You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: Is torture ever ethical?
As I say before, toture is not an option - the history teach us.
I also sometimes think: you should spank him so that he speak the truth. But stop Walter, you break the law. And, hell when I break the law how can I expect that others don't do it?
What if the one under torture is pushed to blame me?
Torture is arbitrary. With torture you can get results you want.
Can you, would you, trust in results that based on toture?
Torture can never be legal, covered by a law.
Then is this case the child dies...
Maybe and that is a bad thing.
But, which 'facts' could make torture legal?
That's the point, what the police did was not legal but was it ethical? I'd say 100 % yes. Not legal or societal ethics but human ethics. They saved a child's life so the wrong outweighs the right massively.
So you say: do you make the law that suits your needs when you think you need it?
A few years ago the police in Germany were acting during an abduction in the way, they say to the accused that they would torture him. They covered his eyes, put a gun on his head, etc.
Result: The man says everything he thinks they like to hear.
Result: investigations in the wrong direction, etc. As this act became public. The results, which the police made, were not valid in court. The policemen are imprisoned.
There is only one way: A strict no to torture.
There can be no 'relative' laws.
I think 'law' is the issue then. I would say there needs to be some movement where circumstance calls for extreme measures, who decides this, who knows?
Breaking it down as simple as I can... if I could save the life of a child by inflicting pain on somebody obviously guilty of the crime then yes I would, If that is seen as torture then so be it. It's a troubling quandary because it's a debate whether right or wrong are the same as legal or illegal and I'd say in this case the constraints of legality should be breached in order for the 'right' outcome.
Well you are free to contact your politians and bring up that the start changing the law, so that the law improof.
... save life of a child ... and adult would not count?
I say this to point to the problems, if it came to a law.
Till what age a child is a child is it 8, 12 or 15?
Or on the other side, what about a president that plans together with army leaders an attack to a country to a group of people ... would it be legal to kill them?
I understand what you try to tell me, for sure. I only try to show you the simple basic point: if we tollerate breaking law in one case ('for a good reason'), an other will follow 'for a good reason' and an other one, etc. where will will end up?
I think we we both got what the other say / mean.
Thanks for talk, hav ea good time!
Greetings from Germany
Walter