoral, all I have to do is provide ONE counter-example where it would not be the case, in order to invalidate your claim.

 

[euphemia]

As I said before, I would not put myself in a position that would force me to personally be cruel to a person or animal. I think the government is an entity that has limited license to do things that an individual would not be allowed to do. This is why the government may take a life after due process, as an act of justice. I would not be allowed to independently decide whether that same person deserves to live or die. It is a justice issue. I am not called to exact justice, although I am called to love justice and mercy.

It's a conflict in me. I am not the government and the government is not me. We represent each other in some cases, but we are not the same.

 

[Christian Liberty]

Suppose you are captured by some really sick evil people in some god-forsaken part of the earth, and they want to mess with you head. They put you in front of 2 people and tell you that if you torture person A, then they will let person B go free and they will let you go free, but if you do not torture person A, then they will torture both person A and B and will keep you captive. Let's say the first few times they give you this choice with fresh people each time, you manage to keep your "moral" high ground and you refuse to torture person A. But every time you watch as they torture both people. Do you not think that it would be the correct choice at least one time, to torture person A in order to see if they really do let you and person B go, or if any kind of better outcome can be achieved than what keeps happening?

It's a ridiculous hypothetical, but if you are going to claim that it is a black-and-white issue and that torture is ALWAYS immoral, all I have to do is provide ONE counter-example where it would not be the case, in order to invalidate your claim.

I wouldn't do it, at least not on moral principle. Would I snap? Maybe. But it would be wrong.

As I said before, I would not put myself in a position that would force me to personally be cruel to a person or animal. I think the government is an entity that has limited license to do things that an individual would not be allowed to do. This is why the government may take a life after due process, as an act of justice. I would not be allowed to independently decide whether that same person deserves to live or die. It is a justice issue. I am not called to exact justice, although I am called to love justice and mercy.

It's a conflict in me. I am not the government and the government is not me. We represent each other in some cases, but we are not the same.

I suppose this is where minarchists and ancaps break. But, even for minarchists, I do not see how torture has anything to do with upholding justice.

 

[Brett85]

I suppose this is where minarchists and ancaps break. But, even for minarchists, I do not see how torture has anything to do with upholding justice.

I haven't seen anyone argue that torture should be institutionalized in government by having it be legal and giving the CIA free reign to just do whatever they want to prisoners. A few of us have just argued that your pure idealism when it comes to the morality of some of these issues isn't realistic in the real world.

 

[Crashland]

I wouldn't do it, at least not on moral principle. Would I snap? Maybe. But it would be wrong.

Interesting. We just have a plain old disagreement then. I'll grant that your position is consistent, unless TC can think up an even more twisted scenario that might make you reconsider.

 

[Christian Liberty]

I haven't seen anyone argue that torture should be institutionalized in government by having it be legal and giving the CIA free reign to just do whatever they want to prisoners. A few of us have just argued that your pure idealism when it comes to the morality of some of these issues isn't realistic in the real world.

This thread wasn't motivated by anyone on this website...

 

[Christian Liberty]

Laurence Vance:

http://archive.lewrockwell.com/vance/vance172.html

 

[Occam's Banana]

I have several friends who have responded to the whole CIA torture bit, not by denying that torture occurred, but by saying "torture is justified if it saves American lives."

Ask them if "torture of Americans is justified if it saves non-American lives" ... or perhaps more to the point, ask them if "torture of Christian Americans is justified if it saves non-American Muslim lives" ...

ETA: Then sit back and watch them twitch and splutter about how "THAT'S DIFFERENT!!" ...

 

[Christian Liberty]

Ask them if "torture of Americans is justified if it saves non-American lives" ... or perhaps more to the point, ask them if "torture of Christian Americans is justified if it saves non-American Muslim lives" ...

These people are more or less nationalists, and they'd say that since Israel was nationalistic, Romans 13 is in the Bible, and there's nothing SPECIFIC in the Bible that tells them not to be nationalists, they have a moral right to be. Of course, I think they expect that Middle Eastern countries will be nationalistic to, even if they don't like it.

Keep in mind that most of these debates are more or less, at least in theory, occurring under Biblical parameters, since I'm in a mostly Christian environment ATM.

I really didn't want to debate them, for what it was worth. I got dragged into one and I was pretty emotional, which probably lost me some respect. To me this really just strikes me as being as simple as "torture is barbaric and repulsive, either you know it when you see it or you don't." There are numerous Biblical principles that can fairly easily be applied to the situation, but nothing that manipulation won't get you out of if you really want to justify torture, doubly so if you border on the sociopathic...

 

[otherone]

The least evil choice IS the moral choice. I think it is in fact, moral. But again, we're just arguing about words.

The internet is one big argument about words.

Choosing evil is never moral. Your government has deceived you.
With practice, evil is regarded as good.
This is why war will always be tolerated.

 

[otherone]

There are numerous Biblical principles that can fairly easily be applied to the situation, but nothing that manipulation won't get you out of if you really want to justify torture, doubly so if you border on the sociopathic...

No one can serve two masters:

“The legal and philosophic aspects of obedience are of enormous import, but they say very little about how most people behave in concrete situations. I set up a simple experiment at Yale University to test how much pain an ordinary citizen would inflict on another person simply because he was ordered to by an experimental scientist. Stark authority was pitted against the subjects’ [participants’] strongest moral imperatives against hurting others, and, with the subjects’ [participants’] ears ringing with the screams of the victims, authority won more often than not. The extreme willingness of adults to go to almost any lengths on the command of an authority constitutes the chief finding of the study and the fact most urgently demanding explanation.”


-Stanley Milgram

 

[pcosmar]

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.

Torture in defense?

How is torture ever defensive?
It is known to be a piss poor tool for intelligence gathering,, both ineffective and inaccurate.

It serves no purpose but the pleasure of the practitioner.

 

[Brett85]

Torture in defense?

How is torture ever defensive?
It is known to be a piss poor tool for intelligence gathering,, both ineffective and inaccurate.

It serves no purpose but the pleasure of the practitioner.

Consider the example that I've brought up several times in this thread, about a man using torture using against someone who knows where his kid is that's been kidnapped. As an even more extreme example, look at the example that Crashland gave.

 

[euphemia]

Government forces citizens to be complicit in everything they do. If it could stick to its own responsibilities and do what it is in place to do, we might not be having these discussions. It is because we have an intrusive govenrment, forcing us by taxation to participate in things we find morally repulsive. I pay for abortion. I pay for injustice. I pay for unnecessary war.

I'm not supporting any of that. I am forced to participate via taxation.

 

[mosquitobite]

Ron Paul is always against torture but not killing. Have you ever wondered why?

Torture is inherently barbaric and repulsive.

Agree. A true, saved Christian would not fear death. (I honestly DO NOT!)

There are far worse things than death!

If you were to ask me "would you rather?" and detail the torture outlined in this report or death. I know exactly which one I'd choose.

 

[presence]

Consider the example that I've brought up several times in this thread, about a man using torture using against someone who knows where his kid is that's been kidnapped. As an even more extreme example, look at the example that Crashland gave.

1) you're making the assumption that you have the guilty party.
2) you're making the assumption that this party has knowledge that you certainly cannot authoritively presume he has.
3) you're making assumptions about the effectiveness of torture to get this information assuming you have the right party and assuming the party even has the info you want.
4) you're making the assumption that by torturing you're going to get at the truth of the matter faster than you otherwise could by less despotic investigative means; which now have less resources.
5) you're making the assumption that confession reveiled under torture will be true and won't send you off on wild goose chase.
6) you're making the assumption that the blowback induced by the torture, including the rammifications of the psychological impact on the torturer, won't be worse than the missing child at hand.
7) you're assuming that torturing will produce a confession faster than bargaining with your captive.

= ASS^7

Just because it feels good to beat up the guy that you think has info on your missing child doesn't make it your duty.

 

[Brett85]

You can make up a hypothetical scenario where torture clearly wouldn't be wrong, is all I'm saying. Just look at the example Crashland gave. If you're going to say that torture is always wrong, I don't see why you wouldn't say that violence is always wrong. Violence is torture; when you inflict physical pain on someone, you're torturing them. It doesn't matter the circumstances. If someone jumps on you and starts hitting you, and you start hitting that person back and enacting physical pain on them, that's torture. The definition of torture is inflicting pain on someone.