Torture V. Killing

[dairygirl4u2c]

ty, ty u very much

[aalpha1989]

manner of death matters very much, therefore my vote was null

[aalpha1989]

actually, i guess the christian response would be that it would be better to just be tortured. death may be easier, but torture is preferable morally speaking, i think. of course, the situation also matters.

[dUSt]

I vote that your polls should be killed and your posts are torture.

[Socrates]

Wakeboarding looks pretty fun, though I've actually never done it. I love jetskiing, though!

[dairygirl4u2c]

[quote name='aalpha1989' post='1412112' date='Oct 31 2007, 04:38 PM']actually, i guess the christian response would be that it would be better to just be tortured. death may be easier, but torture is preferable morally speaking, i think. of course, the situation also matters.[/quote]

funny this is the conventional wisdom amoungst christians, catholics. yet, so many insist that killing in a just war is okay, yet out of the other side of their mouth say torture is not.

[Autumn Dusk]

[quote]slowly cut, other rough torture[/quote]

where do I sign up

[Jaime]

I would rather be tortured than deal with any more women from match.com


Upon further reflection, that's a redundant statement

[Aloysius]

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' post='1412155' date='Oct 31 2007, 09:09 PM']funny this is the conventional wisdom amoungst christians, catholics. yet, so many insist that killing in a just war is okay, yet out of the other side of their mouth say torture is not.[/quote]
technically one might say "torture" was justified... say you're attempting to escape from some dark dungeon somewhere and the dungeon master is trying to capture you, and you kick him into one of his torture devices and he gets tortured as you run away. that'd be okay the same way killing as self-defense or in war is okay. the intended act is the defense of yourself or of other innocents, the double effect is that someone else gets killed... or in that example, "tortured"

but generally, the word "torture" would be like the word "murder"... both are intrinsic evils and never justified. in this context, what I described above couldn't really be called "torture" because there was no intent to torture and there was justification for kicking that guy into his torture machine. I cannot think of an equivalent term the way "killing" is to "murder" as that is to "torture", though. maybe "hurting"

[dairygirl4u2c]

[quote]but generally, the word "torture" would be like the word "murder"... both are intrinsic evils and never justified. in this context, what I described above couldn't really be called "torture" because there was no intent to torture and there was justification for kicking that guy into his torture machine. I cannot think of an equivalent term the way "killing" is to "murder" as that is to "torture", though. maybe "hurting"[/quote]

i can see defining torture as an intrinsic immoral act as murder is.
what i cannot see, is why you can "kill" in a just war, but you cannot "hurt" in a just war.

except, i did think about it, and perhaps, as per my last post, as a christian you should endure hurt, but, perhaps, you shouldn't give it, even in a just war, and even if you can kill.
and i'm not referring to incidental hurting, where you push them into a torture machine to get away. i understand you can legitimately do this, but this is not what i'm referring to. i am referring to rough hurting to gather info when millions of lives are at stake.

i can sort of see "hurting" as more inhumane as killing, in my gut. but rationally, it doesn't seem like that;s necessarily the way it is. really my gut goes both ways.
i think tihs is a gray issue.
i don't think "the ends justifies the means never" is the end of discussion scape goat it's usually used for. i can see how you might disagree, but i have little respect for that opinon unfortunately.

Edited November 2, 2007 by dairygirl4u2c

[kenrockthefirst]

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' post='1413201' date='Nov 2 2007, 11:15 AM']i can see defining torture as an intrinsic immoral act as murder is.
what i cannot see, is why you can "kill" in a just war, but you cannot "hurt" in a just war.

except, i did think about it, and perhaps, as per my last post, as a christian you should endure hurt, but, perhaps, you shouldn't give it, even in a just war, and even if you can kill.
and i'm not referring to incidental hurting, where you push them into a torture machine to get away. i understand you can legitimately do this, but this is not what i'm referring to. i am referring to rough hurting to gather info when millions of lives are at stake.

i can sort of see "hurting" as more inhumane as killing, in my gut. but rationally, it doesn't seem like that;s necessarily the way it is. really my gut goes both ways.
i think tihs is a gray issue.
i don't think "the ends justifies the means never" is the end of discussion scape goat it's usually used for. i can see how you might disagree, but i have little respect for that opinon unfortunately.[/quote]
See [url="http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/index.php?s=&showtopic=74218&view=findpost&p=1413187"]Catholic Anonymous' excellent post[/url] which deals in part with the issue of Just War.

One soldier shooting another soldier in battle is one thing. Treating someone who is totally under your control in a degrading, cruel, or inhumane manner is quite another.

Edited November 2, 2007 by kenrockthefirst

[dairygirl4u2c]

i read it, and it has good points.
sure mistakes will be made. that's life.
we don't torture everyone, jsut those who think have vital info with lots of live.
the type of torture depends on the situation.
really, as un PC as it is, torture should be regulated.
war is war. if they go home pissed at us after torture, better than than millions of lives lost.
besides, killing foreginers pisses off their families and is not much differnt.
at least with torutre, ideally, you can try to reason with them, and if that don't work, then start the process....
can't say we didn't try to be rational.

really, torture is not different than killing when you think about it. you're thinking probably superficially, that when you're in war, you face to face self defense, defending your from an immediate threat etc.

but, that doesn't explain going to iraq etc to shoot basically muslim tools who are just brooding but are not immediately potentil threats. or bombing hiroshima.
which, actually, many dem cathos might have probs with some of these things, so they might not be the hypocrites im making them out to be.

or, what about the co op agents or other people that might need assassinated. is that immoral? if not, why not for torture?

the reasons you say torture and killing are different are probably not all that great in answering the real issues.

Edited November 2, 2007 by dairygirl4u2c

[kenrockthefirst]

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' post='1413212' date='Nov 2 2007, 11:32 AM']really, torture is not different than killing when you think about it.[/quote]
I beg to differ.

I use mouse traps because I have mice. I use a spring trap because it results in a quick death for the mouse. I don't use glue traps because that results in a slow, cruel death for the mouse. Both means result in death. One means is cruel.

Cruelty is antithetical to being Christian, no matter how you slice it.

[dairygirl4u2c]

[quote]I use mouse traps because I have mice. I use a spring trap because it results in a quick death for the mouse. I don't use glue traps because that results in a slow, cruel death for the mouse. Both means result in death. One means is cruel.

Cruelty is antithetical to being Christian, no matter how you slice it.[/quote]

first, killing is cruel too.

second, your analogy is not analogous. they are not to be tortured just for the sake of torturing them. at least in my opinion for what id allow. the catechism is clear you don't torture for the sake and i agree.

what the catechism is not clear on, i don't think, and how i think your analogy fails, is that the "torture" that we'd be doing is only for informational purposes. if they prob know something with a lot of lives at risk, hardcore torture. if not sure or not a lot, less torture. depends on the stuation. plus you don't kill the person you torture as in your analogy.

we're not being cruel for the sake of cruel as you analogize.

no one has really explained how they are different yet. (if you are saying the analogy to make the point that torture is agonizeing an simply insist on priniple, i understand, but you're not being clear on that)

Edited November 2, 2007 by dairygirl4u2c

[Aloysius]

Well, really, take any situation and ask yourself "can you kill in this situation?", then replace it with "can you 'hurt' in this situation?". They are equal. You can kill on the battlefield, you cannot kill a prisoner (unless by due process it is deemed that the death penalty is merited for that individual, but that's something entirely different, the understanding of the death penalty is that the person has, by his crime, forfeited his right to live and thus comitted suicide by his misdeed, it is done as a just punishment) arbitrarily. You could hurt on the battlefield (even if that hurt resulted in long term pain, so long as that is not your intention), you cannot torture a prisoner.

so for this discussion, to be clear, let us use this terminology:

torture:hurting::murder:killing

torture and murder are inherently evil acts, they cannot be justified as means even if the ends are good. you cannot murder even if it will save millions, you cannot torture even if it will save billions. seems some Catholics don't take this to heart, but it is inherent to Christiian morality: the ends DO NOT justify the means. no matter what the ends are. you could save the world from destruction, but if you did so by some act which was inherently evil, you committed an evil act and IT WOULD HAVE BEEN BETTER FOR THE WORLD TO HAVE BEEN BLOWN TO SMITHEREENS.

What does it profit a man if he gain the whole world but lose his soul?
What does it profit a man if he save the whole world but lose his soul?

[jeffpugh]

Bravo.

[dairygirl4u2c]

to clarify, hurting is getting info that important, torture is jsut cruelty for the sake of cruelty. in my scenarios.

so are you saying that killing in a war is not evil and so not justifying the means? why couldn't you say that hurting in a war is not evil? is "hurting" inherently torture to you no matter what? i'm still not getting any explanatinos for why you can kill but you can't hurt as per what i just asked. execution is not what i'm arguing to comare.
i'm arguing killing, for example, muslim zeolots conspiring to kill us in some middle east area with no immediate threat to us. v. hurting someone who has the info to save millions right now. both in just wars

as a separate issue, i'm still not sure why you insist the ends don't justify the means. it seems just like something people are told once, and it makes sense at some point, so they apply it placse it isn't realistic like this situation. or, if i would accept that you can't be evil to get a good mean.
it seems that many pick and choose what they want to be "evil" means and what they want to say "is never really evil to begin with" means. with no clear distinctions for how to make those designations. which, i'd argue, is happening here with killing v hurting.

[dairygirl4u2c]

i finally thought of a pretty good distinction which no one has explicitly stated.

the muslim zeolot is an active aggressor, even if very un immmediate. and the person being tortured is no longer able to be active in his aggression as he's immobilized, as would necessarily be the case if you are able to torture.

this is sort of reltaed to what some have said, but better state IMHO.

but, still, i don't think just cause i found a difference means it's significant enough.

having the standard.... kill a muslim zeolot with no apparent immediate threat to us, and not hurting a muslim with info to save millions right now.. is not wise.

Edited November 3, 2007 by dairygirl4u2c

[Groo the Wanderer]

I would rather die than be wake boarded...just can't stand to wear wetsuits and skis....

[kenrockthefirst]

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' post='1413312' date='Nov 2 2007, 05:39 PM']first, killing is cruel too.

second, your analogy is not analogous. they are not to be tortured just for the sake of torturing them. at least in my opinion for what id allow. the catechism is clear you don't torture for the sake and i agree.

what the catechism is not clear on, i don't think, and how i think your analogy fails, is that the "torture" that we'd be doing is only for informational purposes. if they prob know something with a lot of lives at risk, hardcore torture. if not sure or not a lot, less torture. depends on the stuation. plus you don't kill the person you torture as in your analogy.

we're not being cruel for the sake of cruel as you analogize.

no one has really explained how they are different yet. (if you are saying the analogy to make the point that torture is agonizeing an simply insist on priniple, i understand, but you're not being clear on that)[/quote]
What the Church teaches is that you cannot treat human beings in a utilitarian way, for what you "can get out of them." Hence, you cannot exploit embryonic stem cells, cannot perform abortions or euthanasia, etc., because that is dealing with human lives as commodities.

In this case, to violate the dignity of a human being through torture for "informational purposes" is likewise to be condemned.