←
↑
→
You can use arrow keys to navigate in the map.
Loading tree...
Is it justifiable for the U.S . to torture in a "ticking time-bomb" scenario?
but
score: 7
Torture is not a justifiable way to extract information ("la question" is inherently pointless)
because
score: 7
No additional information can be obtained from torture
because
score: 3
If what they say is true, the only way to know it is true is to have received the same information from a more reliable source
because
score: 1
If the only motivation for a person to speak is torture, then they will only speak to end the torture.
because
score: 1
Information extracted from the victim is either true or false
1 branch
‒
because
score: 3
If what they say is false, the only way to know it is false is to have information from another source that refutes the victim's claims
because
score: 1
If the only motivation for a person to speak is torture, then they will only speak to end the torture.
because
score: 1
Information extracted from the victim is either true or false
1 branch
‒
1 branch
‒
but
score: 1
Kalid Sheikh Mohammed
1 branch
‒
because
score: 2
It is perfectly justifiable to torture terrorists
because
score: 1
Islamic extremists are enemies to America, and Americans want to see them suffer
because
score: 1
Terrorists are criminals/enemies of the state, and it is O.K. to punish them with torture (la supplice)
sources:
Liberalism, Torture, and the Ticking Bomb by David Luban
but
score: 1
In a democratic society / republic, public punitive torture doesn't make any sense
sources:
Foucault (as described in David Luban's article)
because
score: 1
The ruling party is the populous, who already know their power
but
score: 1
This argument says does not apply to governments not ruled by the people
because
score: 0
The only reason to make torture public is to display the power of the ruling party of the populus
but
score: 1
Another reason to conduct punitive torture publicly is to discourage others from committing the same crime
0 branch
‒
2 branch
‒
because
score: 1
An eye for an eye (it doesn't matter if the whole world is blind, if that's what you want)
but
score: 0
Often, we are not sure that the accused are actually guilty, and the risk of wrongfully torturing a man is too great to tolerate.
1 fallacy reported.
Irrelevant Conclusion
Sure, it is terrible for innocents to be punished, especially if that punishment is torture. The discussion is not whether torture as punitive torture can be reliably executed, but whether or not it is just given certain crimes
pawnphilosopher
but
score: 0
Historically, punitive punishment has been used to draw confessions from suspects.
3 branch
‒
because
score: 1
Torturing terrorists lives and avoids conflict
sources:
Genghis Khan, for instance
because
score: 1
It is possible for torture to save lives and avoid conflict (as in the case of Genghis Khan), so there are definitely cases where it is justifiable (even if there are cases where it isn't)
but
score: 1
The "enhanced interrogation" used by the U.S. is a key part of extremist recruiting propaganda
1 branch
‒
because
score: 1
Some people in the CIA are just sick fucks and would like the opportunity to torture people without repercussion
3 branch
‒
but
score: 1
Torture is a terrible thing to do! It should never be done to another human being.
because
score: 0
We kill people in war. Torture is worse than killing. Who says we can't torture?
1 fallacy reported.
Fallacy Of Red Herring
Who cares if we kill others and it is justifiable in war? That says nothing about torture.
pawnphilosopher
3 branch
‒
×
The argument is too complex. You can switch to list view.
pawnphilosopher
