• Almost never. The circumstances in which it would be acceptable to torture are essentially those ion which it would be acceptable to kill i.e. in immediate defence of life. It is not acceptable to torture suspects, and it is not acceptable to torture for background information.
  • I don't think its right to torture anyone, anyway.
  • The classic- do the ends justify the means, right? The best answer would proabably be that it depended on the situation- Would you toture one person to save the lives of hundreds? I think it's bad to inflict pain on another person for any reason, but another part of me, the more clinical part, understands that something like this is merely a mathmatical equation. 1-1=100
  • I have to put that question to pertain to my little world.....if my granddaughter or any family member were missing and he told me he would never tell where they were...yes torture might loosen his lips.
  • That would depend if the imformation was something like a bomb that was going to kill many people or something on those lines. I cannot ethically condone torture but in cases involving life and death of the innocent, I think it would have to be done but it does not make it right. A case of the ends justifying the means.
  • About my family yes. About the country, I'd leave that to people like you who know alot to make that decision
  • For what I would consider the 'right reason' - undoubtedly. If I thought it would stop a 911 for instance I GUARENTEE the swine would talk. But therein lies the problem - who decides what the 'right' reason is....
  • Absolutely.
  • If we can agree on definitions of "morals'' and "vital information," we may be able to agree on an answer. Maybe.
  • Never. Coerced information is unreliable and torture will farther engender hatred of the oppressor.
    • Hardcore Conservative
      Not always.
  • not at all
  • Anything that purposely harms another person physically or mentally is a sin in the eyes of the Lord God. Nuff said.
    • Archie Bunker
      Is war a sin? Or just murder?
  • Depends on many factors including whose morals you are using. There is no one standard for "morals". Serial killers and soldiers have morals very different from the morals of politicians for example. Then you have rather dubious merit of determining "vital" information. You need to prove both the person has it and that they are deliberately hiding it. The latter of which is why you would resort to torture. But then it's likely the person has been deliberately trained to not give you that information or give misinformation under torture.
    • Archie Bunker
      Everyone has their breaking point. It just depends on how far one is willing to go.
  • I've heard all is fair in love and war. But studies/statistics show torture is not effective for extracting information. I'd use a more effective method.
    • Archie Bunker
      Waterboarding worked on KSM, didn't it? That seemed pretty effective.
    • Linda Joy
      Waterboarding is not torture. No one is hurt. It is an effective method of information extraction.
    • Archie Bunker
      Stress positions are considered torture and yet no one is hurt. Many enhanced interrogation techniques are now considered torture. Hell, even blasting loud music. Point is, what is torture is subjective. And yes, it does work.
  • no, its wrong to torture thenn for any reason
  • It's against the Geneva Convention. It's immoral and unethical
  • Sure, it's fine.

Copyright 2018, Wired Ivy, LLC

Answerbag | Terms of Service | Privacy Policy