It would be trivial for me to construct a hypothetical where torture is unambiguously a good idea. It wouldn’t even be hard to make it seem a realistic situation; I might even be able to use a historical example. To call something generally irrational, or to claim that rationality is opposed to a thing, you have to make the argument that in principle it’s not possible for this to be either a terminal goal or the only available instrumental goal.
I think the original claim was that political opposition to torture was rational, assuming we are talking about the use of torture by the state to investigate crimes or coerce the population, domestic or abroad. That’s a less strong claim, and fairly reasonable as long as you allow for the unstated assumptions.
It would be trivial for me to construct a hypothetical where torture is unambiguously a good idea.
I’d be really curious to see this example, given that it’s an established fact that torture straight up doesn’t work as a means of gathering information.
Torturing someone to scare others into compliance.
To make it realistic: enemy soldiers captured as prisoners of war. In order to keep them from staging a breakout and slaughtering the civilians in the large town you’re defending, you torture the ringleader of the attempt—publically and painfully sending a message.
Historically: Keelhauling for mutineers on sea vessels.
Unconvincing. You haven’t demonstrated that torture will result in the best outcome, even in a hypothetical situation where the participants are already Doing It Badly Wrong.
It would be trivial for me to construct a hypothetical where torture is unambiguously a good idea. It wouldn’t even be hard to make it seem a realistic situation; I might even be able to use a historical example. To call something generally irrational, or to claim that rationality is opposed to a thing, you have to make the argument that in principle it’s not possible for this to be either a terminal goal or the only available instrumental goal.
I think the original claim was that political opposition to torture was rational, assuming we are talking about the use of torture by the state to investigate crimes or coerce the population, domestic or abroad. That’s a less strong claim, and fairly reasonable as long as you allow for the unstated assumptions.
A much stronger claim, IMO
I’d be really curious to see this example, given that it’s an established fact that torture straight up doesn’t work as a means of gathering information.
Torturing someone to scare others into compliance.
To make it realistic: enemy soldiers captured as prisoners of war. In order to keep them from staging a breakout and slaughtering the civilians in the large town you’re defending, you torture the ringleader of the attempt—publically and painfully sending a message.
Historically: Keelhauling for mutineers on sea vessels.
Unconvincing. You haven’t demonstrated that torture will result in the best outcome, even in a hypothetical situation where the participants are already Doing It Badly Wrong.
He did demonstrate that bgaesop’s reported fact applies in a limited domain, and that torture supposedly has other uses.