Talk:Ethical arguments regarding torture

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	Philosophy Portal This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Philosophy, which collaborates on articles related to philosophy. To participate, you can edit this article or visit the project page for more details.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
High	This article has been rated as high-importance on the importance scale.
Additional information: Related task forces (core areas): Ethics Social and political philosophy

	This article is part of WikiProject Human rights, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Human rights on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the Project page, where you can join the Project and contribute to the discussion.
Start	This article has been rated as start-Class on the assessment scale.
Mid	This article has been rated as mid-importance on the assessment scale.

This article or section is in need of attention from an expert on the subject. Please help recruit one or improve this article yourself. See the talk page for details. Please consider using {{Expert-subject}} to associate this request with a WikiProject

Contents 1 Move 2 European Court of Human Rights 3 The Bias Is Unbelievable Here 4 There's another argument CONSTANTLY used when I claim that torture is never justified...

[edit] Move

I have moved content from the main torture article as per the discussion on the talk page. This article is only in an early stage and needs a lot of content added. Thank you. --Silversmith 12:33, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] European Court of Human Rights

I have taken this from the Torture Article:

In 1978 the European Court of Human Rights ruled that the five techniques of "sensory deprivation" were not torture but were "inhuman or degrading treatment". See Accusations of use of torture by United Kingdom for details. This case was 9 years before the UNCAT came into force and had an influence on States thinking about what constitutes torture ever since.

Some of the edits I have made to this article is to remove POV about what is and is not torture.

• Sleep deprivation is not torture, but it may be inhuman or degrading treatment. See ECHR ruling.
• The UK a did not use torture in NI it was "inhuman or degrading treatment".

I have also re-written other sections of the article which I think were not very clear. For example the Jury section did not present a logical arguemnt why confessions extracted under duress are not valid in court. It is to do with the fact that any resonable person who can at all empthise with the victim of turture will realise that any confession that is extracted under such methods is unlikely to be worth the paper it is written on, not that juries are arbitary and torture is not used only because it is not necessary to do so.

Further I have removed the examples of alleged torture, as this is an article on the "Ethical arguments regarding torture" the examples were full of POV and recent example of torture and alledged torture exist in the Uses of torture in recent times. --Philip Baird Shearer 13:07, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

Note by a spanish user: The utilitarian versus deontological section is completely wrong. Utilitarism doesn't focus in intentions; it is Kant's moral the one that does. Utilitarism says (in a more complex way) that something is right if almost everyone thinks it is.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.124.54.106 (talk • contribs)

[edit] The Bias Is Unbelievable Here

Within the criticism section on opponents of torture, the only arguments posted are those that people dislike torture. This provides none of the deontological arguments or utilitarian arguments against the use of torture. While numerous arguments exist, this article seems to exhibit the authorship of one clearly in favor of torturing. How despicable that no one would care to provide arguments, let alone stand in opposition to it. 128.97.104.59 (talk) 10:27, 7 December 2007 (UTC)Amir

I strongly agree, let's do something--DatDoo (talk) 05:10, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

The use of words such as "Most" or "Some" needs to be changed. 129.15.131.246 (talk) 15:01, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] There's another argument CONSTANTLY used when I claim that torture is never justified...

"Well, they do it to US!"

For some reason, people seem to sincerely believe that committing atrocities against randomly chosen members of a given ethnicity is fair if someone of that approximate ethnicity has apparently done wrong in the past.

I'm sure there's a Latin phrase describing this fallacy. It probably translates to "You are a retard.", but again and again, when I am upset at some newly disclosed torture-related outrage being committed by America, (the former shining beacon of law, reason, freedom, etc.) this is the argument that's thrown back at me, usually by very, very angry people who passionately believe that torture in the name of truth, justice and the American way is justifiable.

I guess getting people to lie in order to make pain stop falls under truth and justice? Or maybe that's just the American way nowadays? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.27.195.24 (talk • contribs) 06:14, 30 December 2006 (UTC)