Torture can be morally acceptable? (Page 2)

Ms_Mafdet_The Great: This whole argument also depends upon whether the one being "tortured", is a true masochist or not.

If they are, then the act as described in the topic's heading, may not be torture at all - it would (again) depend on the one being tortured.

'A masochist derives pleasure from being hurt; so denying the masochist his pleasure-through-pain hurts him just as much as actual physical pain hurts the non-masochist.

The story of the truly cruel sadist illustrates this point: The masochist says to the sadist, "beat me." To which the merciless sadist replies, "NO!" '

ghostgeek: Is it immoral to deny someone pleasure? The masochist in the post above wants to be tortured because they find the sensation of pain pleasurable, but if they arn't tortured they won't receive the gratification they crave. One thus has a moral conundrum. Is it ethical to hurt someone solely to make them happy? Should pleasure come before physical wellbeing? Is it permissible to let someone die so that they expire happy? Our interventionist laws suggests that society thinks not.

Aura: It is not immoral to deny someone pleasure. However it can be considered cruel, specially to the person being denied. But cruelty doesn't have to be immoral.

ghostgeek: There used to be an old saying, "Spare the rod and spoil the child." Is beating a child on the backside moral if it teaches a much needed lesson?

orkanen: If the need to beat a child is deemed necessary, it would be out from ignorance, not from necessity. An unruly child will have many reasons for being so, be it a reading issue like Dyslexia, or a mental issue, like ADHD.

Ms_Mafdet_The Great: I think, looking at all of these posts, and seeing the overall picture that has been painted, it would seem that the answer is that all of this boils down to the relative perspective of the 2 (or more) people involved in the act of "torture" - both the torturer, and the tortured.

Ms_Mafdet_The Great: @ Aura: But if one denied another one pleasure, couldn't that constitute torturing them ?

Aura: Being denied pleasure can feel like torture, this is true. And I am very familiar with it (smirk)

Problem is, it is not real torture since chances are huge the tortured is in that situation out of his or her free will. And they are also free to seek their pleasure somewhere they would not be denied.

In fact I am having a hard time thinking of a situation where the tortured by denial of pleasure would not be in that situation out of his or her free will.

SWlNE: Is it immoral to deny someone pleasure?
-To me it is not immoral. It is not the other person's responsibility to pleasure another. There is that option to decline/deny.

There is one torture that is deemed morally acceptable (depending on your belief) : Hell fire. Never could wrap my head around this one.

Will a non-physical pain torture techniques as the Chinese Water torture (or the debatable Solitary confinement) be more acceptable than one that penetrates the flesh or one based on physical pain?
It seems that they are. I think it is because humans have that comfort in not seeing blood, (as beheading vs lethal injection) the clean, plastic packaging of acts.

Aura: i'm with you on the not getting hell fire swine.
Aside from it obviously being meant as torture, no word on how it's supposed to work on souls who have left the body and thus pain receptor behind

thor1112010: No.

Depresso Espresso: because in the eyes of a sadist its fun and rewarding. dont fucking @ me.