I don’t think torture is unethical as it gets, and certainly not because it violates sanctity of life. I do not believe life is sacred, although maybe we have different ideas of what that means.
Also, you are using “torture” far too broadly in my view. You seem to think suffering = torture? Would that be accurate? You even list capital punishment as “torture”. In what way?

Purpose of torture is not punishment as one may think, but public deterrence and information gathering.

Interesting, do you think torture as punishment would be unethical, but the other two reasons for torture ethical?
Can you expand on torture as a public deterrent?

but everyone at least tacitly condones torture by tolerating solitary confinement, capital punishment, etc. — Enrique

:rofl:

No, that's mostly just 'mercans. The civilised world did away with that shit years ago.

You seem to think suffering = torture? Would that be accurate? You even list capital punishment as “torture”. In what way? — DingoJones

Suffering exacted as a violation of one's humanity, or inhumane pain infliction is torture. Capital punishment is torture because the recipient is made to contemplate the moment of their own death for years. Not the worst form of torture of course, but extremely disturbing nonetheless.

No, that's mostly just 'mercans. The civilised world did away with that shit years ago. — Banno

Did they? Where in the “civilized world” did they do away with torture as described in the OP? Even in the US the things you quoted aren’t everywhere, only in parts.

Capital punishment still exists in Japan and South Korea, not only the US. Of course, this doesn't make it right, but other "developed countries" have it as well.

And I can understand wanting to kill someone who murdered a family member or raped a loved one. But to give that power to the state, is problematic.

@Banno

You know better than that.

here and here

Im still unclear. By that definition of torture, spanking a child is torture…is that the kind of thing you wish to include?
What kind of inflicted pain is humane? (Since you restrict torture to “inhumane” pain?

What kind of inflicted pain is humane? — DingoJones

A woman piercing her ears is fairly humane. Threatening someone with a gruesome death or actually inflicting it is inhumane. Some grey area between.

do you think torture as punishment would be unethical — DingoJones

Definitely yes, torture for the sole purpose of punishment is not only unethical but also uncivilized.

Can you expand on torture as a public deterrent? — DingoJones

Torture in public, primary goal is to discourage committed crime or evil, punishment comes as "collateral" and is secondary.

Torture may be otherwise ethically acceptable as long as it doesn't result in death.

Regarding punishment, I just pulled this off the web but it comports with what I remember as a prosecuting attorney:

1. Specific deterrence prevents crime by frightening an individual defendant with punishment.
2. Incapacitation prevents crime by removing a defendant from society.
3. Rehabilitation prevents crime by altering a defendant's behavior.
4. Retribution prevents crime by giving victims or society a feeling of avengement.

I think torture goes beyond what is necessary for 1, 2 and 3. Sometimes nothing will satisfy #4.

There is, as says, the addition of information gathering.

I think torture is a sign of weakness. It's like the society or the soldier who must gin it/himself up with hate in order to kill. A professional doesn't need to hate to kill. You don't shoot a rabid dog because you are trying to deter other dogs, rehab, retribute, or whatever. It's just business. Punishment is business. Torture is weakness. But a professional will sometimes know human psychology and use business methods that seem untoward.

I got waterboarded and whatnot. They told us a password and told us not to repeat it. We all repeated it in short order. Things are pretty much set up now so that if you get captured, our people just change all the intel so you can sing like you are going to sing anyway. The intel won't be any good. The enemy knows this. So if they torture it's because they are weak. We have been weak too.

Ok I see. I just can’t agree with torture being so broadly applied. The threat of gruesome death as torture? We have to have a higher bar than that.

Definitely yes, torture for the sole purpose of punishment is not only unethical but also uncivilized. — SpaceDweller

As punishment, unethical. As a deterrent, ethical.
They seem to have the same ethical standing to me, how have you made this distinction?

Torture in public, primary goal is to discourage committed crime or evil, punishment comes as "collateral" and is secondary. — SpaceDweller

I can tell youve given this some thought and for that reason I suspect you see that explanation as expansive but Im not sure what you mean. First part is clear but the second part I need expanded. Punishment is collateral and “secondary”…collateral of what, and secondary to what?

Your question seems to be oriented toward physical torture, but there is also psychological torture.
Both have same effect but different outcome.

As punishment, unethical. As a deterrent, ethical.
They seem to have the same ethical standing to me, how have you made this distinction? — DingoJones

Not really, consider a person who attempts to pollute a water so that whole society would face serious issues for survival, and this attempt becomes publicly known. (but not committed)

Would you punish such a person in private (punishment) or in public (deterrent)?
What's the purpose of private torture if there is a whole host of potential people who might think doing such evil is actually a good idea?

Punishment is collateral and “secondary”…collateral of what, and secondary to what? — DingoJones

Primary purpose of punishment in public is deterrence not punishment, for reasons in example above.

Put it another way, we face COVID pandemic, now somehow a person is found guilty who is responsible for this, such that it was his will to infect the whole world.
Would your just punishment be death penalty, torture in public or torture in private?

Not really, consider a person who attempts to pollute a water so that whole society would face serious issues for survival, and this attempt becomes publicly known. (but not committed)

Would you punish such a person in private (punishment) or in public (deterrent)?
What's the purpose of private torture if there is a whole host of potential people who might think doing such evil is actually a good idea? — SpaceDweller

Sorry I wasnt clear. I was stating your stance not offering my own when I said “as punishment, ethical, as deterrent unethical.”. What I meant was I myself do not see a difference between the ethical standing of either is f those. The argument you proceed to make is a practical one, not an ethical one. I concede your point that its more practical, useful to torture publicly rather privately to deter a crime like that but what is the difference in the rightness or wrongness of the tortures themselves in each case?
Or are ethics about whats practical in your view?

Primary purpose of punishment in public is deterrence not punishment, for reasons in example above.

Put it another way, we face COVID pandemic, now somehow a person is found guilty who is responsible for this, such that it was his will to infect the whole world.
Would your just punishment be death penalty, torture in public or torture in private? — SpaceDweller

Ok, gotchya. Thanks for clarifying.

As punishment, unethical. As a deterrent, ethical.
They seem to have the same ethical standing to me, how have you made this distinction? — DingoJones

Sorry I wasnt clear. I was stating your stance not offering my own when I said “as punishment, ethical, as deterrent unethical.”. What I meant was I myself do not see a difference between the ethical standing of either is f those. — DingoJones

You put ethical higher meaning than practical, while this sounds ethical and in most of the cases valid, there are cases where an issue isn't only a matter of ethical or not.

If you're a judge that is supposed to be just then in such extreme situations it's not only about you and defendant, you also need to care of yourself because there may be millions if not billions of those seeking justice :wink:
If that's sounds unethical to you then don't judge.

It's a question of scale.

Your question seems to be oriented toward physical torture, but there is also psychological torture.
Both have same effect but different outcome. — SpaceDweller

In my case it was psychological, years of an attempt at causing me to go insane, and physical to the extent that I suffered brain damage. I know firsthand that mind-centric torture seems very real and can eventually destroy your personality, so in my opinion this should be prevented however possible.

It's a question of scale. — Banno

If Australia was huge, its crimes would be huge.

so in my opinion this should be prevented however possible — Enrique

I think it's hard to prove, and even harder to prevent.
It depends on so many things I don't know what to say :meh:

It's a question of scale. — Banno

It's all a question of degree. All nations imprison people. Removing me from my loved ones, eliminating my ability to contribute anything to the world, dictating my every move, housing me with those who wish me harm, is that not the worst torture imaginable? Is that more humane than 20 lashes?

You put ethical higher meaning than practical, while this sounds ethical and in most of the cases valid, there are cases where an issue isn't only a matter of ethical or not. — SpaceDweller

No, I didnt mean to imply ethical above practical. Indeed, my view is that ethics are merely one of many priorities people have. When these priorities are in conflict, sometimes morality ethics lose out. Thats the main problem I have with many systems of ethics, they assume morality as the highest priority when its much more common for ethics to be 3-4th on the list of priorities for people. For example, many people put family before ethics or sadly most people put money above ethics and compromising ethics for money is so common they scarcely recognize their behaviour as unethical. (Some clever folks even call it “business ethics” to create the illusion that they still operate ethically.)

If you're a judge that is supposed to be just then in such extreme situations it's not only about you and defendant, you also need to care of yourself because there may be millions if not billions of those seeking justice :wink:
If that's sounds unethical to you then don't judge. — SpaceDweller

I think we agree. I would describe that as putting a higher degree of priority on social stability than ethics. This is what judges and lawyers are doing all the time, and why people often refer to lawyers as scum….they arent acting ethically first. They are acting in the interests of a system first, and MAYBE putting ethics second but more likely not at all because they do not recognize a distinction between what they do and ethics, therefore they dont consider ethics because they think they have already.

No, I didnt mean to imply ethical above practical. Indeed, my view is that ethics are merely one of many priorities people have. When these priorities are in conflict, sometimes morality ethics lose out. — DingoJones

That’s interesting, I haven’t thought of it like that before. But…

I would describe that as putting a higher degree of priority on social stability than ethics. — DingoJones

Couldn’t, or shouldn’t, things like “social stability” just be incorporated into a person’s ethical theory? I feel like any form of consequentialism would necessarily have to consider things like social stability and the impact whatever moral choice has on it.

Suicide?

Suicide?

Removing me from my loved ones, eliminating my ability to contribute anything to the world, dictating my every move, housing me with those who wish me harm, is that not the worst torture imaginable? Is that more humane than 20 lashes? — Hanover

lol, indeed :grin:

Thats the main problem I have with many systems of ethics, they assume morality as the highest priority when its much more common for ethics to be 3-4th on the list of priorities for people. — DingoJones

Honestly (due to my English not being native), I didn't differentiate between morality and ethics, and it looks like it's not even universally defined, following quote seem to shade some light:

Many people think of morality as something that’s personal and normative, whereas ethics is the standards of “good and bad” distinguished by a certain community or social setting. For example, your local community may think adultery is immoral, and you personally may agree with that. However, the distinction can be useful if your local community has no strong feelings about adultery, but you consider adultery immoral on a personal level. By these definitions of the terms, your morality would contradict the ethics of your community.

What’s the Difference Between Morality and Ethics?

Therefore if we agree on that definition, it all depends on society or an individual in question, what is fine for you or your society may be utter disgust for some other society or individual.
I'm not saying that majority should define what's right or wrong, but that's not up to judge to handle.

For example, many people put family before ethics or sadly most people put money above ethics and compromising ethics for money is so common they scarcely recognize their behaviour as unethical. (Some clever folks even call it “business ethics” to create the illusion that they still operate ethically.) — DingoJones

Agree, this is sadness of modern day society where money of few rules the world. (or more precisely love toward money).

I would describe that as putting a higher degree of priority on social stability than ethics. This is what judges and lawyers are doing all the time, and why people often refer to lawyers as scum….they arent acting ethically first. They are acting in the interests of a system first — DingoJones

Agree as well, abuse of system is not uncommon, but I don't think torture is subject of abuse, if fact such abuse doesn't even exist in today's times.

I think a better question would be, what is more acceptable? punishment that is merciful or punishment that is too harsh?
Regardless of answer it all depends whether either of these choices would be counterproductive, that is cause social instability whether in long term or short term and whether that is acceptable.
I mean, ethics is relative to society or an individual, and no society is perfect.

Why this disconnect between the philosophy and practices of torture? Does torture reveal an essential flaw in philosophizing, its hypocrisy, or is philosophical thinking simply incapable of altering the human propensity for accepting violation by pain no matter what its reasoning consists in? — Enrique

Interesting question.

The disconnect is not as stark as you suggest. For one thing, philosophical discourse is not limited to the narrow field of professional academic philosophers. Philosophical arguments for and against torture are often made outside philosophy departments by lawyers, politicians, pundits, and ordinary folks. For another, arguments in favor of torture in limited circumstances do sometimes appear in the literature of academic philosophy.

If there's a disproportionate representation of anti-torture arguments among academic philosophers, I'd wonder if this might be explained sociologically, by a sort of selection mechanism of the institution: Perhaps the sort of people who would be disposed to argue in favor of torture are less likely to become professors of ethics and morality in today's academy.

The SEP entry on torture, by Seumas Miller, supplies examples of the way arguments in favor of torture in limited circumstances appear in the literature of contemporary academic philosophy.

In Section 3, Miller reviews arguments in the literature that consider "one-off, non-institutionalised acts of torture performed by state actors in emergency situations", and reaches the conclusion that "there are likely to exist, in the real world, one-off emergency situations in which arguably torture is, all things considered, the morally best action to perform."

In Section 4, Miller reviews arguments in the literature that consider the "legalization or institutionalization of torture" in limited circumstances. Miller argues persuasively against legalization and institutionalization, but cites several authors who have taken an opposite stance.

Some pro-torture arguments outside the academy are provided by lawyers and politicians narrowly concerned with blowing loopholes into the law, for instance, in the notorious "Torture Memos" of 2002-2003.

Such efforts to promote institutionalized torture on narrow legal grounds are typically supported by moral and practical arguments provided by intellectuals and bullshit artists employed by right-wing think tanks and published in right-wing propaganda platforms like the National Review. Consider the profound inhumanity tucked into the flippant opening sentence of Deroy Murdock's defense of waterboarding, and belied by his shamefully squirming objection to characterizations of that practice as "repugnant". Murdock's despicable slimy gestures make arguments like those offered in 2005 by Andrew C. McCarthy seem thoughtful and moderate in comparison.

At a glance, Miller's arguments against institutionalized torture in Section 4 of his SEP article arguably undermine the considerations raised by McCarthy. But I doubt they would convert anyone who's already committed to promoting the practice of torture in our institutions.

Couldn’t, or shouldn’t, things like “social stability” just be incorporated into a person’s ethical theory? I feel like any form of consequentialism would necessarily have to consider things like social stability and the impact whatever moral choice has on it. — Pinprick

Well there will be times when social stability and morality/ethics come into conflict. This isnt mutually exclusive to the point you're making. So the moral consideration of the consequences to society of an act should be included whenever they can be, I would agree with that. When the two are in conflict, they are competing priorities and one must choose.

Why this disconnect between the philosophy and practices of torture? Does torture reveal an essential flaw in philosophizing, its hypocrisy, or is philosophical thinking simply incapable of altering the human propensity for accepting violation by pain no matter what its reasoning consists in? — Enrique

This " disconnect between the philosophy and practices of torture" as you call it only exist if you discount the problem of the human condition. We exist in a flawed world and are flawed beings, the philosophy of ethics is merely theory on what we can or should do under mostly ideal circumstances, but even under ideal circumstances it is debatable as to what we should do.

When one claims torture is evil it is mostly an appeal to emotion fallacy since nobody wants to be tortured and it is all but a given that one believes that it would be evil for anyone to torture them much like it would be if someone murdered and robbed them. However people really don't think it is evil for themselves to torture or kill/rob someone if they had to do so in order to survive and/or protect those that they love such as family.

For example, most people in this world have no problem eating meat in order to stay alive. We raise the animals and them slaughter them in order to sustain our existence. Humans beings do this practically every day as almost as part of some ritual were we kill animals in order to rob them of the meat from their bodies (since they don't have anything else really to give us) and because we need food and the animals can't give us any resistance to us doing so, it is merely has become a simple process that we do and don't really think of it as evil when we do it. While we may not really torture the animals when we slaughter them, I'm pretty sure if the animals had some kind of sentience into their own condition it would almost no lesser of a evil of what we do to them than if we did torture them in the end.

In much the same way our society our society divides us into those that "have" and those that "have not" and when someone from the have nots is unhappy (or unhappy for any reason) and breaks societies rules then they are punished in was that are not all that different than torture. In many ways the laws of society are not really there to protect as much as to protect the status quo. Again if one is happy with the status quo then they have trouble seeing the evil that has to be done in order to protect it.

Read the following quote that has been attributed to George Orwell:

"People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf". - George Orwell

And ask yourself where does the line between good and evil start where one is protecting themselves and doing what needs to be done to protect themselves and where they are using excess force against other? Also ask yourself if this line is in the same place all the time or is it pliable due to the various environments one may be in.