Simulated torture

Covenant · Post by **Covenant** » 2006-05-22 04:57pm

The method of torture has nothing to do with the harm it inflicts. How about if you tortured someone by dissecting live kittens in front of them? Or stacking them in big man-pyramids? Let's say they boil your family in acid in front of you. No pain at all! It's certainly not ethical, but is it torture?

Let's assume you're a conservative, non-gay type person. What if we strapped you down and had women preform oral sex acts on you? If you're one of those crazy Islamic fundamentalist sorts apparently that very psychologically damaging. But let's say you're just an average guy. Not so bad eh? Oops! Turns out it was a dude! That's pretty gross, but wasn't it pleasurable, despite the horror you felt afterwards? Is it still torture? Was there still damage done?

You see, psychological damage isn't a side-effect of torture. It is the intent of torture. Pain is just one of the easiest, most reliable ways to crush someone's spirit. If they're terrified of rats or spiders or heights you could torture them that way too. The Ethical concern is the abuse inflicted on a person, not the physical pain involved. Pain is subjective. Abuse and damage isn't. Torture is torture.

Post by **LadyTevar** » 2006-05-22 05:00pm

I would like to refer everyone to the scene in Frank Herbert's Dune, where Paul Atredies was told to put his hand in the box and keep it there on pain of death by poison.

JediMaster415 · Post by **JediMaster415** » 2006-05-22 05:29pm

LadyTevar wrote:I would like to refer everyone to the scene in Frank Herbert's Dune, where Paul Atredies was told to put his hand in the box and keep it there on pain of death by poison.

That was my first thought when I read the OP. It is exactly as the OP describes. Though it is used to cull humans from animals (because the BG are arrogant enough to assume that they can decide that, but that's neither here nor there), is it really ethical? Not really, because I'm pretty sure that feeling your hand burn away can be traumatizing.

Spetulhu · Post by **Spetulhu** » 2006-05-23 12:17am

JediMaster415 wrote:
LadyTevar wrote:I would like to refer everyone to the scene in Frank Herbert's Dune, where Paul Atredies was told to put his hand in the box and keep it there on pain of death by poison.
That was my first thought when I read the OP. It is exactly as the OP describes. Though it is used to cull humans from animals (because the BG are arrogant enough to assume that they can decide that, but that's neither here nor there), is it really ethical? Not really, because I'm pretty sure that feeling your hand burn away can be traumatizing.

I always wondered how many testers they lose on this duty. The Reverend Mother says an animal escapes the trap at any price while a human waits for the trapper and kills him. Why is she still alive?

defanatic · Post by **defanatic** » 2006-05-23 07:26pm

RedImperator wrote:
defanatic wrote: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.

What if, once it's done, you get rid of any memory of the torture (assuming you could), and let them go?

JediMaster415 · Post by **JediMaster415** » 2006-05-23 08:04pm

defanatic wrote:
RedImperator wrote:
defanatic wrote: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.
What if, once it's done, you get rid of any memory of the torture (assuming you could), and let them go?

If you shot someone's family and then removed any evidence that they ever existed, including any existing memory of them, does that make it any less wrong than it is to simply do it? The analogy may not be exact but it was the closest I could think of.
What you are describing is essentially brainwashing, which brings in more questionable ethics.

Tell me, do you believe it is right to play around with someone's brain in any way, shape or form? When do you believe it stops being right?

White Haven · Post by **White Haven** » 2006-05-23 08:21pm

A technique like that would make Pavlov drool, never mind his dog. It'd be (relatively) quite easy to condition someone to behave in a certain way with zero outward signs, and depending on the functionality of the technology, possibly a good deal faster than via conventional means. More thoroughly too...a few simulated 'escape' scenarios, complete with being home and safe, and the subject wouldn't even be able to trust freedom anymore. Worse, by far.

Sriad · Post by **Sriad** » 2006-05-23 09:35pm

JediMaster415 wrote:
defanatic wrote:
RedImperator wrote: 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.
What if, once it's done, you get rid of any memory of the torture (assuming you could), and let them go?
If you shot someone's family and then removed any evidence that they ever existed, including any existing memory of them, does that make it any less wrong than it is to simply do it? The analogy may not be exact but it was the closest I could think of.

A more accurate analogy would be "What if we went and drugged this guys kids, then raped 'em? We could be gentle so nobody knew what happened!"

So wrong wrong wrong.

JediMaster415 · Post by **JediMaster415** » 2006-05-23 09:38pm

Sriad wrote:
A more accurate analogy would be "What if we went and drugged this guys kids, then raped 'em? We could be gentle so nobody knew what happened!"

So wrong wrong wrong.

Thanks for the correction, there. I think I was trying to avoid that train of thought; that's why it didn't come to me.

defanatic · Post by **defanatic** » 2006-05-23 10:53pm

Sriad wrote:
JediMaster415 wrote:
defanatic wrote: What if, once it's done, you get rid of any memory of the torture (assuming you could), and let them go?
If you shot someone's family and then removed any evidence that they ever existed, including any existing memory of them, does that make it any less wrong than it is to simply do it? The analogy may not be exact but it was the closest I could think of.
A more accurate analogy would be "What if we went and drugged this guys kids, then raped 'em? We could be gentle so nobody knew what happened!"

So wrong wrong wrong.

I'm just asking. I don't actually care.

Oni Koneko Damien · Post by **Oni Koneko Damien** » 2006-05-23 11:59pm

They're both about equally unethical to me, but for completely different reasons.

Unless you're doing it for completely sadistic reasons, torture is more often than not just a means to an ends, usually for information.

Physical torture is worse because it leaves both mental and physical scars for the rest of your life.

Simulated torture, on the other hand, is worse because it bypasses the biggest limiting factor in physical torture: The body. Physical torture is limited because, despite all the nasty things you can do to the body, there's a point where the nerves in each area will either just die, or become insensate, and further torture of that area is impossible. With simulated torture, though, you could simulate the pain in that area indefinately, making it far worse.

It brings up an interesting idea though. Say you were to hook up this device to an amputee, could you make her feel like the skin is being slowly peeled off a leg that's been missing for several years now? A lot of frightening possibilities there.

Darth Raptor · Post by **Darth Raptor** » 2006-05-24 01:29am

Molyneux wrote: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 how you could do that without overloading the receptors. It's the reason why Opium abusers become addicted, require ever-increading dosages and it's why coming down from the addiction is so excrutiating. If you overload the receptors, you'll impair their ability to feel pleasure through any other means than your magic machine.

Bad juju.

Molyneux · Post by **Molyneux** » 2006-05-24 10:07am

Darth Raptor wrote:
Molyneux wrote: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 how you could do that without overloading the receptors. It's the reason why Opium abusers become addicted, require ever-increading dosages and it's why coming down from the addiction is so excrutiating. If you overload the receptors, you'll impair their ability to feel pleasure through any other means than your magic machine.

Bad juju.

But effective as an interrogative tool, and without actually causing (physical) damage or pain.

Darth Raptor · Post by **Darth Raptor** » 2006-05-24 03:04pm

Molyneux wrote:But effective as an interrogative tool, and without actually causing (physical) damage or pain.

Did you read what I just said? The brain isn't magic. Every process it performs has biochemistry involved. If you're constantly flooding the synapses with opiates, it'll destroy the receptors and there WILL be pain whenever they're off the machine.

Captain tycho · Post by **Captain tycho** » 2006-05-24 03:12pm

Simulated torture is still torture. You're still inflicting pain. Whether that pain is produced by chopping off strips of flesh or stimulating the brain directly makes no difference except in the amount of permanent physical damage.

Sriad · Post by **Sriad** » 2006-05-24 03:45pm

Oni Koneko Damien wrote:It brings up an interesting idea though. Say you were to hook up this device to an amputee, could you make her feel like the skin is being slowly peeled off a leg that's been missing for several years now? A lot of frightening possibilities there.

Should be possible. The phenomenon of Phantom Pain in severed limbs is pretty well documented. If they've been gone for a while, you might need to prime the areas of the brain responsible for sensation in that area to get them back up to speed.

Molyneux · Post by **Molyneux** » 2006-05-24 07:56pm

Darth Raptor wrote:
Molyneux wrote:But effective as an interrogative tool, and without actually causing (physical) damage or pain.
Did you read what I just said? The brain isn't magic. Every process it performs has biochemistry involved. If you're constantly flooding the synapses with opiates, it'll destroy the receptors and there WILL be pain whenever they're off the machine.

Ah...I misunderstood. I thought that you were saying that you would deaden the ability to feel physical pleasure, rather than inducing pain.