Pages

Thursday, November 15, 2007

Defining torture

Here's the definition of torture. Next question

From dictionary.com


tor·ture [tawr-cher] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation noun, verb, -tured, -tur·ing.
–noun
1. the act of inflicting excruciating pain, as punishment or revenge, as a means of getting a confession or information, or for sheer cruelty.

http://dangerousidea.blogspot.com/2007/11/heres-definition-of-torture-next.html

1.This is unresponsive to my question. I asked Reppert if he could provide me with a philosophically stringent definition of “torture.” Evidently, he can’t.

2.This definition only apply to certain forms of physical duress, not psychological duress.

3.On this definition, painless techniques like sleep deprivation don’t count as torture.

4.On this definition, Paul and Patricia Churchland couldn’t classify anything as torture since they deny the reality of mental states like pain.

4.Is waterboarding torture on this definition? Is “excruciating pain” a defining effect of waterboarding? I thought that people break under waterboarding for two other reasons:

i) It induces an involuntary gag-effect.

ii) It triggers a drowning phobia.

Neither of these is equivalent to “excruciating pain,” and it would be easy to come up with various techniques that are far more painful, viz. electric-shock torture.

19 comments:

  1. I love this blog but could we get off the torture talk? zzzzzzz

    ReplyDelete
  2. The international legal definition of torture is:

    "any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity. It does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in or incidental to lawful sanctions."

    People "break" during waterboarding not because of an involuntary gag effect or a phobia. They break because they're being repeatedly asphyxiated to the point of drowning and then resuscitated. By the internationally agreed legal definition, waterboarding is torture.

    ReplyDelete
  3. no, anonymous, we can not. it makes sense that calvinists would be stuck on torture....since that's what their god is all about.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Merkur said:

    "The international legal definition of torture is...By the internationally agreed legal definition, waterboarding is torture."

    You're at liberty to change the definition, but I was explicitly responding to Victor Reppert's definition and applying *his* chosen definition to the case at hand.

    ReplyDelete
  5. I'm not changing the definition; that is the definition. Dictionaries will have different definitions of "torture" in the most general sense, but that's not what you're discussing. You are discussing a very specific use of the word torture that has a clear legal definition. If you want to "win" a philosophical debate based on such a weak premise, please yourself.

    ReplyDelete
  6. merkur said:

    "I'm not changing the definition; that is the definition. Dictionaries will have different definitions of 'torture' in the most general sense, but that's not what you're discussing. You are discussing a very specific use of the word torture that has a clear legal definition. If you want to 'win' a philosophical debate based on such a weak premise, please yourself."

    You suffer from serious reading deficiencies. I'm not discussing a "legal" definition of "torture." Rather, I'm "specifically" discussing the dictionary definition of "torture" which Victor Reppert volunteered. I'm then holding him to *his* chosen definition to see if that's an especially tight fit with the example of waterboarding, which *he* introduced as a paradigm-case of "torture."

    Try to pay attention the next time.

    And, yes, it's legitimate to "win" a philosophical debate by beating the opponent on his own terms.

    But if you want to get philosophical, I'd add that you can't prove the immorality of waterboarding or "torture" by merely citing a legal definition or invoking international law.

    ReplyDelete
  7. I wonder if this "international legal definition" comes from the same body that has Syria on its human right's panel...

    ReplyDelete
  8. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    ReplyDelete
  9. EgoMakarios,

    You don't have the right to derail the topic of a post with long, irrelevant comments. Hence, I've deleted your off-topic rant.

    ReplyDelete
  10. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Where in this definition is the pain defined as physical pain? My point in using the dictionary definition was to point out that I think human beings have a clear idea of what torture is. We don't need a technical definition.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Victor Reppert said:

    "Where in this definition is the pain defined as physical pain?"

    Where is it affirmed? The phrase "excruciating pain" more naturally connotes intense physical suffering. To describe a psychological state, a more suitable expression would be something like "anguish."

    ReplyDelete
  13. Fine, if that's the way you wish to play it. Dictionary.com defines "pain" as

    1. physical suffering or distress, as due to injury, illness, etc.

    and also as

    3. mental or emotional suffering or torment.

    Thus Victor's definition also applies to mental suffering, and consequently waterboarding is torture.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Fine, if that's the way you wish to play it, then it *pains* me that Reppert resorts to such *excruciatingly* bad arguments. Therefore, Reppert is a war criminal who ought to be extradited to the Haag for *torturing* Manata and me. After all, “we don't need a technical definition.”

    ReplyDelete
  15. Fine, if that's the way you wish to play it, then it *pains* me that Reppert resorts to such *excruciatingly* bad arguments. Therefore, Reppert is a war criminal who ought to be extradited to the Haag for *torturing* Manata and me. After all, “we don't need a technical definition.”

    Apparently this supports my point, since you've finally realised that words have different meanings, depending on when and how you use them. This discussion is of course not about the sense of "torture" that you feel Reppert has subjected you to; it's about the sort of torture described by the CAT, which clearly includes waterboarding. That's obviously what Reppert was referring to, but you chose to play semantics instead. Bravo! With such valiant warriors on our side, soon we'll be peeling back fingernails with the best of them.

    ReplyDelete
  16. merkur said:

    "That's obviously what Reppert was referring to."

    No, it's not "obvious" what Reppert was referring to. What's obvious is that Reppert has been winging it all throughout this debate, playing a breathless game of catch-up when challenged instead of giving the issue the prelimary analysis and research he should have from the get-go.

    And I've discussed "torture" on more than semantic grounds. You're the one who reduces the moral issues to a semantic game by supposed that if you can cite a legal definition, that settles the moral questions surrounding "torture."

    ReplyDelete
  17. No, it's not "obvious" what Reppert was referring to.

    Really? I thought it was quite obvious that this is the general understanding of torture that he was referring to, and I was merely providing a reference for clarification.

    And I've discussed "torture" on more than semantic grounds. You're the one who reduces the moral issues to a semantic game by supposed that if you can cite a legal definition, that settles the moral questions surrounding "torture."

    Not in this post, you haven't. When you asked "Is waterboarding torture, on this definition" that's a semantic question - a question about what the word means.

    As I've pointed out, what it means is defined in the convention, and that definition clearly covers waterboarding, which is torture. I don't pretend this settles the moral question, but it clarifies what that question is.

    The question is not "is waterboarding torture?" - it is - but "is torture acceptable?" - which it isn't.

    ReplyDelete
  18. merkur said:

    "As I've pointed out, what it means is defined in the convention, and that definition clearly covers waterboarding, which is torture."

    That depends on your judicial philosophy. In the dominant form of modern jurisprudence, a legal text has no autonomous meaning. The meaning is fluid rather than fixed. The meaning must be assigned to the text by the judiciary. A legal text merely means whatever a judge says it means.

    Of course, you could stake out the position of Bork and Scalia on the primacy of original intent, but everything you've said thus far indicates that you occupy the opposite end of the ideological and jurisprudential spectrum.

    ReplyDelete
  19. I didn't cite the convention because it's a fixed text, although it is as fixed as such a text can be, notwithstanding the vagaries of the US judicial system. I cited it because a) it provides an actual definition of torture, unlike most dictionaries, and b) I agree with it (which should go without saying). Of course it's not just me that agrees with it; the United States also agrees with it, since it ratified the convention.

    So let's clarify something: are you saying that you disagree with the definition of torture that the convention provides?

    ReplyDelete