MovieChat Forums > Unthinkable (2010) Discussion > raises questions for the real world,can ...

raises questions for the real world,can they be answered? SPOILERS

posted 11 years ago by ib011f9545i
5 replies | jump to latest

SPOILERS SPOILERS SPOILERS SPOILERS SPOILERS SPOILERS SPOILERS SPOILERS

We can probably imagine a situation where it would be correct to torture someone in order to stop a bomb which would kill hundreds of thousands of people.

But at what point is it ok to torture someone,and what is torture?

As a British person old enough to remember the bad days of the troubles in Northern Ireland we often heard of American politicians and Irish/American activists complaining about the methods used by British security forces in Northern Ireland.

British people like me remembered American troops torturing people in Vietnam.

Now post 9/11 there is an American politician in New York (is his name King?)who wants no legal process for suspected muslim terrorists,but guess what he is an Irish/American and used to make speeches about British torture,so I guess if you think your country is in danger of attack torture is allowed.
(Northern Ireland is part of the UK)

Another angle on this is if my country tortures people then is it ok for the enemies of my country to torture our troops if they capture them?

I don't know the answers to the questions I am asking,ideally I would love to say my country does not torture people,but is this realistic?

[–] fairy_depp 11 years ago

I can see why people would think torture is necessary but like you said, how can you know when it's got to that point? They arrest people simply for being Muslim and associated with certain people so you can't know that you're not going to end up torturing innocent people or that you will get useful information.. It's a very difficult issue!

[–] maxim_K 11 years ago

I remember a scene in an old movie about Field Marshal Rommel, where a German was trying to convince (not even near to any torture) a British officer who was their prisoner to call on radio and ask their forces to stop bombarding their location because there was also British prisoners there. Rommel stopped the German soldier as a professional military act. I don't know if it was historically accurate or not, but it is sad to see that now in 21st century we are seeing movies that are trying to convince us that any type of brutality is justifiable. The movie gives us impossible scenario to make us feel necessity of forced interrogation.

To answer your question: An immoral act is immoral, no matter the circumstances. There is no justification. It is simply not right to do anything to any human being that we don't want to happen to us. If we step into area of justification we are losing all the human values in the process.

What the movie portrays great is the conversion of people from humans to savage monsters who are not better than their enemies. If we only stand for survival of our "tribe" we should better call the world a jungle (as actually it is...sadly) and leave any self proclamation of being good or human.

[–] eolloe 10 years ago

Psychologists could have a field day with these questions.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trolley_problem

To answer your question: An immoral act is immoral, no matter the circumstances. There is no justification. It is simply not right to do anything to any human being that we don't want to happen to us. If we step into area of justification we are losing all the human values in the process.

You make it sound so simple. But is it, really?

"No matter the circumstances."

Is it not immoral to fail to act if in doing so you allow millions of people to be murdered, when there is something you could do to prevent their murders?

If you answer that, no, it is not immoral to fail to act in such circumstances, then do you also say, as the pacificsts do, that even violence used as a defense against a military assault is morally unacceptable?

Many nations/societies that like to think of themselves as being somehow more morally advanced and civilized, and that cite as an example their claim that they do not and never would use torture under any circumstance, feel no qualms in using violence as a "defensive" measure. This might mean, for example, dropping bombs or firing missiles from drones. But what about the innocent children and civilians who will be killed or maimed in the process? Why is using torture in a torture chamber unacceptable while pulverizing an arm with a bomb, or shredding a leg or an eye with shrapnel, acceptable?

[–] tolla36 9 years ago

I think if Britain, USA & Europe stopped invading & raping & murdering Muslim countries, & shut down the Guantanamo torture chambers, (which were especially built to detain & torture Muslims without any proof of guilt, while the so called civilised world does nothing) the need for anyone being tortured anywhere would drop significantly.

[–] blackswan-545-352343 8 years ago

anyone can "imagine" something, which amounts to a Hypothetical something

now, my sources tell me this was fiction, like a movie

the question is, as a society, do we want to torture?
[i vote no]

marc