# Could you torture someone



## olschool (Sep 3, 2011)

he has the information and you know it-- 10 miilion people are gonna die unless u get that information within the next hour--- could you torture him to get wat you need?If you dont, 10 million people will die .


----------



## ratbag (Aug 2, 2009)

The thought of that makes me cringe.


----------



## 0lly (Aug 3, 2011)

No. I don't even like hurting insects and worms. I poured salt on a slug last year and felt genuine remorse as it shrivelled up.


----------



## shadowmask (Jun 22, 2009)

In that scenario, of course.


----------



## Innamorata (Sep 20, 2011)

Depends how I did it. I hate gore, but I could beat someone up.


----------



## leave me alone (Apr 1, 2011)

I voted no, but that was before i read op. In that scenario, i would do whatever it took.


----------



## Double Indemnity (Aug 15, 2011)

In your scenario, absolutely. I'd be like Joe Pesci in Casino.


----------



## straightarrows (Jun 18, 2010)

olschool said:


> he has the information and you know it-- 10 miilion people are gonna die unless u get that information within the next hour--- could you torture him to get wat you need?If you dont, 10 million people will die .


it seems u r talking about Prisoners in *Guantanamo *bay :no:no


----------



## Marlon (Jun 27, 2011)

leave me alone said:


> I voted no, but that was before i read op. In that scenario, i would do whatever it took.


lol same, otherwise i would have voted yes

:whip


----------



## whiterabbit (Jan 20, 2006)

No I couldn't. Sorry, ten million people. 

Blah blah blah.


----------



## olschool (Sep 3, 2011)

Double Indemnity said:


> In your scenario, absolutely. I'd be like Joe Pesci in Casino.


lmfao :hahathat was funny--- I can just picture usayin listen,,i got your head in a frickin vice ,dont make me do this


----------



## successful (Mar 21, 2009)

Depends on if & how much I'm getting paid.
If I'm not getting paid to get the info..Not a single **** will be given about the 10 million people or him.

If I'm getting paid a good amount, I will torture the hell out of him lol


----------



## leave me alone (Apr 1, 2011)

Yeah of course. It is like when someone is beating you on the street and random people just watch and pass by without doing a single thing.


----------



## Paul (Sep 26, 2005)

Torture has been demonstrated ineffective in such scenarios. Torture him and all you'll do is harden his resolve and get lies. If ten million lives are at stake, I'm going to take a smarter approach and try to bribe/manipulate him with charm and trickery.


----------



## olschool (Sep 3, 2011)

Hoth said:


> Torture has been demonstrated ineffective in such scenarios. Torture him and all you'll do is harden his resolve and get lies. If ten million lives are at stake, I'm going to take a smarter approach and try to bribe/manipulate him with charm and trickery.


welll yeah u go ahead and do that- remember you only got one hour- and ur sitting there trying to briibe and outhink him. ill start pullin toenails out one by one he gives me info- ill have somone check it out- if hes lieing- il start on the fingernails - tortuter can be ver ffective


----------



## James_Russell (Aug 26, 2011)

No. I give in to guilt way too easily. Even when I say something that upsets somebody I apologise immediately, even if I stand by what I said.


----------



## s0dy (May 23, 2011)

What if you can torture him but don't know effective torture techniques?
That could be a severe problem.
And as someone said, how much are they paying? If no pay, I'll presume I am one of the 10 million and that that is my incentive. 
Hey, it's 10 million people, 1€ each of them and I would have 10M€, I'm not asking much am I?
For free? Unless I'm one of the 10 million, no...*bleep* them, 1€ or 2€ each of them and I'm there, despite what it might sound like, I think I'm being nice, reasonable and cheap.

Donation funded torture :lol
Still, I have two problems:
1- No idea if my torture techniques would be effective, much less in a one hour time limit.
2- Due to unforeseen "difficulties" I would probably end up killing the guy before getting the info.


----------



## odd_one_out (Aug 22, 2006)

I suspect I'd find it physiologically impossible.


----------



## fredbloggs02 (Dec 14, 2009)

I don't know what I'd do. I could imagine myself the courageous sort sticking to my philosophy I feel now, I don't feel strong enough about 10,000,000 nameless faces to save them. I don't know how much sympathy I'd feel for the victim were I to enact this torture on him abstractly either. Having said that, there are pungent philosophies that do interest me in which the individual inflicts horrors upon himself(more potent horrors supposedly) than the instant could muster thus allowing him to stick to his ideals should he embrace them. Philosophies that believe the slow torment resonates more penetrating than an instant shock, and holds someone in place before the instant. It troubles me to think that a truly unegoistic individual who felt strongly to hold to aesthetic ideals should probably accept such a philosophy unless he cared more to see himself beside his ideas.

How true is this notion of infinite pain I often wonder?.... 

Is it a tool of the state to suppose our need for protection from it? If not, why does torture rarely work to a confession? I think pain transfigures things and is perhaps a single advantage we have over animals. The implied pain rather than a straightforward jab.. Whenever I've suffered inconceivable pain, call me superficial, eventually after struggling to escape it I will convince myself it diddn't happen, the tears soften then fade away and the world turns to a streak of paint and lights, as surreal as anything crushing my heart. A weight sustains it there. The weight is the truly excrutiating thing to carry, when you have the sense for pain, the scar left behind aches. I wonder if physical pain is the same, I think it must be. The subject would faint or switch off, I imagine. We tend to imagine the body dominating the mind in such instances don't we.

I wonder if most people, given the choice would forfeit the immediate pain and suffer something worse for that.

Perhaps I could torture the man knowing the first instant agony having passed never extended into the next. I've heard in films an executioner instructed to pause between lashes suggesting the permeation of physical pain less excrutiating than a fresh stroke of the whip. What a person loses after passing such an endurance constantly is another interesting question.


----------



## Keith (Aug 30, 2008)

i voted no before i read the OP lol. It wouldn't be easy for me but i'd rather have the blood of one on my hands over 10 million.I couldn't kill someone in that scenario though.


----------



## Paul (Sep 26, 2005)

olschool said:


> tortuter can be ver ffective


Do you have any evidence to cite, or are you just making that up?


----------



## caflme (Jun 7, 2009)

Sorry to the 10 mill... but it's just not happening.


----------



## caflme (Jun 7, 2009)

Whether one or millions... if the millions died... that would be on him.... if he died... that would be on me... I don't believe in torture or the death penalty.


----------



## Resonance (Feb 11, 2010)

olschool said:


> welll yeah u go ahead and do that- remember you only got one hour- and ur sitting there trying to briibe and outhink him. ill start pullin toenails out one by one he gives me info- ill have somone check it out- if hes lieing- il start on the fingernails - tortuter can be ver ffective


How are you gonna check on if what he says is true if you only have an hour?


----------



## Resonance (Feb 11, 2010)

And no, torture is morally despicable, I'd let 10 billion die before torturing one.

That said it would be different if instead of 10 million randoms it were one person I care about deeply.


----------



## Dark Alchemist (Jul 10, 2011)

Depends on what the person did. For instance I'd have no issue beating up a rapist or child molester.


----------



## Dark Alchemist (Jul 10, 2011)

Resonance said:


> And no, torture is morally despicable, I'd let *10 billion die* before torturing one.


Yo do realize that means you'd let everyone on the planet die, including everyone you knew, plus you and the guy?



> That said it would be different if instead of 10 million randoms it were one person I care about deeply.


Interesting logic there.


----------



## Resonance (Feb 11, 2010)

Dark Alchemist said:


> Yo do realize that means you'd let everyone on the planet die, including everyone you knew, plus you and the guy?


What, even using American billions? I thought that by European billions (that is, a million million) there were like 7 billion or so people on the planet, so if a US billion is 100,000,000,000 there should be more than 10 billion by that measure, but whatevs, I'd let the entire human race die out rather than torture someone because then neither me nor anyone I know will be suffering.



> Interesting logic there.


Hypocrisy, yes. There are a limited number of occasions when I will defy my own moral dogma, and threatening someone I care about is one of those. Of course, all the millions I allow to die also have people they care about, but I'm not the moral arbiter of their lives, only my own.


----------



## shadowmask (Jun 22, 2009)

A lot of the time, I sit and wonder whether I'm truly a selfish, uncaring person, but then I read some of the replies in here and realize that I'm far from it.


----------



## Resonance (Feb 11, 2010)

shadowmask said:


> A lot of the time, I sit and wonder whether I'm truly a selfish, uncaring person, but then I read some of the replies in here and realize that I'm far from it.


Does your feeling of moral superiority derive from being pro-torture, or anti?


----------



## olschool (Sep 3, 2011)

Resonance said:


> How are you gonna check on if what he says is true if you only have an hour?


well assuming i have every resource that the us has to offer like the c.i.a. and the secret service and the f.b.i. at my disposal it should be pretty easy with todays technology


----------



## ohgodits2014 (Mar 18, 2011)

If I agreed to torture someone, it wouldn't be because I was responsible for the lives of 10 million people.



> i have every resource that the us has to offer like the c.i.a. and the secret service and the f.b.i. at my disposal it should be pretty easy with todays technology


...then why on earth would they even need YOU to do the torturing? Sounds like you just want to pretend to have a noble motive to do something despicable when really you would do it even when nothing is at stake (i.e., for your personal enjoyment).


----------



## olschool (Sep 3, 2011)

Hoth said:


> Do you have any evidence to cite, or are you just making that up?


look at history,,, If i waterboarded you for 5 mins i guarantee u would give me your bank account number


----------



## millenniumman75 (Feb 4, 2005)

If this situation meant saving the lives of millions, then yes. It would have to depend on the situation.


----------



## cafune (Jan 11, 2011)

The thought makes me cringe but if torture would actually help save those people, sure.

But to be honest, I don't really think it'd help much. It just doesn't seem like that kind of person would crack under torture. And it seems pretty unreliable. And if it became personal, then I think you'd torture them just cause you wanted to cause them pain more so than actually finding the information you need. Either way, it doesn't seem very effective. But that just means that I wouldn't know what to do to save those people in that situation... :?


----------



## olschool (Sep 3, 2011)

Live Laugh Love said:


> The thought makes me cringe but if torture would actually help save those people, sure.
> 
> But to be honest, I don't really think it'd help much. It just doesn't seem like that kind of person would crack under torture. And it seems pretty unreliable. And if it became personal, then I think you'd torture them just cause you wanted to cause them pain more so than actually finding the information you need. Either way, it doesn't seem very effective. But that just means that I wouldn't know what to do to save those people in that situation... :?


 i would definitlely know


----------



## cafune (Jan 11, 2011)

olschool said:


> i would definitlely know


Well, I guess in a completely hypothetical situation, where you'd definitely know, and that person was 100% guilty, and there was no margin for error, yes I could. I don't think I could get myself to care about the comfort of such a person anyways.

Ermmm, actually I just thought about what I'd said, and I honestly don't know if _I_ could do that. To hear their screams of anguish... I don't think I could handle that being on my head. I just don't know.


----------



## olschool (Sep 3, 2011)

Live Laugh Love said:


> Well, I guess in a completely hypothetical situation, where you'd definitely know, and that person was 100% guilty, and there was no margin for error, yes I could. I don't think I could get myself to care about the comfort of such a person anyways.
> 
> Ermmm, actually I just thought about what I'd said, and I honestly don't know if _I_ could do that. To hear their screams of anguish... I don't think I could handle that being on my head. I just don't know.


 hopefully they will tell you what you need to know before you start tortutring -- but most people still need incentive


----------



## shadowmask (Jun 22, 2009)

Resonance said:


> Does your feeling of moral superiority derive from being pro-torture, or anti?


No, in this case, it's derived from the fact that I would be willing to carry a possible burden of guilt and endure discomfort in order to spare ten million people their lives, and a countless number of their loved ones the grief of loss. I don't consider myself pro or anti torture, I would determine it on a case-by-case basis. I'm able to do that because I don't adhere to a rigid moral code, which is why I so often ponder my own moral positions and nature. I wondered about it after reading your response, and I'll wonder about it tomorrow, and the day after. Now, what is your moral code derived from?


----------



## Matomi (Sep 4, 2011)

Yes.


----------



## fredbloggs02 (Dec 14, 2009)

People care for who dies. People care for their suffering. People care for their freedom to choose themselves. As an individual I couldn't choose everything. So perhaps the only respect I have it in my power show them is to choose nothing but that requires I torture the victim for the information and let the people die or I'd have chosen myself as opposed to an objective morality. 

When I boil a lobster is it objective my anthropomorphizing the lobster as a reflex? Yet, closing my eyes I don't hear his writhing and so he feels no pain. I don't sense what he senses, I imagine his sense as I imagine it before I've ever suffered what he's suffered. The water only scorches him at all because I listen to my senses more so than I should. I realise there is no right in condemning a man with such a nervous system, or one with such a conscience for people he's never before seen when he tortures someone for them. The latter takes positive action, the former awaits judgement through his senses. Both are cowards, because they both act in accordance with themselves, but suppose there were a man who knew no pain as great as that inflicted by another, inflicted the pain and then chose idealistically. His pain is the idealists pain for negating himself and choosing noone. To negate conscience through suffering is the only true objectivity from an impartial perspective regardless of which you favour. To save noone. To inflict torture with conscience and then choose the individual and allow the masses to perish is perhaps a consolation to the family who saw him "getting away with murder." To choose neither consoles the families more so than apathy. To know that a man chose to kill himself before he killed their loved ones. The man with the sympathy for the individual to uphold a true objective morality should kill the masses and then torture the victim for the information after the bomb went off. The truly moral individual always kills someone and always suffers before he discovers the coveted secrets of objectivity? He knows himself innocent through torture and murder but satisfies people's caring less for life than he does, provided that thought doesn't console him over what he did, we'll let him keep it. The individual, knowing he saved noone and avoided nothing, he waves the flag of honor to himself, certainly more so than the man who trusted his weak stomach, less selfish, and more of an objective authority to trust if not approve. What separates these two instances from a violent sex party save the furnishings otherwise? If I dispensed with those, what remains with me except a willing or indifferent partner? Lol, puzzling this through. I know people who irritate me are those who simply imagine a torturer callous or apathy infinitely virtuous, people like myself lol.

Why should people get away with their ideal when people are dead? The true tenure of morality is weight and is perhaps also contrary to life.


----------



## Cat Montgomery (Jul 31, 2011)

If he was a bad guy in some way, I would find it a lot easier, but considering the circumstances, I would force myself to get the information no matter how hard it would be to torture an innocent man.


----------



## olschool (Sep 3, 2011)

you know what , im so proud of the people who siad yes they could torture a person to save 10 million lives- i get if some of you cant do it but there has to be someone out there that can do this because belive me this scenario can turn very real very quick


----------



## Dark Alchemist (Jul 10, 2011)

Resonance said:


> What, even using American billions? I thought that by European billions (that is, a million million) there were like 7 billion or so people on the planet, so if a US billion is 100,000,000,000 there should be more than 10 billion by that measure, but whatevs, I'd let the entire human race die out rather than torture someone because then neither me nor anyone I know will be suffering.


What is an "American billion?" A billion is a billion.

My point was there arent 10 billion people in the world.

So you have no qualms about letting countless people die. Good to know.


----------



## JimmyDeansRetartedCousin (Nov 28, 2009)

If the money was right!

Think about it, ten bucks a head, 160 million euros/pounds/dollars gross takings. I'm not saying I would enjoy it, but ****, I could certainly come to the conclusion that it was a good idea.


----------



## Resonance (Feb 11, 2010)

Dark Alchemist said:


> What is an "American billion?" A billion is a billion.
> 
> My point was there arent 10 billion people in the world.
> 
> So you have no qualms about letting countless people die. Good to know.


*Billion* may refer to:
In *numbers*:


Long and short scales
1,000,000,000 (number), one thousand million, 109, in the _short scale_
1,000,000,000,000 (number), one million million, 1012, in the _long scale_
For most of the 19th and 20th centuries, the United Kingdom uniformly used the long scale,[3] while the United States of America used the short scale,[3] so that usage of the two systems was often referred to as _British_ and _American_ respectively.
And I didn't say anything about having no qualms about letting millions of people die, only that I'd rather allow that to happen than have someone tortured.


----------



## Resonance (Feb 11, 2010)

shadowmask said:


> No, in this case, it's derived from the fact that I would be willing to carry a possible burden of guilt and endure discomfort in order to spare ten million people their lives, and a countless number of their loved ones the grief of loss. I don't consider myself pro or anti torture, I would determine it on a case-by-case basis. I'm able to do that because I don't adhere to a rigid moral code, which is why I so often ponder my own moral positions and nature. I wondered about it after reading your response, and I'll wonder about it tomorrow, and the day after. Now, what is your moral code derived from?


So you are pro-torture then. To say "I decide on a case-by-case basis" is a silly get-out, it's like saying you are pro-freedom of speech but want to go arrest some people for saying something racist because it was offensive. You are never tempted to do something evil, like torture a human being, except in extraordinary circumstances, it is not something you would do just for fun unless you were mentally ill - _of course _the stakes are going to be high, and I find it fascinating that you think yourself a more caring person than I because you could wrench out a persons tooth, watch their blood spurt all over your hands and hear them scream in tortured agony, and then go on to pull out another one til they tell you what they want to hear - assuming they are even guility, which we must assume here, but practically one can never know.

Where do you stop? Is it OK to forcibly catherterise someone and pump acid into their bladder? What about gouging out an eye with a hot scalpel of some kind, are you caring enough to do that?

My moral code is derived from a whole series of precepts I have arrived at through my own experience of the world.


----------



## artandis (Jun 5, 2011)

olschool said:


> look at history,,, If i waterboarded you for 5 mins i guarantee u would give me your bank account number


Actually, information acquired under torture is really faulty. Yeah people might confess to a crime, but if they actually DIDN'T do anything they might confess anyways. People will say anything to stop pain, lying included.


----------



## shadowmask (Jun 22, 2009)

^Pigeonhole me into the pro-torture camp then, if it makes you feel better. Keep in mind, you're in there with me. And yes, I would be willing to do the things you mentioned, because I feel that saving these ten million lives and the network they are a part of is more important than the torment of myself and of and this man who's witholding info that could prevent the situation in the first place. But, please, spare me the hypotheticals. It's a game we could play all day. Here's one for you: would you murder someone in order to prevent your girlfriend from being raped and suffering irreparable emotional damage? How about her own death?


----------



## Resonance (Feb 11, 2010)

shadowmask said:


> Here's one for you: would you murder someone in order to prevent your girlfriend from being raped and suffering irreparable emotional damage?


Yes, without hesitation. This is an entirely different scenario to an anonymous _n_ value of people I don't know, and one cannot run a government based on liberalism on such emotional feelings either so I don't entirely see the relevance. Furthermore killing is a whole different matter than torture.


----------



## Resonance (Feb 11, 2010)

shadowmask said:


> ^Pigeonhole me into the pro-torture camp then, if it makes you feel better. Keep in mind, *you're in there with me. *


Hmm, I suppose I am, by my own logic in this thread. That's fascinating, it is funny how irrational and illogical and inconsistent humans are in their moral beliefs.

I would point out that all of this is hugely hypothetical and merely words on the internet, I don't think anybody knows how they would truly react given the situation in the OP.


----------



## olschool (Sep 3, 2011)

artandis said:


> Actually, information acquired under torture is really faulty. Yeah people might confess to a crime, but if they actually DIDN'T do anything they might confess anyways. People will say anything to stop pain, lying included.


 thats why u have to check the info out-- assuming u have endless resources at your disposal it shoudnt be a problem-- if the info is wrng u start tortturing again-- if its right- you gotta kill th poor guy unless u want another tortutre scandal on your hands--- it sucks people but it has to be done


----------



## shadowmask (Jun 22, 2009)

Resonance said:


> Yes, without hesitation. This is an entirely different scenario to an anonymous _n_ value of people I don't know, and one cannot run a government based on liberalism on such emotional feelings either so I don't entirely see the relevance. Furthermore killing is a whole different matter than torture.


So you don't consider murder an immoral act? At least in comparison to torture? Or are you saying that you're willing to break your own moral code when there's a certain impetus involved?


----------



## shadowmask (Jun 22, 2009)

Resonance said:


> Hmm, I suppose I am, by my own logic in this thread. That's fascinating, it is funny how irrational and illogical and inconsistent humans are in their moral beliefs.
> 
> I would point out that all of this is hugely hypothetical and merely words on the internet, I don't think anybody knows how they would truly react given the situation in the OP.


I agree. Morality is such a subjective, fluid, and emotional thing that trying to apply logic to it and debate from that position is largely pointless.


----------



## Resonance (Feb 11, 2010)

shadowmask said:


> So you don't consider murder an immoral act? At least in comparison to torture? Or are you saying that you're willing to break your own moral code when there's a certain impetus involved?


I don't think it's fair to paint morality as a scale and say that one thing is moral or not in compraison to another, at least this is not how I view things. When the impetus is protecting someone I care about then I will do more or less anything I am capable of, assuming a sufficiently dire level of threat etc, but I think in the case of protecting an innocent murder (or rather, killing) is generally acceptable, so I wouldn't be in breach of my own morals to kill one aggressor to protect someone else.

I consider murder greatly immoral yes, but I think it's immorality is subjective in that there are times, such as self-defence, if you are a soldier in a war, to protect someone else etc that killing a human being is acceptable. Killing someone, assuming it happens quickly, isn't really causing them much if any suffering, the suffering falls onto their family and friends and this is tragic and what makes killing so immoral but under certain circumstances I find it tolerable.

Torture is different, in that I think it is _never_ acceptible and that even when tempted by grave threats we should strive to solve these threats through other means even when this is not practical, rather than lower ourselves to the level of inflicting agony on one another. Of course, if 10 million people are killed, which is an unreasonable proposition for a single terrorist act but let's go with it, then that's a lot of grieving relatives suffering greatly and a presumably a lot of injured who weren't killed in the attack (or whatever) who are physically suffering. In an individual and unique case such as this, purely theoretical as it is, I can see how people often jump to say that torture is justified.

My problem with this, besides personally finding the act of purposefully striving to inflict maximum agony on another living creature, and those who indulge in such an act repulsive, however necessary it might be, is that one action tends to lead to others. Say torture prevents this attack and then there is another threat in which, say, 300 lives are at stake and we torture someone again and foil that too. With this track record we have to decide at what point we stop - what if it's only one life? What if it isn't a life, what if it's solving some other sort of crime? Rape and paedophilia are, if anything, more disgusting than murder, so we could soon find ourselves torturing rapists and paedophiles for information. When torture becomes this widespread, as I fear it would if it were openly condoned and practiced widely/publicly, I worry it would spread itself further and we might start using it to _determine_ guilt, rather than find information to prevent bad things happening. Once you allow in a little barbarism I think it is wont to eat away at the foundations of a civilisation and eventually you have someone accusing someone else of stealing something and the state puts them to the torture to see where they might be hiding it.

All of this doesn't even consider the fact that one can never be 100% sure of guilt, so I feel that also the percentage as to how sure we were of a person's guilt before it becomes OK to torture them would drop the more we used torture. What if you have a 100 people, there is a 100% chance that one of them knows where a bomb is that threatens the lives of these 10 million people, but this chance is divided equally between them so each individual person only has a 1% chance of being the guilty party - is it then acceptable to torture someone - a hundred someones, on a 1% chance they might be guilty?


----------



## odd_one_out (Aug 22, 2006)

I'd like to have seen this question made harder and more specific for people. I love throwing such ones at my friend. I'd also specify the techniques people would have to use.


----------



## Misanthropic79 (May 6, 2011)

I'm misanthropic (obviously) so unless someone I love is in danger I wouldn't put the screws to someone. 10 million unknown faceless people are not my problem. But.............

swap 10 million people for puppies (or any other defenseless animals that aren't people) and I would torture the f--k outta anyone and enjoy it.


----------



## WalkingDisaster (Nov 27, 2010)

I can't quite believe so many people would be so quick to let 10 million die for one single person. Or that people would rather torture for money than to save lives.

Thanks guys, you just made me lose even more faith in humanity.


----------



## Choci Loni (May 12, 2011)

Personally I wouldn't be able to if i were at my senses. Whether it's moral to do so is another question. Consequence ethics states that even the most vile acts such as murder or torture as immoral in themselves, but they are generally unjustifiable because of the cost associated with them. If you in the long run would cause a lot less suffering by torturing one guy, it's easy to assume that it would be okay to do so. But by doing so, and if it's considered justified, one additional cost is added to the price. The act would undermine the belief that torture is unconditionally wrong, which in turn could lead to an even worse outcome than refraining from torturing would have caused in the end.
In this case, however, it's such a ridiculously huge number that this one act by itself probably could be justified as the affect it would have at justifying torture also would be quite small.


----------



## ohgodits2014 (Mar 18, 2011)

What I don't understand is why people act like they're making such a big sacrifice by torturing someone. As far as I can see the one will suffer the most is the one being tortured, not the one doing the torturing. I would be a lot more impressed by those who claim they would give themselves up to be tortured for a whole hour if that meant saving 10 million people, even if I don't necessarily believe they would actually do it if the situation wasn't as hypothetical.


----------



## whiterabbit (Jan 20, 2006)

Well, I'm not feeling too bad about myself for my answer, to be honest. Nobody would do absolutely anything to save 10 million people. Everyone has their limit. I think torturing someone is a fine limit to have. 

I don't know, maybe I just have a really sick imagination, but I'm not thinking about fingernails and teeth when I think of torture. I'm thinking about some really extreme ****, which not even the loss of everyone I even vaguely knew could force me to carry out. Which is why, like odd_one_out suggested, specifying the techniques may have been helpful for a question like this.


----------



## i just want luv (Feb 13, 2011)

Yes


----------



## PickleNose (Jul 11, 2009)

olschool said:


> he has the information and you know it-- 10 miilion people are gonna die unless u get that information within the next hour--- could you torture him to get wat you need?If you dont, 10 million people will die .


 No.


----------



## PickleNose (Jul 11, 2009)

Double Indemnity said:


> In your scenario, absolutely. I'd be like Joe Pesci in Casino.


 Remember what happened to him in the end, though. Or was that Goodfellas? Those two movies always merge into one in my mind.


----------



## PickleNose (Jul 11, 2009)

leave me alone said:


> Yeah of course. It is like when someone is beating you on the street and random people just watch and pass by without doing a single thing.


 It is?

You're saying people should interfere in a street fight so ten million people won't die?


----------



## leave me alone (Apr 1, 2011)

PickleNose said:


> It is?
> 
> You're saying people should interfere in a street fight so ten million people won't die?


No.


----------



## Resonance (Feb 11, 2010)

whiterabbit said:


> Well, I'm not feeling too bad about myself for my answer, to be honest. *Nobody would do absolutely anything to save 10 million people.* Everyone has their limit. I think torturing someone is a fine limit to have.
> 
> I don't know, maybe I just have a really sick imagination, but I'm not thinking about fingernails and teeth when I think of torture. I'm thinking about some really extreme ****, which not even the loss of everyone I even vaguely knew could force me to carry out. Which is why, like odd_one_out suggested, specifying the techniques may have been helpful for a question like this.


I like this answer, you have to have limits on what you are prepared to do to other humans, or just what you are prepared to do in general really, otherwise you are essentially a sociopath and little better than the terrorists you are supposed to be trying to foil.

I also agree with your other point, whiterabbit, about the kinds of things people think of when they think of torture. In Afghanistan fighting the Russians, the taliban had a technique which involved carefully slicing the skin around the lower torso, and slowly pulling it up, and inside out, over the victims head, where it would then be slashed and tied in a knot, in a kind of inside-out viseral flesh-sack over the person's head, leaving them alive but with their internal organs exposed. They would then be tied up and left in the desert heat for the flies to feast on their exposed organs whilst they were still alive. After a few days if the taliban genuinely wanted any information they might come back and cut the fleshsack around the person's head open and see if they were willing to answer any questions.

The Persians had all sorts of torture methods including tieing someone down over an antill facing the sun, cutting off their eyelids so they couldn't blink, thereby allowing their eyes to dry out and die, whilst the ants would swarm over and slowly devour the victim alive.

Torture can go to horrible extents beyond the imagination of the average civilised person and nobody should feel bad for refusing to engage in such depravity.


----------



## PickleNose (Jul 11, 2009)

olschool said:


> he has the information and you know it-- 10 miilion people are gonna die unless u get that information within the next hour--- could you torture him to get wat you need?If you dont, 10 million people will die .





leave me alone said:


> Yeah of course. It is like when someone is beating you on the street and random people just watch and pass by without doing a single thing.





PickleNose said:


> It is?
> 
> You're saying people should interfere in a street fight so ten million people won't die?





leave me alone said:


> No.


 What did I miss?


----------



## Paul (Sep 26, 2005)

olschool said:


> look at history,,, If i waterboarded you for 5 mins i guarantee u would give me your bank account number


History shows no evidence that torture works and plenty that it doesn't. To take one of the zillion articles on the subject: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A2302-2005Jan11.html. As one of the military interrogators quoted there says, "They'll just tell you anything to get you to stop" -- anything except the truth.

Ask a terrorist for details of their operation under torture, and they're going to make up a lie for sure -- and you can't check on it fast like you can a bank account, you can't even prove it was a lie until everyone's dead and there's no further point torturing the prisoner.


----------



## Tugwahquah (Apr 13, 2011)

Yes, and I know exactly which limb to start with.


----------



## leave me alone (Apr 1, 2011)

PickleNose said:


> What did I miss?


My post was reaction to one of the above posts. Basicly the point was, people are hesitant to get their hands dirty, even if they could save someone's elses life.

The OP isnt very specific about the circumstances, so we can only assume if that would be the case here.


----------



## spacebound_rocketship (Nov 21, 2009)

Innamorata said:


> Depends how I did it. I hate gore, but I could beat someone up.


This


----------



## PickleNose (Jul 11, 2009)

leave me alone said:


> My post was reaction to one of the above posts. Basicly the point was, people are hesitant to get their hands dirty, even if they could save someone's elses life.


 Torturing people is a little more than getting your hands dirty.


----------



## leave me alone (Apr 1, 2011)

True, but it was just an example. Torturing someone is more drastic, but also the scale of consequences of your action (or rather of you NOT acting) is much greater. Think of all the innocent people, children.

Btw. is this thread inspired by Unthinkable?


----------



## PickleNose (Jul 11, 2009)

leave me alone said:


> Think of all the innocent people, children.


 I didn't fail to think. I just think this scenario is extremely unlikely and that it is also very obviously designed to try to justify torture. It will never work with me no matter how many different ways they package it because I will always see through the deception. There is something very wrong with people who want to justify torture so badly they make these things up in an effort to get the masses on their side.


----------



## Kong (Sep 11, 2011)

I would tear that mofo to pieces, no problems.


----------



## olschool (Sep 3, 2011)

Hoth said:


> History shows no evidence that torture works and plenty that it doesn't. To take one of the zillion articles on the subject: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A2302-2005Jan11.html. As one of the military interrogators quoted there says, "They'll just tell you anything to get you to stop" -- anything except the truth.
> 
> Ask a terrorist for details of their operation under torture, and they're going to make up a lie for sure -- and you can't check on it fast like you can a bank account, you can't even prove it was a lie until everyone's dead and there's no further point torturing the prisoner.


torture works-- we have been doing it for thousands of years in all cultures- sure some dumbass might liew to you to get you to stop- buyt the majority of the info would be good---


----------



## WinterDave (Dec 5, 2003)

Can we torture somebody, even if they don't know anything about the terrorist bomb? It's raining, there's nothing on TV, that kind of reason? :twisted


----------



## olschool (Sep 3, 2011)

WinterDave said:


> Can we torture somebody, even if they don't know anything about the terrorist bomb? It's raining, there's nothing on TV, that kind of reason? :twisted


well no!!!!!!


----------



## trendyfool (Apr 11, 2010)

hmm. To be honest I have no clue how I'd act in a situation like that. I guess because it just seems so improbable and designed to confuse. And...in real life, outside of thought experiments like this, I can't really think of any situations in which torture is justified. Especially because torture doesn't even give you a reliable answer so much of the time.

How on earth are you supposed to weigh the intense suffering of one person against the existence of 10 million?

I like to think of myself as an empathetic person. I'm not sure I'd be able to force someone to suffer that much no matter what circumstance. No matter if it's right or wrong...I just think that realistically, I wouldn't be able to torture the person. And I don't think there's anything wrong with that--especially seeing as the situation's never going to come up (thank god). And I don't think the fact that most people answered no should make you lose faith in humanity  .


----------



## WalkingDisaster (Nov 27, 2010)

^But it's one person suffering against _10 million dead._ Why is that hard to understand? _10 million!_


----------



## lad (Sep 26, 2011)

Yes, quite easilly.


----------



## anonymous soul (Sep 8, 2011)

olschool said:


> he has the information and you know it-- 10 miilion people are gonna die unless u get that information within the next hour--- could you torture him to get wat you need?If you dont, 10 million people will die .


Oh hell yeah I would **** that dude up .. hahahaha

context is important...in a different scenario I might not....just depends. I guess 10mil people are worth it to me.


----------



## Snow Bunny (Jan 28, 2009)

Ooh I feel like Jack Bauer.

I don't think I could unless the bloke had done something to my family or I'd actually witnessed him doing something worth torturing for. Is he not giving the information because he's evil and he wants them to die or is he not because he knows he'll be killed if he gives it away or whatever? I think it's be hard torturing someone with only blind information.


----------



## Hadron92 (Apr 17, 2009)

probably not...which is too bad.


----------



## foe (Oct 10, 2010)

Yes, based on the OP's scenario. In that case, you'd have a fight or flight response. 

Most definitely a no for pleasure or other purposes.


----------



## CourtneyB (Jul 31, 2010)

No, don't I think could torture someone. I'm a very sympathetic and caring person. I couldn't maliciously physically hurt anyone, I don't think. It would haunt me forever. But who knows, I might be able to do it if it was a life or death situation though ....at least I would hope :um


----------



## trendyfool (Apr 11, 2010)

WalkingDisaster said:


> ^But it's one person suffering against _10 million dead._ Why is that hard to understand? _10 million!_


I dunno, I suppose you're right, and that I'd do it in the actual situation. I was in a weird mood when I wrote that post


----------



## Marlon (Jun 27, 2011)

I'd make them listen to Lady Gaga nonstop until they cracked.


----------



## Ballerina (Jul 14, 2011)

WinterDave said:


> Can we torture somebody, even if they don't know anything about the terrorist bomb? It's raining, there's nothing on TV, that kind of reason? :twisted


LOL.

Yeah, definitely. I'm not a sadist in the sense it would be godddd awful and traumatic to torture the average person, but torturing someone who wouldn't save 10 million people (I'm not referring to the other half of the poll aha) is a blank check for pleasure of novelty, curiosity and an experience not many will have. And I've been around cadavers, it didn't gross me out.


----------



## John316C (May 1, 2011)

what about tickle torture? or some hot hot bdsm or what about when two people love each other and whack each other!


----------



## equiiaddict (Jun 27, 2006)

I couldn't normally, but in that situation I could.


----------



## avoidobot3000 (Aug 22, 2010)

No, I don't value the herd enough to contradict my own values. I could live quite easily with the death of 10 million people because it wasn't me who killed them or wanted to kill them. But I couldn't live with torturing someone directly.


----------



## SupaDupaFly (Sep 1, 2011)

Nope i'll just ask a professional surgeon with a serial killer mind to take care of him. I'll just be the one asking questions and getting the info while the other guy is doing his job. XD


----------



## olschool (Sep 3, 2011)

SupaDupaFly said:


> Nope i'll just ask a professional surgeon with a serial killer mind to take care of him. I'll just be the one asking questions and getting the info while the other guy is doing his job. XD


thats funny, lol i never thought of that


----------



## JimmyDeansRetartedCousin (Nov 28, 2009)

Two questions..


How much?
&
Where are the pliers?


----------



## leave me alone (Apr 1, 2011)

avoidobot3000 said:


> I could live quite easily with the death of 10 million people because it wasn't me who killed them


You are the one who could save them though and they are all dead because your inability to act. To me it seem like a very selfish and alibistic approach :/


----------



## avoidobot3000 (Aug 22, 2010)

leave me alone said:


> You are the one who could save them though and they are all dead because your inability to act. To me it seem like a very selfish and alibistic approach :/


No, they were dead because of a terrorist act and incompetent police. Only a sociopath can perform torture, selfishness seems a lesser evil here (alibistic? it seems you've invented a word).
A lot of normal people seem prepared to do it because of the high stakes, but think about what _he's_ prepared to go through; the stakes are raised for both parties. Torture doesn't prevent the same or similar acts being carried out in the future. The very idea that the tortured will tell the truth is ridiculous in itself. If a terrorist act of this scale is being carried out, you can guarantee the people with information wont be very talkative or will give misleading information. These sort of people kamikazied for a few thousand kills, they would do anything for 10 million.


----------



## nkprasad12 (Aug 27, 2011)

I voted no. I'm not morally apposed to torture and I think it's justified in some situations. I just don't think I could do it... But with 10 million people on the line, maybe. We'll have to see when it happens.


----------



## crimsoncora (Mar 29, 2011)

if it was a pedophile i could definitely bring out that side and make em feel pain, but in general hell no i couldnt prolly just break his kneecaps with my eyes closed and swing, make em sing and save 10 million people.


----------



## leave me alone (Apr 1, 2011)

avoidobot3000 said:


> No, they were dead because of a terrorist act and incompetent police. Only a sociopath can perform torture, selfishness seems a lesser evil here (alibistic? it seems you've invented a word).
> A lot of normal people seem prepared to do it because of the high stakes, but think about what _he's_ prepared to go through; the stakes are raised for both parties. Torture doesn't prevent the same or similar acts being carried out in the future. The very idea that the tortured will tell the truth is ridiculous in itself. If a terrorist act of this scale is being carried out, you can guarantee the people with information wont be very talkative or will give misleading information. These sort of people kamikazied for a few thousand kills, they would do anything for 10 million.


Well, thats one way to look at it. I dont quite agree with you there though.

What if one of those 10 million would be someone from your family?


----------



## Cest La Vie (Feb 17, 2010)

I voted yes because although I'm strongly opposed to the use of violence to combat violence, given the right circumstances and amount of pressure, people are capable of doing things they would otherwise say they'd never do. Think Stanford Prison Experiment. 

Also, why I don't like hypotheticals like this - people have a tendency to think of themselves as being more generous/kind-hearted/empathetic than they really are.


----------



## avoidobot3000 (Aug 22, 2010)

leave me alone said:


> Well, thats one way to look at it. I dont quite agree with you there though.
> 
> What if one of those 10 million would be someone from your family?


That's not the question that was asked, pro-torture people seem to enjoy skewing it with improbable, dramatic 'what-ifs'. The question is: is torture ever justified and moral? my answer: No, never. Ever. I would never torture someone. I don't expect anyone to agree or believe me.

As for Stanford... the subjects were poor students who were paid for their participation... I don't value money that much nor do I respect authority. I would've quit day 1.


----------



## leave me alone (Apr 1, 2011)

I was not trying to convince you otherwise. My question wasnt really related to the argument, it was just out of curiosity.


----------



## tropic (May 28, 2011)

I was going to say I'd never torture anyone and I'm almost sure I wouldn't, but who knows? When placed on different kind of scenarios/situations, who knows what you can do ('Never say never'?) ? I don't think I could ever endure torturing anyone, though, so I'll go with 'NO', meaning that I'm 99,9% certain I wouldn't ever do that.

EDIT: Read the OP now... lol.

Hmm, that's tough. Just like another user mentioned, I like to believe I could get the information out of him without having to use torture. Meh, I can't know for sure since it's a hypothetical situation (and I hope I never have to) but I probably wouldn't torture him and all those people were going to die because of me.


----------



## candiedsky (Aug 7, 2011)

I don't know why, but i laughed when I saw this title. Clicked no though.


----------

