The Greater Good

[Major_Griff]

You're aware the United States has tortured people despite that, along with pretty much every other country on the planet, right?

Yes. And it was wrong. I'm not arguing that it hasn't been done. I'm arguing that it shouldn't be done and that it was wrong for Col Young to do it.

EDIT* in fact I even referenced water boarding early which is surely just one of many examples, but it's still wrong.

[EllieVee]

You're aware the United States has tortured people despite that, along with pretty much every other country on the planet, right?

Yes, how does this appalling fact make it okay?

[Major_Griff]

Where did I say anything about your choice needing to be a split second decision? You have all the time in the world to think about it before deciding whether you kill the one person or the 100 people. So which is it?

Then that's a BS question like I said before. In that scenario, I could just never make a decision and none of those people would ever die.

[jelgate]

Then that's a BS question like I said before. In that scenario, I could just never make a decision and none of those people would ever die.

Congrats. Everyone is dead because of your indecision

[s09119]

Yes, how does this appalling fact make it okay?

It doesn't. Torture is never "okay." But it is sometimes necessary to save lives. Just like murder and war and all sorts of other despicable things we all wish never came to be.

[Krazeh]

Then that's a BS question like I said before. In that scenario, I could just never make a decision and none of those people would ever die.

I find it strange that you're so opposed to answering a simple question on morality. I can't help but think you're much happier clinging to pre-defined notions of morality instead of actually examining the reasons for those moral views. Morality isn't a black and white situation, you can't simply state that things like torture is always wrong, in some situations it is the correct thing to do even if it is distasteful or something that would be considered utterly immoral in normal circumstances. It's no different than killing someone in order to protect others, you're doing something that would normally be considered immoral but is now the correct action to take due to the circumstances.

[Major_Griff]

It doesn't. Torture is never "okay." But it is sometimes necessary to save lives. Just like murder and war and all sorts of other despicable things we all wish never came to be.

So Ba'al was justified when he tortured Jack in Abyss because he really wanted to know some Tok'Ra secrets. And it was necessary for Teal'c to be tortured by Hero'ur's minion because they really wanted to quell the Jaffa rebellion. If you start making exceptions, then any old excuse will do.

[Daro]

I honestly agree that torture is always wrong. I also honestly believe that, in some very very extreme situations, the ends justify the means. When they do. If you take that risk and you're wrong, then not so much.

It's a personal choice, like most other matters, on where the line is. But I have to believe that murder, torture, and all the rest are wrong. Anyone who proclaims they'd never torture anyone else to save lives, no matter what, is suffering a failure of imagination. You just don't know until you're in that position.
I don't advocate torture anymore than I do murder, and it is not the same as a policeman killing in the line of duty or something like that. For one, torture can only be reasonably justified the same way in very rare circumstances, in my mind.

The problem I have with Young is that I think he is not compelled by his judgment that this information is vital to saving the lives of his fellow crewmembers, or protecting Earth. It's vengeance. He talked mostly about what's happened in the past; Emily, the dead people on Icarus, etc. That, to me, said that he was on a quest for justice.

And if that's your main goal, justice, then no, I don't see how torture can ever be considered a necessary evil.

[EllieVee]

So Ba'al was justified when he tortured Jack in Abyss because he really wanted to know some Tok'Ra secrets. And it was necessary for Teal'c to be tortured by Hero'ur's minion because they really wanted to quell the Jaffa rebellion. If you start making exceptions, then any old excuse will do.

I've already greened you so have some mental green for your post.

[EllieVee]

I honestly agree that torture is always wrong. I also honestly believe that, in some very very extreme situations, the ends justify the means. When they do. If you take that risk and you're wrong, then not so much.

It's a personal choice, like most other matters, on where the line is. But I have to believe that murder, torture, and all the rest are wrong. Anyone who proclaims they'd never torture anyone else to save lives, no matter what, is suffering a failure of imagination. You just don't know until you're in that position.
I don't advocate torture anymore than I do murder, and it is not the same as a policeman killing in the line of duty or something like that. For one, torture can only be reasonably justified the same way in very rare circumstances, in my mind.

The problem I have with Young is that I think he is not compelled by his judgment that this information is vital to saving the lives of his fellow crewmembers, or protecting Earth. It's vengeance. He talked mostly about what's happened in the past; Emily, the dead people on Icarus, etc. That, to me, said that he was on a quest for justice.

And if that's your main goal, justice, then no, I don't see how torture can ever be considered a necessary evil.

So, Young, irredeemable?

[Major_Griff]

I find it strange that you're so opposed to answering a simple question on morality. I can't help but think you're much happier clinging to pre-defined notions of morality instead of actually examining the reasons for those moral views. Morality isn't a black and white situation, you can't simply state that things like torture is always wrong, in some situations it is the correct thing to do even if it is distasteful or something that would be considered utterly immoral in normal circumstances. It's no different than killing someone in order to protect others, you're doing something that would normally be considered immoral but is now the correct action to take due to the circumstances.

I think I've adequately explained my reasons to be against torture for any reason, so I'm not go back into it.

I've already greened you so have some mental green for your post.

Thanks!

[Astrofighter]

Who is Young going to kill in this episode? Do you know how long it takes to die from suffocation in the form of having oxygen removed from a room like it has been for Telford? First the remaining air will get very thin and he will start to suffer from CO2 poisoning. Then he will pass out, due to lack of oxygen to his brain. At that point why would Young not fill it back with air and save Rush? If he wanted to kill Telford he could just shoot him. Its clearly a bluff to scare him into giving him the gate address to the planet the LA is on with Rush.

[Cold Fuzz]

So Ba'al was justified when he tortured Jack in Abyss because he really wanted to know some Tok'Ra secrets. And it was necessary for Teal'c to be tortured by Hero'ur's minion because they really wanted to quell the Jaffa rebellion. If you start making exceptions, then any old excuse will do.

Sorry, but both examples you cited are specious. Ba'al was torturing Jack to get Tok'ra secrets yes. But was Ba'al trying to save lives in the process? Absolutely not. Any secrets he extracted from Jack would have resulted in many Tok'ra deaths...deaths that would be considered murder. Ba'al, Heru-ur and every other Goa'uld wouldn't hesitate to use torture to perpetuate their dominion. There's a world of difference between using torture to continue tyranny and using torture in order to save innocent lives.

[s09119]

So Ba'al was justified when he tortured Jack in Abyss because he really wanted to know some Tok'Ra secrets. And it was necessary for Teal'c to be tortured by Hero'ur's minion because they really wanted to quell the Jaffa rebellion. If you start making exceptions, then any old excuse will do.

From his point of view, of course. They were acting to save the lives of their people from the deaths that would result from a prolonged war with the Tok'ra/rebelling Jaffa/Earth. Of course, they're still bad guys and they ultimately just wanted to kill people, so the justification there is iffy at best. And how nice it must be to sit up there on your moral high ground, watching the world below burn. You could always help put out the fire, but you might dirty your hands in the process... so it's better to just let the fire rage on, right?

[Major_Griff]

Who is Young going to kill in this episode? Do you know how long it takes to die from suffocation in the form of having oxygen removed from a room like it has been for Telford? First the remaining air will get very thin and he will start to suffer from CO2 poisoning. Then he will pass out, due to lack of oxygen to his brain. At that point why would Young not fill it back with air and save Rush? If he wanted to kill Telford he could just shoot him. Its clearly a bluff to scare him into giving him the gate address to the planet the LA is on with Rush.

It's not about whether or not he's going to kill him. It's about torturing him.