Jump to content

Talk:Ethics of torture

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

[edit]

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 23 August 2021 and 8 October 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Maryannelindemann. Peer reviewers: GERSH.D, HarryJL.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 20:53, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Move

[edit]

I have moved content from the main torture article as per the discussion on the talk page. This article is only in an early stage and needs a lot of content added. Thank you. --Silversmith 12:33, 22 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

~~I would like to contribute some information that I have researched to this article.--[kelsie09] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kelsie09 (talk • contribs) 19:01, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

European Court of Human Rights

[edit]

I have taken this from the Torture Article:

In 1978 the European Court of Human Rights ruled that the five techniques of "sensory deprivation" were not torture but were "inhuman or degrading treatment". See Accusations of use of torture by United Kingdom for details. This case was 9 years before the UNCAT came into force and had an influence on States thinking about what constitutes torture ever since.

Some of the edits I have made to this article is to remove POV about what is and is not torture.

  • Sleep deprivation is not torture, but it may be inhuman or degrading treatment. See ECHR ruling.
  • The UK a did not use torture in NI it was "inhuman or degrading treatment".

I have also re-written other sections of the article which I think were not very clear. For example the Jury section did not present a logical arguemnt why confessions extracted under duress are not valid in court. It is to do with the fact that any resonable person who can at all empthise with the victim of turture will realise that any confession that is extracted under such methods is unlikely to be worth the paper it is written on, not that juries are arbitary and torture is not used only because it is not necessary to do so.

Further I have removed the examples of alleged torture, as this is an article on the "Ethical arguments regarding torture" the examples were full of POV and recent example of torture and alledged torture exist in the Uses of torture in recent times. --Philip Baird Shearer 13:07, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Note by a spanish user: The utilitarian versus deontological section is completely wrong. Utilitarism doesn't focus in intentions; it is Kant's moral the one that does. Utilitarism says (in a more complex way) that something is right if almost everyone thinks it is.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.124.54.106 (talk • contribs)

The Bias Is Unbelievable Here

[edit]

Within the criticism section on opponents of torture, the only arguments posted are those that people dislike torture. This provides none of the deontological arguments or utilitarian arguments against the use of torture. While numerous arguments exist, this article seems to exhibit the authorship of one clearly in favor of torturing. How despicable that no one would care to provide arguments, let alone stand in opposition to it. 128.97.104.59 (talk) 10:27, 7 December 2007 (UTC)Amir[reply]

I strongly agree, let's do something--DatDoo (talk) 05:10, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The use of words such as "Most" or "Some" needs to be changed. 129.15.131.246 (talk) 15:01, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There's another argument CONSTANTLY used when I claim that torture is never justified...

[edit]

"Well, they do it to US!"

For some reason, people seem to sincerely believe that committing atrocities against randomly chosen members of a given ethnicity is fair if someone of that approximate ethnicity has apparently done wrong in the past.

I'm sure there's a Latin phrase describing this fallacy. It probably translates to "You are a retard.", but again and again, when I am upset at some newly disclosed torture-related outrage being committed by America, (the former shining beacon of law, reason, freedom, etc.) this is the argument that's thrown back at me, usually by very, very angry people who passionately believe that torture in the name of truth, justice and the American way is justifiable.

I guess getting people to lie in order to make pain stop falls under truth and justice? Or maybe that's just the American way nowadays? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.27.195.24 (talk • contribs) 06:14, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Utilitarian Objection to Torture

[edit]

Although the utiltarian view is put forward that the end justifies the means, experience in states which widely practice torture is that it rapidly becomes not a method of extracting information, but as a method of terrorising and subjugating the population and enables state forces - mis-named "law enforcement" or "security" forces, for they promote neither - to dispense with ordinary means of establishing innocence or guilt and with the whole legal apparatus altogether.

It is better that a few individuals be killed by bombers than a much greater number- possibly thousands of innocent people - are tortured and murdered and legal and constitutional provisions are destroyed.--Streona (talk) 17:31, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I liked that argument so much I put in the article.--Streona (talk) 13:03, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Smashing. Now find a source and it can stay there! :) BillMasen (talk) 14:16, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is it necessary for an argument to be sourced, as opposed to a fact or assertion? It is either coherent or it not upon its own evidence.--Streona (talk) 15:42, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I am afraid that it is necessary according to Wikipedia. We don't want to get bogged down in whether an argument is or isn't "coherent". Moreover, an argument might be totally fallacious but so widespread that it needs to be included. I'm sure someone has had your idea before, so I suggest that you try and find it. BillMasen (talk) 19:42, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I suppose this is the gist of "Torture: Cancer of Democracy" by Pierre Vidal-Naquet- as the title suggests, so I will dig out my copy and look for an apposite quote.--Streona (talk) 21:19, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"War on terrorism" topics omitted in the article

[edit]
  • The article doesn't mention the situation when a larger group of people is tortured in order to find 1 or a few suspects (when the interrogartor knows that most of people he tortures are innocent).
  • Another Abu Grhraib example is toruring family members, including children to obtain informations from the suspect
  • I'd also like to see ethical points of view on wether the victims of tortures have the right for compensations if proven innocent78.131.137.50 (talk) 15:29, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ticking Time Bomb Scenario

[edit]

The Gafgen case cited in the Ticking Time Bomb section is not an example of successful use of torture to bring about the successful resolution of a ticking time bomb case. The victim was already dead, and recovery of remains is hardly a ticking time bomb situation.

One of the flaws to the ticking time bomb scenario is that the person being tortured can easily provide bogus information to make the torture stop long enough for the bomb to detonate. That's a pragmatic, not an ethical, objection, though. Hiernonymous (talk) 21:30, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Ethical arguments regarding torture. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:39, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Ethical arguments regarding torture. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:57, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Ethical arguments regarding torture. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:54, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 19 July 2021

[edit]
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) Lennart97 (talk) 15:08, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ethical arguments regarding torture → Ethics of torture – Simpler, more concise name which is more similar to those used by RS, for example: (t · c) buidhe 13:43, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Wisnewski, J. Jeremy; Emerick, R. D. (2009). The Ethics of Torture. Bloomsbury Publishing. ISBN 978-1-4411-9798-6.
  • Steinhoff, Uwe (2013). On the Ethics of Torture. SUNY Press. ISBN 978-1-4384-4621-9.
  • O'Donohue, William; Snipes, Cassandra; Dalto, Georgia; Soto, Cyndy; Maragakis, Alexandros; Im, Sungjin (2014). "The Ethics of Enhanced Interrogations and Torture: A Reappraisal of the Argument". Ethics & Behavior. 24 (2): 109–125. doi:10.1080/10508422.2013.814088. (note: these appeared on the first page of a Google Scholar search for Ethical arguments regarding torture) (t · c) buidhe 13:43, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

what definition of torture is used to compile this?

[edit]

"In this case torture was threatened, but not used, to extract information" in the ethics section is nonsensical under several definitions; the threat of torture is a form of torture.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ethics_of_torture&oldid=1207142962"