Toronto Escorts

Would you allow the torture... (Deep thinking required, reader discretion advised)

Would you condone the killing of innocent children if it meant saving millions?

  • Yes

    Votes: 25 61.0%
  • No

    Votes: 9 22.0%
  • I choose not to address such issues

    Votes: 7 17.1%

  • Total voters
    41

rhuarc29

Well-known member
Apr 15, 2009
9,636
1,236
113
SPOILER ALERT for movie Unthinkable

With all this talk of honour killings, I went out and rented the movie "Unthinkable" starring Samuel L. Jackson and Carrie-Anne Moss. You really should watch it yourself, but the plot in a nutshell is that a "loyal" American and devoted Islamic has planted three nuclear bombs in separate American cities set to go off on Friday, but allows himself to be caught supposedly sometime before Tuesday. The military brings in a "specialist of interrogation", aka torturer, otherwise known as "H", who uses physical and psychological torture methods (removing finger nails, waterboarding, electric shock, sleep deprivation, emotional stress, etc.) in an effort to get the man to confess the locations of the bomb. The man defies all these methods, often appearing to break, and in some cases actually breaking under the strain, but even that is part of his plan. In desperation, the interrogators bring in his wife which "H" kills in front of the man in frustration. As a last resort, they bring in the man's children and threaten to torture them, eventually leading to the man confessing the location of the three bombs. "H" seems set on torturing them anyway believing that there is a fourth bomb, but before he can justify it the FBI agent Brody played by Moss and one of "H"'s assistants whisk them out of there. The pivotal moment comes when "H" proves the existence of a fourth nuclear bomb and puts it to Brody to allow or disallow him to torture the children in order to save the millions of innocent people threatened by the bomb.

The movie deals with many thought-provoking, and disturbing issues that really force you to determine where you stand on morality. Feel free to vote anonymously without commenting or go ahead and justify your choice. Also feel free to disregard this thread entirely...it's not a choice many of us would be forced to make.

I didn't post this in politics because I think it deals with many issues, only a small part of which are political. And I wanted a more diverse group.
 

DocOdd

Lover of Beautiful Souls
Jun 29, 2003
856
1
0
Ivory Tower
It's a pretty stupid hypothetical; in the real world, they've got the wrong guy at least 90% of the time, and people will confess to anything and invent all sorts of lies to try to give the torturer what he wants and stop the torture if they don't have any real information. Torture is an excellent tool for getting fake confessions, but that fact in itself makes it largely useless for getting at the truth, because there will always be massive amounts of noise to sort through from the innocent victims. For that matter, even if they have real information, torture makes people want to say what they think the torturer wants, so even someone who knows the right info will make something up if he thinks the interrogator is more likely to believe the lie than the truth. Also, the torturer becomes convinced the subject is guilty, a bias which again makes it harder to get at the truth. So if you're Stalin, and only want confessions for your show trials, and the added bonus of making your enforcers more loyal to your cause by convincing them that the cause has a lot of genuinely vile enemies, then torture will get you exactly what you want. If that's not your goal, you probably should find some other tactic.
 

mandrill

Well-known member
Aug 23, 2001
72,267
73,936
113
It's a pretty stupid hypothetical; in the real world, they've got the wrong guy at least 90% of the time, and people will confess to anything and invent all sorts of lies to try to give the torturer what he wants and stop the torture if they don't have any real information. Torture is an excellent tool for getting fake confessions, but that fact in itself makes it largely useless for getting at the truth, because there will always be massive amounts of noise to sort through from the innocent victims. For that matter, even if they have real information, torture makes people want to say what they think the torturer wants, so even someone who knows the right info will make something up if he thinks the interrogator is more likely to believe the lie than the truth. Also, the torturer becomes convinced the subject is guilty, a bias which again makes it harder to get at the truth. So if you're Stalin, and only want confessions for your show trials, and the added bonus of making your enforcers more loyal to your cause by convincing them that the cause has a lot of genuinely vile enemies, then torture will get you exactly what you want. If that's not your goal, you probably should find some other tactic.
This is - believe it or not - 1 of the major rationales for Western countries pretty much abolishing torture many decades ago.
 

Yoga Face

New member
Jun 30, 2009
6,328
19
0
Torture Hollywood moguls who give us ridiculous ideas and false information about reality so they can make a buck
 

amber-jade

Hunting..what ??
Apr 21, 2006
2,913
1
0
Very Retired
i watched this movie last weekend...

and i still cannot answer that...though i am sure that type of thing happens everyday( maybe not the 4 nukes )
 

seth gecko

Well-known member
Nov 2, 2003
3,724
42
48
Read "The Centurions" by Jean Larteguy - considered to be the first literary instance of the "ticking time-bomb" scenario referenced here.
 

rhuarc29

Well-known member
Apr 15, 2009
9,636
1,236
113
i watched this movie last weekend...

and i still cannot answer that...though i am sure that type of thing happens everyday( maybe not the 4 nukes )
Thank you. Atleast someone got the point of my post. Can anyone honestly say they could make that call?
 

randygirl

New member
Apr 7, 2010
660
0
0
erin.therouge.ca
Thank you. Atleast someone got the point of my post. Can anyone honestly say they could make that call?
I'm not sure. I wanted to watch the movie before I commented because I wanted to see what you saw and get a sense of the feelings the movie evokes before weighing in.

For right now, I would go with amber-jade on this one. Just not sure. If I had to make the call to torture or kill a child would I feel differently than being a bystander or hearing it third hand? Is it a "do what needs to be done" thing, no matter if it includes torturing a child? Is there another way?

Is it certain that by torturing this child millions will be saved, or is torturing the child on the basis of SUSPICION? Meaning, torture the child, but perhaps there is no bomb, and the only outcome is that a child is tortured. Is that a risk that I would be willing to take?

I'm not sure, but I think I'll rent it tonight. I'll get back to this tomorrow.
 

rhuarc29

Well-known member
Apr 15, 2009
9,636
1,236
113
I'm not sure. I wanted to watch the movie before I commented because I wanted to see what you saw and get a sense of the feelings the movie evokes before weighing in.

For right now, I would go with amber-jade on this one. Just not sure. If I had to make the call to torture or kill a child would I feel differently than being a bystander or hearing it third hand? Is it a "do what needs to be done" thing, no matter if it includes torturing a child? Is there another way?

Is it certain that by torturing this child millions will be saved, or is torturing the child on the basis of SUSPICION? Meaning, torture the child, but perhaps there is no bomb, and the only outcome is that a child is tortured. Is that a risk that I would be willing to take?

I'm not sure, but I think I'll rent it tonight. I'll get back to this tomorrow.
It's actually a decent movie if you like the genre. Good acting, good writing. Gut-wrenching at times, especially near the end. I seem to have an affinity for dark-themed movies lately. Anybody see The Road with Viggo Mortenson? Most depressing movie I've ever seen.
 

hungry

Well-known member
Nov 20, 2005
1,516
62
48
Sorry, but you gave away too much info in your op. I have seen the movie a few weeks ago. It went straight to dvd. I believe it was released in theaters overseas. The producers didn't think it was okay for a theatrical release in North America for obvious reasons. Anyway, you gave away too much info in your op needlessly. It has been reviewed in the local press. All you had to say was giving a situation where you could save your loved ones, or the world, what would you do? That is what the press did. Talking about torture involving a liberal and a radical what would your choice be? But you ruined it. The main question and theme of the movie is, if you were given the "unthinkable" choice of chosing between torture, murdering the innocent and saving everything and everyone you love what would you do? Myself, kill the prick and his kids!

Sorry but you spoiled the movie, as another post said that has since been deleted.

I think, again to those that oppose torture, might have a rethink.

I personally do not condone torture, but?
 

flubadub

Banned
Aug 18, 2009
2,651
0
0
It's a pretty stupid hypothetical; in the real world, they've got the wrong guy at least 90% of the time, and people will confess to anything and invent all sorts of lies to try to give the torturer what he wants and stop the torture if they don't have any real information. Torture is an excellent tool for getting fake confessions, but that fact in itself makes it largely useless for getting at the truth, because there will always be massive amounts of noise to sort through from the innocent victims. For that matter, even if they have real information, torture makes people want to say what they think the torturer wants, so even someone who knows the right info will make something up if he thinks the interrogator is more likely to believe the lie than the truth. Also, the torturer becomes convinced the subject is guilty, a bias which again makes it harder to get at the truth. So if you're Stalin, and only want confessions for your show trials, and the added bonus of making your enforcers more loyal to your cause by convincing them that the cause has a lot of genuinely vile enemies, then torture will get you exactly what you want. If that's not your goal, you probably should find some other tactic.
Well put.
Put another one down for no torture for any reason.
 

rhuarc29

Well-known member
Apr 15, 2009
9,636
1,236
113
Sorry, but you gave away too much info in your op. I have seen the movie a few weeks ago. It went straight to dvd. I believe it was released in theaters overseas. The producers didn't think it was okay for a theatrical release in North America for obvious reasons. Anyway, you gave away too much info in your op needlessly. It has been reviewed in the local press. All you had to say was giving a situation where you could save your loved ones, or the world, what would you do? That is what the press did. Talking about torture involving a liberal and a radical what would your choice be? But you ruined it. The main question and theme of the movie is, if you were given the "unthinkable" choice of chosing between torture, murdering the innocent and saving everything and everyone you love what would you do? Myself, kill the prick and his kids!

Sorry but you spoiled the movie, as another post said that has since been deleted.

I think, again to those that oppose torture, might have a rethink.

I personally do not condone torture, but?
You're right. I wanted to give a little background, but maybe I did clutter the issue more than I should have. Oh well, I'm not going to change it now.
 

Blue-Spheroid

A little underutilized
Jun 30, 2007
3,438
3
0
Bloor and Sleazy
As a nation we often put members of our society at risk in order to achieve what is believed to be a greater good. The armed forces is a classic example of this fact but there are many others. For example, rescue workers often risk (and sometimes lose) their lives to save others; we all admire firemen for entering a burning house to save a trapped resident.

The bottom line is that, in our culture, we respect the sanctity and value of human life. Given this fact, it is a simple fact that while even one death is a tragedy, the death of many is far worse than the death of few. While it would take courage and strong character to make the decision, sacrificing a few to save many thousands is clearly the right call.
 

oil&gas

Well-known member
Apr 16, 2002
12,566
1,741
113
Ghawar
Try picture a different scenario.

Ask a avid believer who knows the bible this question. Would
you kill you only beloved son to please God as Abraham did?
The most likely answer I got goes like: a father with
faith in God will as he knows it has to be the right thing to do
to obey God's order. I can think of a few other variations.
One thing I know for sure is no one can possibly provide
a meaningful answer since the story of Abraham's sacrifice of
Issac to God has no basis in the real world.

The question posed in the thread title as another poster
pointed out is one stupid hypothetical which IMO also has
no basis in reality. No deep thinking can provide any
meaningful answer to such question.

I apologize if my post comes across as a digression
to this thread.
 

freestuff

New member
Jul 6, 2008
5,705
1
0
It's basically Kant (torturing is always wrong) vs. Mill (torturing is ok if it creates a greater good for society). It's a tough call. Obviously, I couldn't agree to it if it was just based on suspicious. But if I knew for a certain that torturing an innocent child would save millions of lives then I would find it hard to say no to torture. But what if it was my child? Ah. More gray waters. It is a hard question.
 

luckyjackson

Active member
Aug 19, 2001
1,505
2
38
The situation described in this movie doesn't seem very complicated to me.

I could see torture being justified in some circumstances. For example, if authorities have a recording of someone admitting they know where those "four nuclear bombs are", I think that in a situation where time matters, almost any action against that person would be justified. I used to subscribe to the view that torture is always wrong, but after reading and listening to Dershowitz's argument, I changed my mind. If the choice is hurt a bad guy or let innocents die, then I hurt the bad guy. Simple. Of course, the evidence of the bad guy's guilt would have to be absolutely unquestionable.

When it comes to torturing innocents as a way of persuading the guilty, no I couldn't support that. It crosses a moral line. Sacrifice is wrong.
 

rhuarc29

Well-known member
Apr 15, 2009
9,636
1,236
113
The question posed in the thread title as another poster
pointed out is one stupid hypothetical which IMO also has
no basis in reality. No deep thinking can provide any
meaningful answer to such question.
Okay, I don't get why a few posters think it's such a stupid hypothetical. Sure, you and I personally will (most likely) never face such a situation. But is it such a far-cry to assume that somebody, somewhere, at some point in time may be placed in a similar position where they must choose between harming the innocent for the "greater good" or refusing to harm an innocent no matter the consequences? I'm sorry I didn't use a more realistic example in your opinion, but I'm sure there are several real-life examples that might satisfy you. How about making the call to bomb or not bomb a civilian location in order to kill a terrorist who has a high potential to kill thousands or who we knew was en route to kill thousands? How about the person who must decide whether to send his firemen into a burning building in order to save stranded occupents? Each case poses serious risk or harm to innocent people for a so-called "greater good". But the point is, you don't need to hear them to answer the question, do you?

Rockslinger, could you insert "rolling eyes" smilie here please?
 

rhuarc29

Well-known member
Apr 15, 2009
9,636
1,236
113
So you would let millions die rather than torture one innocent child of a terrorist?
I used to agree with you Blue, but have since lost my conviction. It just seems that condemning someone who has committed no wrong because they were unlucky enough to be the wrong person at the wrong time is just...wrong. As far as I'm concerned, this question has all wrong answers. Damned if you do, damned if you don't, damned if you can't decide. I wouldn't be able to live with myself no matter what choice I made.
 

afterhours

New member
Jul 14, 2009
6,323
3
0
it's actually a pretty easy call if you look at it as survival of your children versus his children.

the real question is: what would you pick, all that you consider holy and that you value in this world or life of your children.
 
Toronto Escorts