Is purposeless torture moral?

What about people who do like being tortured? By the standards of "do unto others," does that not mean that it would be most morally correct for such people to torture others? After all, if they want it for themselves, then surely it must be moral for them to do to others!The question isn't rhetorical, such people do really exist.For perhaps a more tame version of the same basic dilemma...imagine two people, A and B. A likes massages; B does not. Would it be morally desirable for A to give B a massage, since A likes them, even though B does not?I think a more appropriate rule than "do unto others as you would have them do unto you" would be "consider the preferences of others as you would like to have your preferences considered by them." Not all of us would have others treat us in exactly the same fashion.

Well we have to relativise morality because not everyone follows the do unto others as you would have them do on to you.But the thing is if i would kill someone or rob someone i would not say its immoral that i got locked up. I did the crime so i should do the time. I might not like that im locked up, i might fight it in court but i would not call it immoral.

That's fine. I was trying to get a similar admission out of someone else.

We just went over this...As NoNukes kindly pointed out, this answer is insufficient. You even testified to this effect when you made the claim that this was only a starting point. How did you put it to Ringo?
Get better or get lost.

NoNukes"This answer has already been shown to be insufficient."Where?I was asked for my view and it is quite sufficient to me."I'm pretty sure you would not like to be imprisoned for a crime, or fined for violating a traffic ordinance. Are those things immoral?"No. They are justice.
They are response to what I have done.Torture is not usually such. Torture is usually done to extract information.Regards
DL

RahvinAn S&M would likely see torture as immoral. He would not see the S & M slaps and tickles as torture nor immoral.There is a whole big difference there I think.If one is doing unto others etc., then the mindset of the other would also be considered. The one who wants to message would consider that the recipient does not want it and therefore would not give it.Regards
DL

Torture need not be applied for the purpose of extracting information. For example, burning at the stake to be a torturous death even if the death itself can be justified as punishment.But in any event, your own version of do unto others seems to include accepting unpleasant things if you deserve them. That's what turns the golden rule into a relativism. As has been pointed out repeatedly, all one needs to add is a justification, and any act can be considered moral. You cannot avoid the fact that your "view" has been addressed and refuted simply because you don't acknowledge such. You know full well, "where"Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

I think you have little conception of what some people actually find arousing. Yes, there are the "fuzzy handcuff" people who dabble in BDSM, but they're hardly the extent...and I very much would not consider the harsher forms of SM to be a "slap and tickle." There are individuals who do get off on causing and receiving very real, harsh pain, and it could only ever be defined as torture. Some of them even use implements from the Inquisition.Though I agree that the practitioners don't typically find it to be immoral, since all participants are (supposed to be) consenting adults. And that being the case, I don't find it to be immoral either. I think the infliction of suffering on a non-consenting individual is immoral, but free, informed, adult consent is the difference.But that was the crux of my question to you - is the simple instruction to "do unto others as you would have them do unto you" sufficient? Clearly not, given that people's actual desires are widely varied, and one person may desire to be treated in such a way that another person would find to be revolting or even criminal. And that's what I was getting at. A better form of the "golden rule" is to "consider the preferences of others as you would like your preferences to be considered." The historical version encourages the infliction of one's own desires onto others who may or may not appreciate it. By considering each other's preferences rather than simply projecting our own, we can preserve greater liberty for everyone.

You are confusing the physical actions with the emotional responses. When we talk about torture we are talking about creating emotional suffering. The actual physical methods for inducing that suffering are the means to that end.For S&M, the Golden Rule does fine. The "do unto others" is creating pleasure when requested as part of a consenting relationship. I don't think anyone would classify that as torture.

Emery Emery (comic and host of the podcast Ardent Atheist. Great listen you should check it out) has modified this to his "platinum rule" which is almost identical to yours as it addresses this problem with the "golden rule".

quote:

---

"Do unto others as they would have you do unto them".

---

It both addresses the fact that the golden rule harms the sadist as well as the masochist and it suggests humanity/getting to know people and what they want.

RahvinWe are on the same page.We may be understanding different words in slightly different ways but we habe no argument.Regards
DL

Nonukes"But in any event, your own version of do unto others seems to include accepting unpleasant things if you deserve them. That's what turns the golden rule into a relativism. As has been pointed out repeatedly, all one needs to add is a justification, and any act can be considered moral."Call it what you will. The bottom line is that reciprocity is fair play.Any act can be seen as moral in the mind of the doer for sure if he can find justification for it.It is to him to later have to prove it to his peers.That was the conclusion of the person torturing to save lives.
If his peers agree then it was moral.
If they disagree then to that society it was not. The torturer, who knows that he has crossed a line, has placed himself at the mercy of the courts for punishment of justification.As it should be.Regards
DL

Morality by popular vote? Surely you jest.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

NoNuksIn the scenario that was being looked at, yes.The majority would agree that it is better and more moral to kill or torture one to save many.Do you agree?
Or should the many just be left to die?Regards
DL

Depends on who the one is and who the many are.