Simulated torture

[Simplicius]

So - imagine that, some years down the road, knowledge about the human brain has progressed to the point where it is possible to manipulate perception. That is to say, one can attach a fellow's head to a box with blinking lights on which beeps every thirty seconds, and make that fellow feel heat, cold, pressure, etc. as if his nerve endings were actually subjected to those conditions.

This includes the ability to make someone feel excruciating pain without actually causing them harm - no physical damage, it's all in his head, etc.

Would this simulated torture be any more ethical than the real thing? Would it, by virtue of leaving nothing more lingering than an unhappy memory, manage to slide past the concept of cruel and unusual punishment?

[defanatic]

Hey. That's pretty cool. I'd so do that.

Ethically, you're not causing any real harm. I think the person would dislike you though.

[FSTargetDrone]

I would think such torture is no less ethical than physical abuse. One can suffer mental abuse (say, being constantly yelled at, told one is unworthy, etc.), suffer no phyical effects yet be just as traumitized as someone who was simply beaten.

[JediMaster415]

I think it is the same thing as if you physically did it. Whether or not you actually cause them physical damage, the psychological effects should still be the same. In a way, you're just removing the physical reminder but leaving the pain.

[Raven]

Would this simulated torture be any more ethical than the real thing? Would it, by virtue of leaving nothing more lingering than an unhappy memory, manage to slide past the concept of cruel and unusual punishment?

I would say simulated torture is no different than its physical equivalent.

The purpose of torture (and the reason for moral objection to it) is to inflict pain, usually while trying to minimize physical damage.

I guess simulated torture would be (slightly?) less immoral than real torture, in the sense that you are after all removing the possible physical injury component. But I think physical injury is a secondary concern of people morally opposed to torture.

Actually, I imagine tortuerers would rather have a technology that'd allow them to inflict pain without physically harming the subject anyway.

[Kojiro]

It is different. The primary difference of note is that one particular type of lasting damage isn't occuring. If any of us have to choose between a simulated loss of a hand or a real one we're all choosing simulated percisely because of the difference. If the recipeint knows it's fake it may even increase his resistance.

Of course this doesn't make it ethical at all. Torture is torture and it's likely to leave scars of the psychological kind even if there are no physical ones. As far as I can see it's just less cruel, though still cruel, torture.

[Molyneux]

Actually...my first thought on reading the OP was, "Wow, that sounds like a pretty fun time for some heavy play".


On a more on-topic note...is it any more ethical to attempt to coerce someone by means of overwhelming pleasure than by pain? Assume that a means is found of directly stimulating the pleasure center of the brain (something likely to be possible with the tech in the OP for this topic). Would it be any more ethical to attempt to use that for interrogation than pain?

[Kwizard]

On a more on-topic note...is it any more ethical to attempt to coerce someone by means of overwhelming pleasure than by pain? Assume that a means is found of directly stimulating the pleasure center of the brain (something likely to be possible with the tech in the OP for this topic). Would it be any more ethical to attempt to use that for interrogation than pain?

I don't see why it would be any more ethical - pleasure torture has the potential to leave psychological damage as well. In any case, physical coercion is always a wee bit on the manipulative side.

[Sriad]

It is different. The primary difference of note is that one particular type of lasting damage isn't occuring. If any of us have to choose between a simulated loss of a hand or a real one we're all choosing simulated percisely because of the difference. If the recipeint knows it's fake it may even increase his resistance.

Of course this doesn't make it ethical at all. Torture is torture and it's likely to leave scars of the psychological kind even if there are no physical ones. As far as I can see it's just less cruel, though still cruel, torture.

Part of the torture could easily be withholding knowlage of whether what is being done is real or not, though.

I'm gonna need to go with ethically almost exactly equivalent to "real" torture. Though to be honest, since this doesn't leave physical damage it could be very much worse than real torture since you could be burnt alive every hour on the hour for a week straight, and be no different physically than a prisoner not tortured at all.

[Simplicius]

I would think such torture is no less ethical than physical abuse. One can suffer mental abuse (say, being constantly yelled at, told one is unworthy, etc.), suffer no phyical effects yet be just as traumitized as someone who was simply beaten.

True. It seems, though, like that kind of mental abuse occupies a slightly different place than inflicting the perception of pain on someone. There's bound to be a lasting effect if someone is constantly and aggressively belittled, most likely one of self-loathing. But that morale content is absent with the simulated pain, at least as I'm presenting it.

It could be argued that the very fact of being tortured is humiliating, thereby instilling that morale content and its mental consequences. But mightn't imprisonment provide that same effect?

Of course this doesn't make it ethical at all. Torture is torture and it's likely to leave scars of the psychological kind even if there are no physical ones. As far as I can see it's just less cruel, though still cruel, torture.

I couldn't ever consider it outright ethical, because it's willfully intruding upon someone's mind without their consent, but my immediate tendency was to accord it a higher degree of ethicality than physcial torture as it exists today simply because the actual harm done is less in comparison to forms of torture that requires some form of physical discomfort.

Something that occurred to me - and why I included the part about cruel and unusual punishment - is that the prospect of psychological scarring exists under circumstances sanctioned by society, one example being that of solitary confinement. However, I have yet to meet anyone who offers an ethical objection to such imprisonment, provided that it is in concord with the prisoner's offense.

I'm not exactly sure what the implications of this might be, though.

[Kojiro]

Well I'm assuming that we're comparing identical acts of torture. Sure, I'll conceed that real pins in the foot isn't as bad as a week of constant vivisection. My point is only that the same act is less cruel when it's simulated.

[Kojiro]

Sorry for the double post, Simplicius posted in between my above response.

I couldn't ever consider it outright ethical, because it's willfully intruding upon someone's mind without their consent, but my immediate tendency was to accord it a higher degree of ethicality than physcial torture as it exists today simply because the actual harm done is less in comparison to forms of torture that requires some form of physical discomfort.

It depends on how the device relays the data. If all it does is sit on your head then it's intrusion is limited to the pain in sends in, which is identical to the pain from the same actual torture, so I don't see a real difference. That said, if you're willing to actually physically maul someone you're likely not so worried about inserting a few wires. Again, I'm only saying it's a marginally lesser evil, but still an evil.

[Simplicius]

It depends on how the device relays the data. If all it does is sit on your head then it's intrusion is limited to the pain in sends in, which is identical to the pain from the same actual torture, so I don't see a real difference. That said, if you're willing to actually physically maul someone you're likely not so worried about inserting a few wires. Again, I'm only saying it's a marginally lesser evil, but still an evil.

By "intruding on someone's mind" I was referring to the coercive quality of torture in general as well as the direct manipulation of someone's brain, because I can't give disorientation-mindfuck torture a free pass just because it's less concerned with pain/physical harm.

[RedImperator]

Hey. That's pretty cool. I'd so do that.

Ethically, you're not causing any real harm. I think the person would dislike you though.

Right, because people who suffer intense pain inflicted by others never suffer long term psychological damage. Never mind the implication that it's perfectly okay to inflict pain so long as no physical damage occurs.

[Gil Hamilton]

Even if we set aside the ethics of deliberately inflicting torture on a person no matter what damage it does to them, how would it not cause damage, even physical damage? The human body is a very tricky thing in that regard. If you convince send all the same signals to the human brain that it is under great physical duress, it is going to give the exact same physiological response to it as if you were actually doing it. That could very easily cause real physical harm to the person; for example, cardiac arrest associated with sending the body into shock or neurological damage. This doesn't even touch mental damage.

[FSTargetDrone]

I would think such torture is no less ethical than physical abuse. One can suffer mental abuse (say, being constantly yelled at, told one is unworthy, etc.), suffer no phyical effects yet be just as traumitized as someone who was simply beaten.

True. It seems, though, like that kind of mental abuse occupies a slightly different place than inflicting the perception of pain on someone. There's bound to be a lasting effect if someone is constantly and aggressively belittled, most likely one of self-loathing. But that morale content is absent with the simulated pain, at least as I'm presenting it.

Yet it may be difficult, if not impossible to inflict purely physical sensations with your hypothietical torture method and not cause psychological damage. The experience of the pain, real or imagined, may be equally damaging, physcial hurts aside.

It could be argued that the very fact of being tortured is humiliating, thereby instilling that morale content and its mental consequences. But mightn't imprisonment provide that same effect?

Of course. Especially solitary confinement. Imagine if you simply locked up someone and from that moment on, withheld all contact from others, even the guards or jailers. If somehow food and fresh clothing and the like were provided, but there was no visual or vocal contact with the people outside. You wouldn't have to lay a finger on the prisoner, yet he or she might have devestating psychological damge.

[Lord of the Abyss]

Torture is torture. It's all evil as hell.

[Molyneux]

Torture is torture. It's all evil as hell.

Except, of course, when it's just some good dirty fun for all involved.

[Lord of the Abyss]

Torture is torture. It's all evil as hell.

Except, of course, when it's just some good dirty fun for all involved.

If it's fun, it's not torture anymore.

[Prozac the Robert]

It's entirely unethical. Just because of the lack of permenant damage it is not any better, and it could be worse if it allowed for more severe tortue without the risk of physically damaging the victim.

It could also be used more widely, since their could be no physical evidence with which to condemn the perpetrators. That's not really an ethical argument, but it's another reason not to try to build such a device.

[Kojiro]

It's entirely unethical. Just because of the lack of permenant damage it is not any better, and it could be worse if it allowed for more severe tortue without the risk of physically damaging the victim.

Not any better? Are you saying that given the choice between having your body mutilated for real or simply experiencing it you'd be impartial? One is as good, or as bad as the other?

Don't get me wrong, I'm sure torture has certain inherent limits defined by the acts perpetrated against the body that this device could supposedly circumvent. Obviously it could repeat otherwise limited acts and for that reason is possibly a more effective torture method but doesn't change the nature of the torture. For the sake of simplicity I'm assuming the OP means the same act of torture in a real vs simulated capacity.

[Admiral Valdemar]

In ancient Rome and China, they had water torture. You would in one case be strapped down to a chair, blindfolded and then asked questions. If you failed to give a sufficiently plausible answer, they cut your wrists. Well, not really. They'd pour warm water on your wrists after they'd lightly pressed a blade on them, or after having them made cold and numb. The sensation would simulate bleeding to death, yet, you wouldn't know what they'd done. For some, it caused death by the sheer shock of it.

So, no harm done, right?

[JediMaster415]

The simulated torture is worse because you can do worse to someone for far longer than if you physically did the same thing.

Like, burning someone alive for the few minutes before they die as opposed to feeling like you're being burned alive for a week or longer. In the end, the physical release from the pain is death but the simulated burning does not offer that end unless the body shuts itself down.

It's really just finding a way to keep the subjects alive but still do worse to them than physically possible. Whle physical torture is unethical, simulated torture, as described is much worse.

[BloodAngel]

To add to JediMaster's comment, this kind of torture can lead to the concept of "hell on Earth". Basically, with real torture, the body WILL eventually die from all the cuts/bruises/blood loss/etc. gathered up. However, with this simulated torture no actual physical damage is done, and while mental trauma is given it is not possible to just simply "will" yourself to die (losing the will to live does not end a normal person's body processes). It will take a whole lot longer, and if the guy torturing you is sadistic enough, could last indefinitely.

[Sriad]

It's entirely unethical. Just because of the lack of permenant damage it is not any better, and it could be worse if it allowed for more severe tortue without the risk of physically damaging the victim.

Not any better? Are you saying that given the choice between having your body mutilated for real or simply experiencing it you'd be impartial? One is as good, or as bad as the other?

Both are repugnant. Of course I'd take one simulated experience over one real death, but if one didn't work THEY COULD JUST KEEP DOING IT.

That's the point of torture: subject the victem to physical agony beyond the limits of human endurance until they're reduced to a trembling jelly mound, ready to tell you anything to make it stop. That's what's bad about torture, not that it leaves little burn marks on the skin.

[qoute]Don't get me wrong, I'm sure torture has certain inherent limits defined by the acts perpetrated against the body that this device could supposedly circumvent. Obviously it could repeat otherwise limited acts and for that reason is possibly a more effective torture method but doesn't change the nature of the torture. For the sake of simplicity I'm assuming the OP means the same act of torture in a real vs simulated capacity.[/quote]

The opening post is asking "Is virtual torture more ethical than real torture?"