Sam Harris Wrestling the trolls.

[hadespussercats]

Hehehe. First time through, I wrote "impeturbable clam."

My new band name!

Thanks for sharing a great article, OP.

Thanks! I needed that.

[Badger3k]

I think it's a pretty simple thing to answer:

If it were irrefutable, beyond doubt, that John Smith could tell us how to save Jane Doe's life and he refused to do so, and the choice was between waterboarding John Smith to get the information and allowing Jane Doe to die. I'd waterboard the guy myself and never lose a moment's sleep about it. Anyone who would let Jane Doe die to save John Smith from being waterboarded for a few minutes is, in my view, morally bankrupt.

Now, that situation is extraordinarily unlikely and saying "yes" to that situation is not saying "yes" to any other given situation, nor is it an endorsement of torture generally or in any circumstance where someone says it is necessary. The yes answer is confined to the given circumstances, and the given circumstances only.

The problem is that studies have shown time and time again that torture doesn't work. You can waterboard Smith all you want, and you may get the right answer, or you may get an answer he thinks you want (but it will be wrong), you may break him and get whatever answer comes into his head, which may be correct or not, or he may hold out until it doesn't matter, sine if you're going to torture him, death probably isn't out of the question and he'll be mean out of spite.

Thought experiments are all well and good, and "moral tests" like these might serve a purpose, but they should be aligned somewhat with reality. The military has known there are more effective interrogation techniques than torture. However, nothing stirs up the need for revenge like a good bit of torture.

PS - you ever notice that super-heroes in comics use torture all the time, like Batman, and always get the real results. Amazing.

[SteveB]

PS - you ever notice that super-heroes in comics use torture all the time, like Batman, and always get the real results. Amazing.

Joker wanted to give the "real results" in the Dark Knight interrogation scene though.

[Robert_S]

I think it's a pretty simple thing to answer:

If it were irrefutable, beyond doubt, that John Smith could tell us how to save Jane Doe's life and he refused to do so, and the choice was between waterboarding John Smith to get the information and allowing Jane Doe to die. I'd waterboard the guy myself and never lose a moment's sleep about it. Anyone who would let Jane Doe die to save John Smith from being waterboarded for a few minutes is, in my view, morally bankrupt.

Now, that situation is extraordinarily unlikely and saying "yes" to that situation is not saying "yes" to any other given situation, nor is it an endorsement of torture generally or in any circumstance where someone says it is necessary. The yes answer is confined to the given circumstances, and the given circumstances only.

The problem is that studies have shown time and time again that torture doesn't work. You can waterboard Smith all you want, and you may get the right answer, or you may get an answer he thinks you want (but it will be wrong), you may break him and get whatever answer comes into his head, which may be correct or not, or he may hold out until it doesn't matter, sine if you're going to torture him, death probably isn't out of the question and he'll be mean out of spite.

Thought experiments are all well and good, and "moral tests" like these might serve a purpose, but they should be aligned somewhat with reality. The military has known there are more effective interrogation techniques than torture. However, nothing stirs up the need for revenge like a good bit of torture.

PS - you ever notice that super-heroes in comics use torture all the time, like Batman, and always get the real results. Amazing.

Is this about immorality of not having a knee-jerk dismissal to the very idea of torture under any conceivable though improbable, or even impossible circumstances?

[DaveDodo007]

I think it's a pretty simple thing to answer:

If it were irrefutable, beyond doubt, that John Smith could tell us how to save Jane Doe's life and he refused to do so, and the choice was between waterboarding John Smith to get the information and allowing Jane Doe to die. I'd waterboard the guy myself and never lose a moment's sleep about it. Anyone who would let Jane Doe die to save John Smith from being waterboarded for a few minutes is, in my view, morally bankrupt.

Now, that situation is extraordinarily unlikely and saying "yes" to that situation is not saying "yes" to any other given situation, nor is it an endorsement of torture generally or in any circumstance where someone says it is necessary. The yes answer is confined to the given circumstances, and the given circumstances only.

The problem is that studies have shown time and time again that torture doesn't work. You can waterboard Smith all you want, and you may get the right answer, or you may get an answer he thinks you want (but it will be wrong), you may break him and get whatever answer comes into his head, which may be correct or not, or he may hold out until it doesn't matter, sine if you're going to torture him, death probably isn't out of the question and he'll be mean out of spite.

Thought experiments are all well and good, and "moral tests" like these might serve a purpose, but they should be aligned somewhat with reality. The military has known there are more effective interrogation techniques than torture. However, nothing stirs up the need for revenge like a good bit of torture.

PS - you ever notice that super-heroes in comics use torture all the time, like Batman, and always get the real results. Amazing.

First let me state that I'm against torture and it should be banned. Though are you telling me the trained torturers are naive enough to be distracted by a red herring or a made up story on the spot to just stop torturing the suspect. That they haven't perfected their 'art' to a level were they know what has a good chance to be true and what is just distraction. I admire your optimism in the human race though I just don't share it.

[pErvinalia]

Anyone seen Unthinkable? Fantastic movie and explores some of these tough hypothetical questions around torture.

[Tyrannical]

I think it's a pretty simple thing to answer:

If it were irrefutable, beyond doubt, that John Smith could tell us how to save Jane Doe's life and he refused to do so, and the choice was between waterboarding John Smith to get the information and allowing Jane Doe to die. I'd waterboard the guy myself and never lose a moment's sleep about it. Anyone who would let Jane Doe die to save John Smith from being waterboarded for a few minutes is, in my view, morally bankrupt.

Now, that situation is extraordinarily unlikely and saying "yes" to that situation is not saying "yes" to any other given situation, nor is it an endorsement of torture generally or in any circumstance where someone says it is necessary. The yes answer is confined to the given circumstances, and the given circumstances only.

The problem is that studies have shown time and time again that torture doesn't work. You can waterboard Smith all you want, and you may get the right answer, or you may get an answer he thinks you want (but it will be wrong), you may break him and get whatever answer comes into his head, which may be correct or not, or he may hold out until it doesn't matter, sine if you're going to torture him, death probably isn't out of the question and he'll be mean out of spite.

Thought experiments are all well and good, and "moral tests" like these might serve a purpose, but they should be aligned somewhat with reality. The military has known there are more effective interrogation techniques than torture. However, nothing stirs up the need for revenge like a good bit of torture.

PS - you ever notice that super-heroes in comics use torture all the time, like Batman, and always get the real results. Amazing.

The Russians had good luck using torture in Chechnya. Once they extracted the information, they then acted on it. They were then able to determine if the information was correct or not.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/fe ... 5704138806

[Badger3k]

I think it's a pretty simple thing to answer:

If it were irrefutable, beyond doubt, that John Smith could tell us how to save Jane Doe's life and he refused to do so, and the choice was between waterboarding John Smith to get the information and allowing Jane Doe to die. I'd waterboard the guy myself and never lose a moment's sleep about it. Anyone who would let Jane Doe die to save John Smith from being waterboarded for a few minutes is, in my view, morally bankrupt.

Now, that situation is extraordinarily unlikely and saying "yes" to that situation is not saying "yes" to any other given situation, nor is it an endorsement of torture generally or in any circumstance where someone says it is necessary. The yes answer is confined to the given circumstances, and the given circumstances only.

The problem is that studies have shown time and time again that torture doesn't work. You can waterboard Smith all you want, and you may get the right answer, or you may get an answer he thinks you want (but it will be wrong), you may break him and get whatever answer comes into his head, which may be correct or not, or he may hold out until it doesn't matter, sine if you're going to torture him, death probably isn't out of the question and he'll be mean out of spite.

Thought experiments are all well and good, and "moral tests" like these might serve a purpose, but they should be aligned somewhat with reality. The military has known there are more effective interrogation techniques than torture. However, nothing stirs up the need for revenge like a good bit of torture.

PS - you ever notice that super-heroes in comics use torture all the time, like Batman, and always get the real results. Amazing.

Is this about immorality of not having a knee-jerk dismissal to the very idea of torture under any conceivable though improbable, or even impossible circumstances?

No, it's about not considering the facts. Odds are you can torture him all you want, but good luck on getting the results you need. It's practicality.

[Badger3k]

I think it's a pretty simple thing to answer:

If it were irrefutable, beyond doubt, that John Smith could tell us how to save Jane Doe's life and he refused to do so, and the choice was between waterboarding John Smith to get the information and allowing Jane Doe to die. I'd waterboard the guy myself and never lose a moment's sleep about it. Anyone who would let Jane Doe die to save John Smith from being waterboarded for a few minutes is, in my view, morally bankrupt.

Now, that situation is extraordinarily unlikely and saying "yes" to that situation is not saying "yes" to any other given situation, nor is it an endorsement of torture generally or in any circumstance where someone says it is necessary. The yes answer is confined to the given circumstances, and the given circumstances only.

The problem is that studies have shown time and time again that torture doesn't work. You can waterboard Smith all you want, and you may get the right answer, or you may get an answer he thinks you want (but it will be wrong), you may break him and get whatever answer comes into his head, which may be correct or not, or he may hold out until it doesn't matter, sine if you're going to torture him, death probably isn't out of the question and he'll be mean out of spite.

Thought experiments are all well and good, and "moral tests" like these might serve a purpose, but they should be aligned somewhat with reality. The military has known there are more effective interrogation techniques than torture. However, nothing stirs up the need for revenge like a good bit of torture.

PS - you ever notice that super-heroes in comics use torture all the time, like Batman, and always get the real results. Amazing.

First let me state that I'm against torture and it should be banned. Though are you telling me the trained torturers are naive enough to be distracted by a red herring or a made up story on the spot to just stop torturing the suspect. That they haven't perfected their 'art' to a level were they know what has a good chance to be true and what is just distraction. I admire your optimism in the human race though I just don't share it.

Human nature. "Trained torturers" are just as fallible as other men, and if someone tells you that "Jane Doe" is at this address, how do you know she is or isn't there without going? Granted, he could say "Buckingham Palace" and you are in Los Angeles, but if he gives one address out of millions, you have to check it out. Someone who is sufficiently motivated, or sufficiently a dick, can give plenty of addresses before he finally gives the real one, if he does. Depends on how long he can take it and what his psychological state is. Maybe he'll be broken so bad he loses it and confuses fantasies with reality, which can happen if you're in enough pain, and has no idea what he's saying. You also have to consider who the individual is, if they have had any training, what their level of determination/fanaticism is, etc.

Trained interrogators know there are better ways to get information, ways that are ore productive and have been used on battlefields and in police departments the world over, ways that get real results. I wasn't looking at the morality or immorality of torture - just the real world results.

Of course, it also depends on what questions you ask - if you ask something nonsensical like "Name the other witches in your coven" and there are none, you'll say anything to get it to stop, whether true or not.

[Badger3k]

I think it's a pretty simple thing to answer:

If it were irrefutable, beyond doubt, that John Smith could tell us how to save Jane Doe's life and he refused to do so, and the choice was between waterboarding John Smith to get the information and allowing Jane Doe to die. I'd waterboard the guy myself and never lose a moment's sleep about it. Anyone who would let Jane Doe die to save John Smith from being waterboarded for a few minutes is, in my view, morally bankrupt.

Now, that situation is extraordinarily unlikely and saying "yes" to that situation is not saying "yes" to any other given situation, nor is it an endorsement of torture generally or in any circumstance where someone says it is necessary. The yes answer is confined to the given circumstances, and the given circumstances only.

The problem is that studies have shown time and time again that torture doesn't work. You can waterboard Smith all you want, and you may get the right answer, or you may get an answer he thinks you want (but it will be wrong), you may break him and get whatever answer comes into his head, which may be correct or not, or he may hold out until it doesn't matter, sine if you're going to torture him, death probably isn't out of the question and he'll be mean out of spite.

Thought experiments are all well and good, and "moral tests" like these might serve a purpose, but they should be aligned somewhat with reality. The military has known there are more effective interrogation techniques than torture. However, nothing stirs up the need for revenge like a good bit of torture.

PS - you ever notice that super-heroes in comics use torture all the time, like Batman, and always get the real results. Amazing.

The Russians had good luck using torture in Chechnya. Once they extracted the information, they then acted on it. They were then able to determine if the information was correct or not.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/fe ... 5704138806

Interesting, and a bit disgusting, but I'm still skeptical. Given their attitudes, I wonder what standard of proof or evidence they used to determine they were correct. If I knew I was going to be tortured and killed, I'd do my best to name anybody but the real ones - after all, how are they going to know? If I picked somebody I didn't like and named them as a terrorist, do you really think somebody who would torture me would listen to him deny it and say "Ok, you can go?" No, they'll torture him until he confesses, like the witches did in the past. It's a self-perpetuating cycle. Now, if the people they tortured actually had weapons, etc, that would be different. But we don't know that, we have the words of some people who claim they were. Would you want to admit that the person you tortured and killed was innocent? Probably not, not if you wanted to keep sane. Plus, don't forget, war is horrible. When you're fighting somebody for so long, there is a strong tendency to see them as less than human (gooks, ragheads, camel jockeys, etc). I've seen it, even experienced it - while overseas we all talked about the ragheads. They were The Other. It's probably a protective measure we evolved with as societies developed, just my guess.

All I'm going on is what was released and published back when this subject first came about, and what I learned in the Army. My position is to remain skeptical until evidence is provided, and so far that's been extremely limited. All the stories about the US getting information out of the tortured individuals we have have proven to be bogus inflations for PR, at least from everything I've read.

[Tyrannical]

Interesting, and a bit disgusting, but I'm still skeptical. Given their attitudes, I wonder what standard of proof or evidence they used to determine they were correct. If I knew I was going to be tortured and killed, I'd do my best to name anybody but the real ones - after all, how are they going to know? If I picked somebody I didn't like and named them as a terrorist, do you really think somebody who would torture me would listen to him deny it and say "Ok, you can go?" No, they'll torture him until he confesses, like the witches did in the past. It's a self-perpetuating cycle. Now, if the people they tortured actually had weapons, etc, that would be different. But we don't know that, we have the words of some people who claim they were. Would you want to admit that the person you tortured and killed was innocent? Probably not, not if you wanted to keep sane. Plus, don't forget, war is horrible. When you're fighting somebody for so long, there is a strong tendency to see them as less than human (gooks, ragheads, camel jockeys, etc). I've seen it, even experienced it - while overseas we all talked about the ragheads. They were The Other. It's probably a protective measure we evolved with as societies developed, just my guess.

All I'm going on is what was released and published back when this subject first came about, and what I learned in the Army. My position is to remain skeptical until evidence is provided, and so far that's been extremely limited. All the stories about the US getting information out of the tortured individuals we have have proven to be bogus inflations for PR, at least from everything I've read.

As for what standard of proof the Russians used to, I assume it was mostly physical evidence like bomb or weapon making equipment and Islamist training material. Things normal people would not be in possession of. You'd think that they could just not have that material lying around or would hide it really good, but in reality that rarely happens. When major drug dealers or makers are raided, they always have plentiful evidence of something is going on.
I suspect great deal of the "torture doesn't work" evidence is false, and used as an artificial justification against it and to get people not to employ it. What makes a better argument? Saying "Sure torture works, we are just morally against it" or saying "It doesn't work and don't even bother with it."

[DaveDodo007]

I think it's a pretty simple thing to answer:

If it were irrefutable, beyond doubt, that John Smith could tell us how to save Jane Doe's life and he refused to do so, and the choice was between waterboarding John Smith to get the information and allowing Jane Doe to die. I'd waterboard the guy myself and never lose a moment's sleep about it. Anyone who would let Jane Doe die to save John Smith from being waterboarded for a few minutes is, in my view, morally bankrupt.

Now, that situation is extraordinarily unlikely and saying "yes" to that situation is not saying "yes" to any other given situation, nor is it an endorsement of torture generally or in any circumstance where someone says it is necessary. The yes answer is confined to the given circumstances, and the given circumstances only.

The problem is that studies have shown time and time again that torture doesn't work. You can waterboard Smith all you want, and you may get the right answer, or you may get an answer he thinks you want (but it will be wrong), you may break him and get whatever answer comes into his head, which may be correct or not, or he may hold out until it doesn't matter, sine if you're going to torture him, death probably isn't out of the question and he'll be mean out of spite.

Thought experiments are all well and good, and "moral tests" like these might serve a purpose, but they should be aligned somewhat with reality. The military has known there are more effective interrogation techniques than torture. However, nothing stirs up the need for revenge like a good bit of torture.

PS - you ever notice that super-heroes in comics use torture all the time, like Batman, and always get the real results. Amazing.

First let me state that I'm against torture and it should be banned. Though are you telling me the trained torturers are naive enough to be distracted by a red herring or a made up story on the spot to just stop torturing the suspect. That they haven't perfected their 'art' to a level were they know what has a good chance to be true and what is just distraction. I admire your optimism in the human race though I just don't share it.

Human nature. "Trained torturers" are just as fallible as other men, and if someone tells you that "Jane Doe" is at this address, how do you know she is or isn't there without going? Granted, he could say "Buckingham Palace" and you are in Los Angeles, but if he gives one address out of millions, you have to check it out. Someone who is sufficiently motivated, or sufficiently a dick, can give plenty of addresses before he finally gives the real one, if he does. Depends on how long he can take it and what his psychological state is. Maybe he'll be broken so bad he loses it and confuses fantasies with reality, which can happen if you're in enough pain, and has no idea what he's saying. You also have to consider who the individual is, if they have had any training, what their level of determination/fanaticism is, etc.

Trained interrogators know there are better ways to get information, ways that are ore productive and have been used on battlefields and in police departments the world over, ways that get real results. I wasn't looking at the morality or immorality of torture - just the real world results.

Of course, it also depends on what questions you ask - if you ask something nonsensical like "Name the other witches in your coven" and there are none, you'll say anything to get it to stop, whether true or not.

If time wasn't an issue you are probably right but Harris was talking about a ticking clock here. There my be a few James Bonds out there but I bet they are few and far between.

[Badger3k]

Interesting, and a bit disgusting, but I'm still skeptical. Given their attitudes, I wonder what standard of proof or evidence they used to determine they were correct. If I knew I was going to be tortured and killed, I'd do my best to name anybody but the real ones - after all, how are they going to know? If I picked somebody I didn't like and named them as a terrorist, do you really think somebody who would torture me would listen to him deny it and say "Ok, you can go?" No, they'll torture him until he confesses, like the witches did in the past. It's a self-perpetuating cycle. Now, if the people they tortured actually had weapons, etc, that would be different. But we don't know that, we have the words of some people who claim they were. Would you want to admit that the person you tortured and killed was innocent? Probably not, not if you wanted to keep sane. Plus, don't forget, war is horrible. When you're fighting somebody for so long, there is a strong tendency to see them as less than human (gooks, ragheads, camel jockeys, etc). I've seen it, even experienced it - while overseas we all talked about the ragheads. They were The Other. It's probably a protective measure we evolved with as societies developed, just my guess.

All I'm going on is what was released and published back when this subject first came about, and what I learned in the Army. My position is to remain skeptical until evidence is provided, and so far that's been extremely limited. All the stories about the US getting information out of the tortured individuals we have have proven to be bogus inflations for PR, at least from everything I've read.

As for what standard of proof the Russians used to, I assume it was mostly physical evidence like bomb or weapon making equipment and Islamist training material. Things normal people would not be in possession of. You'd think that they could just not have that material lying around or would hide it really good, but in reality that rarely happens. When major drug dealers or makers are raided, they always have plentiful evidence of something is going on.
I suspect great deal of the "torture doesn't work" evidence is false, and used as an artificial justification against it and to get people not to employ it. What makes a better argument? Saying "Sure torture works, we are just morally against it" or saying "It doesn't work and don't even bother with it."

Sorry, been busy with other things and haven't made it back. For me, the only answer we can give is "we don't know what standard they used". Given the problems they've had in Chechnya (wasn't that where it was?), for so long, and all the ethical violations from all sides, I am skeptical of anything coming out, especially when it involves ethically dubious issues. How else can it be justified unless everyone tortured was guilty? Would they even admit that there were people who were not? The same way that everyone the US has in GITMO is a huge terrorist threat.... yelpers. That's why so many of them have been released back to their home countries. So, until I see something in the realm of physical evidence, it's still a matter of skepticism for me.

[Badger3k]

I think it's a pretty simple thing to answer:

If it were irrefutable, beyond doubt, that John Smith could tell us how to save Jane Doe's life and he refused to do so, and the choice was between waterboarding John Smith to get the information and allowing Jane Doe to die. I'd waterboard the guy myself and never lose a moment's sleep about it. Anyone who would let Jane Doe die to save John Smith from being waterboarded for a few minutes is, in my view, morally bankrupt.

Now, that situation is extraordinarily unlikely and saying "yes" to that situation is not saying "yes" to any other given situation, nor is it an endorsement of torture generally or in any circumstance where someone says it is necessary. The yes answer is confined to the given circumstances, and the given circumstances only.

The problem is that studies have shown time and time again that torture doesn't work. You can waterboard Smith all you want, and you may get the right answer, or you may get an answer he thinks you want (but it will be wrong), you may break him and get whatever answer comes into his head, which may be correct or not, or he may hold out until it doesn't matter, sine if you're going to torture him, death probably isn't out of the question and he'll be mean out of spite.

Thought experiments are all well and good, and "moral tests" like these might serve a purpose, but they should be aligned somewhat with reality. The military has known there are more effective interrogation techniques than torture. However, nothing stirs up the need for revenge like a good bit of torture.

PS - you ever notice that super-heroes in comics use torture all the time, like Batman, and always get the real results. Amazing.

First let me state that I'm against torture and it should be banned. Though are you telling me the trained torturers are naive enough to be distracted by a red herring or a made up story on the spot to just stop torturing the suspect. That they haven't perfected their 'art' to a level were they know what has a good chance to be true and what is just distraction. I admire your optimism in the human race though I just don't share it.

Human nature. "Trained torturers" are just as fallible as other men, and if someone tells you that "Jane Doe" is at this address, how do you know she is or isn't there without going? Granted, he could say "Buckingham Palace" and you are in Los Angeles, but if he gives one address out of millions, you have to check it out. Someone who is sufficiently motivated, or sufficiently a dick, can give plenty of addresses before he finally gives the real one, if he does. Depends on how long he can take it and what his psychological state is. Maybe he'll be broken so bad he loses it and confuses fantasies with reality, which can happen if you're in enough pain, and has no idea what he's saying. You also have to consider who the individual is, if they have had any training, what their level of determination/fanaticism is, etc.

Trained interrogators know there are better ways to get information, ways that are ore productive and have been used on battlefields and in police departments the world over, ways that get real results. I wasn't looking at the morality or immorality of torture - just the real world results.

Of course, it also depends on what questions you ask - if you ask something nonsensical like "Name the other witches in your coven" and there are none, you'll say anything to get it to stop, whether true or not.

If time wasn't an issue you are probably right but Harris was talking about a ticking clock here. There my be a few James Bonds out there but I bet they are few and far between.

You also have to consider what the "ticking time bomb" is, and why. Do you think torturing some kidnapper will get the same results as torturing a hardcore terrorist who is prepared to die? Those are practical issues that make it more than a simple hollywood story. There's also the saying that "everyone breaks", and while different people have different points, if you're dealing with someone with at least a little training and dedication, they can delay you long enough to complete the mission anyway. Too many factors for simple judgement calls, in my opinion.

[DaveDodo007]

Badger3k.

You talk of a simple Hollywood story, how about real fucking life. You are in a position of power and you want to keep it that way. Do you really want to face a load of grieving relatives hyped up on hate and not show them that you did everything possible to save their loved ones. Maybe it was a last gamble that never worked, though try to placate an angry bunch of registered voters by waving the Geneva Convention at them. They will want to tear the perpetrator limb from limb and you also if you get in the way. I’m not saying that mob rule is right but given the circumstances then it is probably best to acccept that humans are emotional creatures and deal with that rather than to send them all to philosophical ethics classes.