NationStates Jolt Archive

The thread about Bush and torture got me thinking.

When are the rights of an individual extinguished by the rights of the majority?

Obviously this has wide reaching implications, but in light of the post made by Aahhzz it is an interesting question.

My question is

How would YOU react to the "ticking bomb" question?

How would you go about obtaining information in a quick manner if it was Your Families life on the line? Beg them to tell you? Plead?

Really I would be interested to know what each of you would do to save the lives of your loved ones.

Lets say you have 10 terrorists and you know that at least one of them has information about a nuclear bomb thats concealed somewhere one of ten cities and each city involved has either one of your Parents, one of your Siblings, one of your Children or your spouse.

You only have 12 hours to obtain the information and stop the bomb and you can not evacuate the cities in time to save any of your loved ones.

What do You do?

When are the rights of an individual extinguished by the rights of the majority?

Is it when a loved one is at risk?
Is it when there are more than 10, 100, 1000, 1000000 people at risk?
Is it when financial considerations are taken into account?
Is it possible risk?
Does it depend on urgency?
Does it depend on the rank of the "informant"?

Also, when does it apply? It has implications in many aspects of life... a conundrum for supporters of freedom and democracy!

One way to apply a "reality check" of course, is to ask the question in the manner that you have proposed.

And then ask the same question, but with the roles reversed - i.e. the person to be "interrogated" (for want of a better term) is one of "your" side, captured by the "enemy".

Now, see if you get the same answer for both scenarios.

If not, your bias has intuded on your morals or on you logic.

One way to apply a "reality check" of course, is to ask the question in the manner that you have proposed.

And then ask the same question, but with the roles reversed - i.e. the person to be "interrogated" (for want of a better term) is one of "your" side, captured by the "enemy".

Now, see if you get the same answer for both scenarios.

If not, your bias has intuded on your morals or on you logic.

And the same actually applies. If your captured by the enemy, they would want information. Do you think that they won't torture you to get it?

Another question should be "If this person (to be tortured) is 100% uninvolved, and was just in the wrong place at the wrong time, can I deal with the idea of inflicting <whatever form of torture it is> on them?"

And if one can say 'yes' to that, some good old 'what if it was me in that position' should straighten things out.

As much as I like the neatness of meticulous tortures, I'd *never* use them to extract information - as far as I'm concearned, it's utterly delusional to imagine that torturing another being can ever be good, in any sense. It's sickening, and the people who do it need to wake up and accept that they've been utterly desensitised to human suffering.

Of course, if they already accept that and are just evil... well, that's a slightly different issue. At least they can *admit* they're doing it solely for self-serving reasons.

And the same actually applies. If your captured by the enemy, they would want information. Do you think that they won't torture you to get it?

Heh. That's funny, considering the usual rallying cry for war seems to be "THEY'RE DIFFERENT TO US! LOOK HOW BAD AND EVIL THEY ARE! LOOK AT THE BAD THINGS THEY'LL DO TO YOU IF WE DON'T PROTECT YOU!!!!one+shift!!eleven"

That kind of loses all meaning if our *justification* for doing something inhumane is that 'they'd do it too'.

Surley if they are proven terrorists, they have no rights.

When are the rights of an individual extinguished by the rights of the majority?

As soon as they are discovered beyond doubt to be terrorists. What about the right of the people to be protected by the state? Just give them some truth syrum, get the info and it's all over. No one's rights are infringed upon.

Generally, I would say that there are some rights which are lost when a crime has been committed. For example, the right to vote is lost when a person has committed a felony (at least in the US).

There are also other rights which cannot be violated under any circumstances, such as religious freedom.

I would tend to lump torture in the second group.

Another question should be "If this person (to be tortured) is 100% uninvolved, and was just in the wrong place at the wrong time, can I deal with the idea of inflicting <whatever form of torture it is> on them?"

And if one can say 'yes' to that, some good old 'what if it was me in that position' should straighten things out.

As much as I like the neatness of meticulous tortures, I'd *never* use them to extract information - as far as I'm concearned, it's utterly delusional to imagine that torturing another being can ever be good, in any sense. It's sickening, and the people who do it need to wake up and accept that they've been utterly desensitised to human suffering.

Of course, if they already accept that and are just evil... well, that's a slightly different issue. At least they can *admit* they're doing it solely for self-serving reasons.

If a million citizens and the ecconomy were at stake, I'd torture the terrorist myself (or personally give the order), avert the problem, and resign the next morning. Torture cannot be utilised by a civilized nation. I would explain that I was acting as an individual out of dire concern for my people and make a decision as such.

Of course, there are other methods which work just as well, even better than torture, so this circumstance is unlikely to arise.

If a million citizens and the ecconomy were at stake, I'd torture the terrorist myself (or personally give the order), avert the problem, and resign the next morning. Torture cannot be utilised by a civilized nation. I would explain that I was acting as an individual out of dire concern for my people and make a decision as such.

Of course, there are other methods which work just as well, even better than torture, so this circumstance is unlikely to arise.

*shrugs* I guess that works.

But I'd have to say that if you're the sort of person that would torture another human being, maybe you should question why the hell you care about all those other human beings. Do you really believe that you can claim to be doing something to save people, while you're directly responsible for harming another person? I just view that stance as incredibly naive. (none of this is directed *at* you... sorry if it seems like it is. I'm just feeling out my opinion on the matter really).

I agree that there are methods that work more effectively than torture - in fact, that's what annoys me so much. Torturing people for information makes no sense - it doesn't give any information I'd consider to be reliable, there's no way in hell a criminal should be able to be *legally convincted* of something confessed to while under torture... it's just stupid all around.

*shrugs* I guess that works.

But I'd have to say that if you're the sort of person that would torture another human being, maybe you should question why the hell you care about all those other human beings. Do you really believe that you can claim to be doing something to save people, while you're directly responsible for harming another person? I just view that stance as incredibly naive. (none of this is directed *at* you... sorry if it seems like it is. I'm just feeling out my opinion on the matter really).

I agree that there are methods that work more effectively than torture - in fact, that's what annoys me so much. Torturing people for information makes no sense - it doesn't give any information I'd consider to be reliable, there's no way in hell a criminal should be able to be *legally convincted* of something confessed to while under torture... it's just stupid all around.

If I were directly responsible for the lives of millions of people and the future stability of my country I would see that individual terrorist to within an inch of death to save them. (Assuming I had no doubt that the terrorist was both guilty and had the relevant information) People recover from pain, they don't recover from death. As we've said though, I would never have to decide to do that. Also, I'd have to question what would drive an individual to acts of exteme terrorism against my country. Surely that could not be unprovoked.
Anyway, that's my two cents: the clock just ticked past 12 midnight.

*shrugs* I guess that works.

But I'd have to say that if you're the sort of person that would torture another human being, maybe you should question why the hell you care about all those other human beings. Do you really believe that you can claim to be doing something to save people, while you're directly responsible for harming another person? I just view that stance as incredibly naive. (none of this is directed *at* you... sorry if it seems like it is. I'm just feeling out my opinion on the matter really).

I agree that there are methods that work more effectively than torture - in fact, that's what annoys me so much. Torturing people for information makes no sense - it doesn't give any information I'd consider to be reliable, there's no way in hell a criminal should be able to be *legally convincted* of something confessed to while under torture... it's just stupid all around.

I agree, but I find it hard to resolve the issue of the individual vs society. If a person knew that knowledge was being held would it be justified? If someone knew a vital piece of information that would save the lives of many, how could I reasonably stand back and allow that person to remain silent? Conversely, what right do I have, or society's if I am acting on their behalf to deny that person of their rights regardless of their actions. I don't believe conditions should be placed on a person's rights.

I agree, but I find it hard to resolve the issue of the individual vs society. If a person knew that knowledge was being held would it be justified? If someone knew a vital piece of information that would save the lives of many, how could I reasonably stand back and allow that person to remain silent? Conversely, what right do I have, or society's if I am acting on their behalf to deny that person of their rights regardless of their actions. I don't believe conditions should be placed on a person's rights.

But then it becomes an issue of 'you can't torture them until you KNOW they have the information'. And currently the answer to the question 'how do we find out whether they have the information?' is 'TORTURE THEM'!

It's like throwing someone in prison *until* you can find the evidence that they've committed a crime. You can't torture someone to FIND OUT if they meet the criteria to be tortured. And I don't trust second hand information; so 'I know he knows that' isn't good enough.

But then it becomes an issue of 'you can't torture them until you KNOW they have the information'. And currently the answer to the question 'how do we find out whether they have the information?' is 'TORTURE THEM'!

It's like throwing someone in prison *until* you can find the evidence that they've committed a crime. You can't torture someone to FIND OUT if they meet the criteria to be tortured. And I don't trust second hand information; so 'I know he knows that' isn't good enough.
Agreed its a hard choice. I don't think I'd torture someone if you didn't know really. If you have a truth serum or could read their minds, but torture to find out if they even knew anything seems stupid.

If a million citizens and the ecconomy were at stake, I'd torture the terrorist myself (or personally give the order), avert the problem, and resign the next morning. Torture cannot be utilised by a civilized nation. I would explain that I was acting as an individual out of dire concern for my people and make a decision as such.

Of course, there are other methods which work just as well, even better than torture, so this circumstance is unlikely to arise.

Doing it and then resigning, in a just society, would still see you charged, convicted, and suitably punished.

Perhaps you could be charged with "acting as an individual out of dire concern" or was that supposed to be some form of defence?

If so, you could suggest it to the likes of Pinochet.

Doing it and then resigning, in a just society, would still see you charged, convicted, and suitably punished.

Perhaps you could be charged with "acting as an individual out of dire concern" or was that supposed to be some form of defence?

If so, you could suggest it to the likes of Pinochet.

Then I would hope to be so convicted. No, not a defense against imprisonment, a method of shaking torture off the shoulders of the nation. A true leader would act not out of concern for him/herself, but out of resposibilty for his/her citizens. Do you not understand this concept? To lead a nation is to sacrifice one's own existance for the people. In whatever circumstance.

Then I would hope to be so convicted. No, not a defense against imprisonment, a method of shaking torture off the shoulders of the nation. A true leader would act not out of concern for him/herself, but out of resposibilty for his/her citizens. Do you not understand this concept? To lead a nation is to sacrifice one's own existance for the people. In whatever circumstance.

To lead a nation to what by acting in an immoral fashion?

You have a decidedly warped sense of morality if you place your nation, or, indeed, any nation, above the rights of humanity as a whole.

You use the arguments of a Hitler.

To lead a nation to what by acting in an immoral fashion?

You have a decidedly warped sense of morality if you place your nation, or, indeed, any nation, above the rights of humanity as a whole.

You use the arguments of a Hitler.

Saving the lives of millions and the well being of tens of millions by the torture of one individual is immoral? I hope you never lead my nation. I am very much against torture, mind you, but there is just no option. Yes, as a leader I place the nation above the rights of a criminal. Hitler was an intelligent, role-model citizen. He did great things for Germany. Unfortunately he decided he could take on Russia as well as the allies. If he had succeeded, the Third Reich would have been the most progressive nation the world had ever seen. The USA of today pales into insignificance in comparison. (By the way, I'm part Jewish, so don't pull that on me, his morals were in the wrong place - maybe, but that doesn't mean he wasn't a good leader.)

One fact is being overlooked here. Torture is a very ineffective way to get information, most of the information obtained that way is false, and professional analyst will generally place no reliance on information obtained through torture unless there are more reliable corroborating sources. Under torture people will say what they perceive the interogator wants to hear whether it is true or not. By the time the effectiveness of torture kicks in, the target is usually having to ask very leading questions to get any response and the target just follows the lead. When it can be verifiable and is discovered to be inaccurate, the target can reasonably claim that routines and communication lines were changed after his capture. Since any competent covert organization would do that, there is no way to no. Relying on torture almost always leads to faulty analysis and fauty decisions. It just does not work.

As far as community need overriding individual rights, the US constitutional system has lots of examples of that running from the draft to incarceration and execution for crime. The way the constitution was designed the intent was no one branch of government could make the decision to override on its own but had to have the concurrence of at least one other branch. It frankly has worked pretty well so far and nothing that has happened to date gives me any reason to support changing. Better we lose a million citizens than do away with due process. After all that is what all our wars were fought to preserve and what all our vetrans living and dead sacrificed for.

Well, to be completely honest before i start, i haven't read all of the posts here, so sorry if i'm repeating whatever has been said.

I did an essay on a very similar topic for my philosophy exam, i ended up talking about the difference between reason and emotion in knowledge and beliefs. basically, i feel that this situation is subjective. I mean, its all about your emotions and your morals. as i said in my essay, morals change depending on the situation, and rationality wont.

in the case of the torturing, if you aren't directly related to the people in danger with the bomb, then your morals may say "oh torturing someone is bad, never do it". But when you realise that your family is in danger, or even worse, you are in danger... then we find that our morals change. by that point, youd be torturing each one to a degree similar to a professional trying to get the information out of them.
But if humans were completely rational beings, we would act the same in both cases... i kinda got off topic... but there isnt much i can do about it

Well, to be completely honest before i start, i haven't read all of the posts here, so sorry if i'm repeating whatever has been said.

I did an essay on a very similar topic for my philosophy exam, i ended up talking about the difference between reason and emotion in knowledge and beliefs. basically, i feel that this situation is subjective. I mean, its all about your emotions and your morals. as i said in my essay, morals change depending on the situation, and rationality wont.

in the case of the torturing, if you aren't directly related to the people in danger with the bomb, then your morals may say "oh torturing someone is bad, never do it". But when you realise that your family is in danger, or even worse, you are in danger... then we find that our morals change. by that point, youd be torturing each one to a degree similar to a professional trying to get the information out of them.
But if humans were completely rational beings, we would act the same in both cases... i kinda got off topic... but there isnt much i can do about it

Emotion is an interesting factor. But I figure it would have the reverse effect in some circumstances. Take as an example the exclusion of rights for certain minorities. When the individual involved is unknown then it is easier to deny his or her rights as opposed to knowing or seeing that individual. In this case the majority see their rights surpassing those of the individual. An example is in terms of drug use or gay marriage.

The thread about Bush and torture got me thinking.

When are the rights of an individual extinguished by the rights of the majority?

Obviously this has wide reaching implications, but in light of the post made by Aahhzz it is an interesting question.



When are the rights of an individual extinguished by the rights of the majority?

Is it when a loved one is at risk?
Is it when there are more than 10, 100, 1000, 1000000 people at risk?
Is it when financial considerations are taken into account?
Is it possible risk?
Does it depend on urgency?
Does it depend on the rank of the "informant"?

Also, when does it apply? It has implications in many aspects of life... a conundrum for supporters of freedom and democracy!

IMO, the only time the rights of one or the majority supercede the rights of another individual is when that individual willfully violates or can be shown beyond a reasonable doubt to be in the process of violating someone else's rights.