The Instigator
Sc2
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
y16
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points

torture

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/7/2014 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 266 times Debate No: 66531
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (0)
Votes (0)

 

Sc2

Con

(1) I agree with this definition of torture.
(2) It is not simply that the person is coerced into saying or doing what they don"t want to do. Breaking a person"s will should be more clearly explained.
(3) This premise is too vague; there needs to be a definition of both morals and ethics.
(4) Contrarily, ethics asks us to pay attention to something beyond ourselves.
(5) There could be a possible situation where the lives of innocents can be saved, but maximalist torture is used instead of minimalist torture.
(6) Since maximalist torture damages the victim"s autonomy and self-identity irretrievably, it is not morally justifiable.
(7) Therefore all kinds of torture are not minimally morally justifiable

uncontroversial- 1,2,3,5,6
controversial- the definition in premise 4 comes from the basics of ethics packet.
y16

Pro

(1) Torture is the intentional infliction of extreme physical and mental suffering on some non-consenting, defenseless, other person for the purpose of breaking their will.
(2) The purpose of torture is to cause someone to cease to act in accordance with his or her own will and act in accordance to the will of the torturer.
(3) What is moral is ethical.
(4) Ethics is acting in accordance with what is right and wrong.
(5) What is meant by saying that something is minimally, morally acceptable, is that there are some exceptions in which torture is permissible, whereas other cases it is impermissible
(6) Cases where the lives of innocents can be saved such as bomb threats and car jacks with children in the car are cases where necessary minimalist torture is morally justifiable.
(7) minimal torture only affects the person being tortured for a short period of time where as in a maximal torture they are tortured for a long period of time, therefore minimal torture is permissible and maximal torture is not.
(8) Necessary minimalist torture is morally justifiable.
(9) Minimalist torture is torture in where the tortured can still physically and psychological functions after the torture occurs.
(10)Torture is morally justifiable if presented with imminent threat to the life or lives of other.
(11)Therefore torture is minimally morally justifiable
Debate Round No. 1
Sc2

Con

We are arguing that forms of torture are minimally morally justifiable, this does not just mean the minimalist form, so it is safe to assume that the maximalist form is included in this area. The definition of morals is needed because we are arguing that forms of torture are minimally morally justifiable. We need an understanding of morals to do this.
y16

Pro

In explaining the forms of torture that are minimally morally justifiable we must point out the differences between minimalist form and the maximalist form, which in order means that in this instant we are only talking about the minimalist forms. In order to understand the cases that are justifiable then we must understand that everyone has their own definition of what is moral and amoral, so knowing this we must also know that just because all acts of torture aren't correct or moral some are justifiable. For example a case of a justifiable act of torture is interrogation. In these cases, the individual in interrogation is not responding to the questions being asked because they believe that they have the power to inflict pain on others, torture is used to interrogate them in an attempt to prevent their action from happening and the lives of many innocent lives being taken. Cases where innocent life can be protected without severally hurting the tortured, are cases showing justifiable torture.
Debate Round No. 2
Sc2

Con

In that instance, the tortured can still be severally hurt mentally. The mental effects of that type of torture make it unjustifiable. Continuing to interrogate someone by torturing them (beating them up until they talk, waterboarding, etc.) can lead to that person being mentally unstable for the rest of their lives, and that is a form of severe hurt. Just because the hurt is not physical, does not mean it is not "severe." For example, someone who has been a victim of waterbaording will wind up being afraid to walk in the rain or take a shower. The mental damage of those kinds of torture make the torture unjustifiable.
y16

Pro

Those effects that you mentioned are long term effects seen in cases of torture that are consistent with torture that is applied in maximal cases not cases where the minimal force of torture is involved. Minimal torture can have those effects but they only last for short periods of time, and the torture is only used to insure the safety of other people that the tortured was putting in risk. So if someone is under the suspicion of being able to/or committing, attempting, or being involved in a crime, they deserve the torture that is appointed to them and that includes the short mental effects that come with that torture.
Debate Round No. 3
Sc2

Con

I understand what you mean, however no one deserves to be tortured to the point that they are terribly mentally damaged. There should be a better way to go about getting information out of people than to harm them physically and/or mentally. It is true that people who endanger the safety of other people should be punished, or at least questioned but does it have to be in a harmful way? This is the reason why torture is not minimally morally justifiable, because there are no morals involved when torturing a human being.
y16

Pro

Torture is inflicting mental and physical pain to a person in order to break down their will. Torture isn't considered to be a moral act but it can be justified depending on the purpose of the torture. For instance cases that involve harm to innocent people are cases where torture is justifiable. For example a terrorist group has plans of blowing up a park where a lot of people will be presented, and the police arrest one of the terrorist in the group, interrogation would be the best techniques in order to make the terrorist talk. Therefore a form of torture was what saved a group of innocent people from dying. If the form of torture used is from the minimalist form, then it cases minimum effects of mental scars, and stops the endangerment of innocent lives. So cases where innocent life can be protected without severally hurting the tortured, are cases showing justifiable torture. Meaning that torture used at the minimalist form and saving lives are innocents, is minimally morally justifiable.
Debate Round No. 4
No comments have been posted on this debate.
No votes have been placed for this debate.