It's hypocrisy, and the West has had this kind of hypocrisy always, look at Christianity and the supposed key rules that are supposed to be followed and measure that against what has been law and common practice historically in these very Christian nations. Now with humanism, certain things are condemned and yet supported and practised, the hypocrisy exists there too. When we look at trends, improvements occur and our society, laws and practices might exist in harmony with our philosophical ideals. It is a work in progress, to rectify these contradictions.

A lot of it comes down to humanising the victims, to hear the other side of the story and realise that our values are not being applied fairly. In this case, that might be that prisoners have a right to life and that these people might deserve compassion and forgiveness despite their crimes. I am confident that unless something terrible happens, the prison systems in the developed world will continue to be reformed to increase compassion, reduce cruelty and almost certainly do away with things like capital punishment and especially solitary confinement.

Though personally, I believe capital punishment can be acceptable in some cases, I lean towards its abolishment but a just system could include it depending on how it was handled.

I think @dclements, @Judaka et al fairly represent both sides of the issue in general, and we could get into further detail by comparing cultures, subcultures and historical periods. Torture is not completely impractical, quality of life is certainly diminished for its victims and possibly witnesses, quality of life seems to be sustained by its role as a deterrent, while many cultures view torture as ethically suspect and have been phasing it out for centuries, though this is not an inevitable trend or universally in effect. We could also consider portrayals of torture and tortured individuals in art and media: is this a good or bad influence, perhaps some of both? What about torture as cruelty in personal relationships, should we view this with strong disfavor on principle?

When it comes to deterrence, I think many are not reasonable in their assertions about what kind of punishment can effectively deter. Let's imagine the punishment for murder is 5 years in prison, the prison serves decent food, you have access to resources for rehabilitation, basic entertainment, keeping you healthy and etc. By all accounts, a far better deal than what you'd get under most systems. Who in their right mind would think they shall commit murder because prison isn't "too bad?". That's five years of your life locked in a cell, away from your friends and family, not being able to do the things you want to do, not being free, leaving with a brand that hurts you for the rest of your life. Not saying that murder should be a five-year sentence but I don't think twenty-five to life in horrible conditions is anywhere near the minimum for an effective deterrent. Our society isn't kept safe by things like solitary confinement at all.

I think creative media should be allowed to portray immoral acts with near impunity. Whether it's good or bad, it should be allowed either way. Don't want to discuss whether it's good or bad.

I don't know what the threshold for something to become torture is, but I view it as severe to the extent that if torture is apt to describe a behaviour then it's almost certainly criminal or immoral as it would have to be quite extreme. Cruelty is often immoral but it's pretty subjective and I would require details in order to form an opinion on something called "cruel" by others. Not much more than that to say.

@schopenhauer1

From what I know, we have a "better", comparatively exquisite in detail, description of hell in religion than heaven. Take any religion, any religion at all and look up hell, you'll see what I'm talking about. It's as if we're more familiar with suffering than joy. Religions tend to be very vague on what heaven is like. Most simply claim that it's a place of eternal happiness and if, like me, you were expecting a higher resolution image of what that actually looks like, I'm sorry to say, you'll be sorely disappointed. That in itself is a hell of its own kind.

How does what I said relate to torture? We know how to inflict pain but, relatively speaking, we're clueless about how to bring joy. This is problem number 1 for humanity.

What most fail to realize is that if someone is being tortured until he or she snaps, or is so dirt poor and perhaps addicted that crime is unavoidable, torture is of limited value as a deterrent. And torture desensitizes victims and perpetrators alike so they are less likely to avoid their own pain or feel empathy for those around them, making society more unethical. Torture is generally a no win, a downward spiral, but it's easy for many citizens to ignore this, and torture might be inescapable in contemporary society even so, though I hope not.

torture is of limited value as a deterrent. And torture desensitizes victims and perpetrators alike so they are less likely to avoid their own pain or feel empathy for those around them, making society more unethical. — Enrique

1. I'm pretty sure a lot of those who got capital punishment wanted to escape but they couldn't.
2. If one has to choose between torture or death, I'm sure most would choose torture, as long as that torture isn't way too harsh to endure.

You said tortured victims would feel empathy for those around them, how about those who directly perform capital punishment? surely they either feel no empathy or they dream about their job, maybe even need to visit a psychiatrist sooner or later.

I'm increasinly persuaded that this. our "lovely" earth, is in reality hell itself. Of course the descriptions of hell don't match with earthly facts but hear me out. Warning, twisted logic ahead.

Why do I think earth is actually hell?

For one simple reason: We can't seem to be able to do good in a way it's truly good or, on the flip side, things that are truly horrific in the moral sense seem to have a place in our lives e.g. torture is, on certain occasions, justifiable. So, in our "wonderful" lives spent here on dear ol' earth, you'll be put in situations where you can't be/do good or, at other more lamentable circumstances, you will be asked/forced to cause injury or death. By comparison the Devil, yes Satan himself, has a better happiness score than the denizens of earth - at least Lucifer isn't burdened by moral dilemmas of the kind and complexity humans have to deal with at every turn. For The Deceiver, it's rather simple - fuck 'em and fuck 'em "good"! Not so for us who want to do the right thing but can't and let's not forget how bad we have to be just to do a little good. :joke:

Why do I think earth is actually hell?

For one simple reason: We can't seem to be able to do good in a way it's truly good or, on the flip side, things that are truly horrific in the moral sense seem to have a place in our lives e.g. torture is, on certain occasions, justifiable. — TheMadFool

That's an interesting supposition.

In my view, when an idea of what is Good is established, everything else is a matter of consistency. That's where most go wrong - consistency, or the lack of moral consistency: hypocrisy, as mentioned by .

Especially when an idea of what is Good conflicts with what is convenient in the present moment, one may try to bend their idea of Good to fit their current predicament, almost always to no avail.

I think what you describe as an inability to do Good, is rather an unwillingness to make the sacrifices required to be consistent.

We can't seem to be able to do good in a way it's truly good or, on the flip side, things that are truly horrific in the moral sense seem to have a place in our lives e.g. torture is, on certain occasions, justifiable. — TheMadFool

So nothing is entirely good nor entirely bad. I can agree with that.

When the two are in conflict, they are competing priorities and one must choose. — DingoJones

Sure, but your moral theory could simply prioritize one over the other. Something like “the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few.” So that way maintaining social stability necessarily trumps individual needs/concerns.

So nothing is entirely good nor entirely bad. I can agree with that. — Olivier5

Even rape?

I know, the consequences are untoward. Even mass murder, if you go there...

Even rape? — Pinprick

It might not be a bad thing to rape a rapist. Especially if it got him to quit raping.

Sure, but your moral theory could simply prioritize one over the other. Something like “the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few.” So that way maintaining social stability necessarily trumps individual needs/concerns. — Pinprick

Well…ok, but that doesnt do anything to address that the two are in conflict. All you're doing there is picking one over the other.
In this context it is the moral needs of the many outweighing the moral needs of the few. In other words the moral needs of society (what is good for society) outweigh the moral needs of an individual. (What is good for a person). The two will at times conflict, such as in the case of rule of law vs some morally justified vigilante justice.
Even if you have a personal ethic that puts society ahead of the the individual you will still get the conflict. You’ve just shifted where that conflict takes place from a dichotomy between societies good and the individuals good to a dichotomy between two tenets of a personal moral theory, the dichotomy is exactly the same in both cases. The conflict is still there, the choice between societies good or an individuals good must still be made.

"Putting Cruelty First" and "The Liberalism Of Fear".

Seems on point.

My short answer to this is people can say anything they want when there are no consequences for it.
"I would sacrifice my life and run into a burning building to save a baby." Sitting here at home with no real risk of this happening, I can feel very good about myself as I run the imagery through my mind. But then a real fire happens. There's a baby crying. Suddenly there are real consequences. If I die, who will take care of my dog? Maybe the building will collapse before I get out, and we'll both die. Maybe...

Lots of people can sit on their couch and talk about how moral and ethical they'll be. Then one day when you're walking down the street, a bank car overturns and millions of dollars fly out the back. Before you are several hundred dollars that could easily pay this months rent, and let you pay off some debt. There are tons of people in the street collecting money already. There's no way you'll get caught, or arrested, or even blamed. Heck, if you started collecting it to give you back, people would probably think you were a fool. Do you actually not steal in this instance?

Torture is about fear of loss. On paper you wouldn't do it. But then you don't know if that guy has information that could get some of your people killed. That bastard is an enemy who attacked us, with the intent to murder us. If we don't torture him, more people might die. Am I willing to let my own people die for some murderer who is here to kill my family and friends?

Sorry you've experienced it by the way. I'm not saying it was right. What I'm trying to say is being moral isn't just about knowing what is moral, it is about having the courage and conviction to follow it. Many people will have the former, fewer will have the later.

We know how to inflict pain but, relatively speaking, we're clueless about how to bring joy. — TheMadFool

It's not only that we know how to inflict pain but not how to bring joy, it's hard to experience joy in the first place when you're in pain, and humans are in chronic physical and psychological pain. This is an even deeper aspect of the problem, being unresponsive to pleasurable stimulus because of baseline pain. Luckily sublimation and just knowing that someone cares can go a long way.

Torture is about fear of loss. On paper you wouldn't do it. But then you don't know if that guy has information that could get some of your people killed. That bastard is an enemy who attacked us, with the intent to murder us. If we don't torture him, more people might die. Am I willing to let my own people die for some murderer who is here to kill my family and friends? — Philosophim

I think a case can be made that torture is justifiable or at least inevitable in war, though it should be minimized whenever possible. But if humans view much of what surrounds them in civilian society as an implicit war for justice or whatever it might be so as to validate their own impulse towards cruelty, tolerance for torture can become a major problem, compounding the issues with chronic pain I described.

We know how to inflict pain but, relatively speaking, we're clueless about how to bring joy.
— TheMadFool

It's not only that we know how to inflict pain but not how to bring joy, it's hard to experience joy in the first place when you're in pain, and humans are in chronic physical and psychological pain. This is an even deeper aspect of the problem, being unresponsive to pleasurable stimulus because of baseline pain. Luckily sublimation and just knowing that someone cares can go a long way. — Enrique

That's why I'm beginning to think negative utilitarianism is just what's needed for the world as it is now. @180 Proof would agree I think. Maslow's hierarchy of needs also seems appropriate for the occasion.

:up: