Torture

A person who tortures and gets enjoyment out of it is called a sadist.

People when the captured their enemies would torture them to get them to talk!<------ partly true...

Torture started because people went to war with neighboring towns, camps, etc. and they wanted answers from the prisoners so they used torture to try to get answers. This method didn't always worth though. what happened mostly is they never spoke and either were killed by the people that captured them or died of an infection or desiese. please improve if you can

In the medieval ages there was many gruesome tortures used. One was where they would take the victim and have him/her stripped naked. Then their feet would be tied to two poles then four men would carry them around town, then finally they would spread the victims legs and then take a two person saw and saw down the middle. Another torture was when a victim was tied down to a table and a box with a hole was set on his stomach and tied down. In the box would be a rat and the top of the box would be lit on fire. The rat would panic and try to go through the hole but since the victims stomach was there the only choice the rat had was to dig through the opponent stomach.

One that was most commonly used, was being drawn and quartered. What would first happen is that the victim would be hanged till half dead, then they would be taken down and their arms and legs would be cut off. After that they would cut open the skin above your stomach and would take out the organs and lay them on top of you while you are still alive and light them on fire.

Another torture that is probably one of the most painful is called the Blood Eagle. The bones protecting your heart would be sawed open. Then they would tie you to a pole or stake and then rip open your rib cages. Then they would slowly stretch out your lungs and hang them on your rib cages. This is to represent an eagles wings. The person would either die of the constant bleeding or of their lungs being pierce by their own rib cages.

Yes. Torture through the spread of disease, trail of tears, unjustly killing, etc.

It is an effective way of getting 'information' but not necessary accurate information. When people are in severe pain most will talk but they might just say what what they think the torturer wants to hear.

25 years.

He is disappointed with the world state and thinks he is filthy from being at such a grotesque place. He whips himself in order to cleanse himself.

New Answer (11 May, 2012) - He tortures himself because he feels that is the only way to show himself as being human, to feel pain, to be an individual, to bleed and not take soma. If I remember right, he also does it when he gets aroused from thinking of Lenina, so it is also to say no to the temptation, the temptation that all the Alpha-Plus' do. The main thing is to interpret it how you want, but this is what I gathered when I read it. ~ DK

Winston specifically is tortured in a number of ways. These include (but are not limited to): starvation, deprivation, electric shocks, betraying his secret love, being threatened to be eaten by rats, and accepting the government.

To torture your sister if your getting ready for school in the morning and your straightening your hair and she wants to stand in the place your standing pretend that you can't hear her and if someone walks into the room say"hey can you hear dogs" that should wownd them up

It's pretty hard to legally, ethically, morally or especially practically justify torture in any sense. First, from a practical standpoint, it's hugely ineffective. From a purely practical perspective, and setting aside other concerns, the fact is that torture just doesn't work well. The problem is thus: If you actually do increase the subject's stress levels to a point that overcomes inhibition, it also overcomes the need to provide accurate intelligence. The subject's primary goal is not to inform the interrogator; it's to avert further torture. This means that any intelligence gained in this manner has to be extremely suspect, as now the interrogator has provided the subject with an even greater incentive than they previously had to misinform. Due the the need to verify intelligence gained in any less-than-ideal manner, the subject knows that telling the truth will typically not stop the torture -- so an answer that will is sought. In addition to this, as the subject's stress levels increase, the ability for them to assemble and deliver complex intelligence decreases. In short, torture doesn't work. And this alone should provide reason to avoid this means of intelligence gathering. Additionally, the attrition rate in interrogators is very high, and varies directly in proportion to the level of torture. The ideal interrogator should not be motivated by a psychopathology such as sadism, as it complicates the transferance greatly. And it's very very hard to keep a healthy, motivatged interrogator both healthy and motivated when they engage in activites that normal people -- including the interrogator -- find deeply abhorant. Other reasons include the psychology of interrogation from the subject's perspective. In criminal investigations, interrogations involve some pretty complex psychology, much of it targetted at making the subject feel more comfortable in identifying with the interrogator(s). In criminal cases, this is somewhat easier than military interrogations. The subject in a criminal investigation may actually be a criminal; wartime interrogation subjects consider themselves heros, the interrogators, villians, and they're not reflecting a pathological delusion; they're perceiving the way their countrymen and even the rest of the world look on them. A subject convinced that right is on their side and that their interrogators have lost the moral highground (which is typical of military interrogations) are far more resistant to torture. Finally, torture tends to swing world opinion against the interrogator in a number of levels. This can have negative effects that are in scope far too numerous to discuss in this context. In summary, I have a very difficult time envisioing a likely case where all the factors invovled combine to yield positive results.

It's about power and control. It's not an anger management problem as some people believe because the husband is able to manage his behaviour when he is feeling angry with others, say for example his boss. It's also a form of discrimination in so far as the powers that be in Western society have made the punishment for beating your wife much less than if that same man beat his boss or a stranger. It can also be learned behaviour that a child witnesses in the family home and later repeats in adult relationships. I believe men who beat their wives would benefit from Cognitive Behavioural Therapy while they are serving their sentence for violence toward their wife.

I got a better answer.I'm Singaporean and learning History in school and currently learning about this.There are a lot of torture ways,I'll list them out for you,I don't know everything but I'll list what I know =)

1) Stuffs a hose into a person's mouth then fill the person's stomach with water till it's bloated then jump on the stomach and the stomach bursts then the intestines and internal organs flies out.Creepy right!

2) They place some mice under a metal cover on your stomach then heat it and then when it's hot then the mice will start to scratch the person's stomach until it's full of wholes and won't stop till they find a way out or when the Japanese stops.Eew

3) They hang you onto something I don't know what then place a growing bamboo under you and wait for it to grow until it pierces through your whole body 0.0

4 ) This one a little bit disgusting.They use a certain kind of nail clipper to pluck off your nails.Then when it's pluck off it bleeds right? After that they sprinkle salt and vinegar on the wound...OMG then it will start to get infected and rot but the worse is that after every 3 or 4 days they will come back and sprinkle some more till the fingers rot away...

There's still a lot,like raping and if you come past a Japanese soldier and don't greet them then off you go to heaven.If you're not Singaporean I suggest you come to Singapore and learn about our history,its interesting and the place here is very nice =)

the iron Madden

Assyrians.

Sleep Sleep is an important part of a person's daily routine, as healthy sleep is as basic as the need to eat and drink water. As it plays an important role in many vital functions in the body, it helps to remove toxins that accumulate during the day from the brain, as it affects almost all body tissues including the brain, heart, and lungs, in addition to its role in the metabolism and mood improvement Supporting the immune system, fighting disease, and many other roles that will be mentioned later in this article. On the other hand, lack of sleep has many negative effects that affect the quality of daily life and increase the risk of many diseases and health problems, such as: high blood pressure, cardiovascular disease, diabetes, depression, and obesity. It should be noted that the number of appropriate sleep hours varies from person to person, depending on several factors, the most important of which is age. For example, newborns need about 16-18 hours of sleep a day, due to their need for growth and development, while school-age children and adolescents need an average of 9 and a half hours per night, and adults need an average of 7-9 hours of sleep. night. The solution to all these problems is with a scientific experience and the experiences of some people a lot, and their returns at work and daily life have improved for the better and better, and the solution is dreamcould

This question is relatively vague. Obviously, torture can have many outcomes, the majority being psychological or physical damage to the body and mind. People become emotionally and physically distressed. They often times can be physically mutilated.

Umm ya it is in the US. I don't know were else though.

Yes, they can. Girls are usually seen as little perfect angels. If the girl was stronger (not necessarily older) than the boy, she could pin him to the ground, tie him up, and torture him. Also, some see the most radical forms of bullying as torture.

Emotional, Mental and of course physical tortures.

Ethical Theories Applied to Torture

There are many and varied ethical theories that could be applied to the question, 'can the use of torture ever be justified?' Theories that conclude that torture is never acceptable will be examined first.

Immanuel Kant (1724-1804) developed Kantian Theory. It is based on the belief that reason is the final authority for morality. A moral act is an act done for the right reasons (Lovell & Fisher, 2002, p314). Kantian Theory is closely related to the doctrines of all major religions, the Bible states 'do unto others as you would have them do unto you'. At the Centre of Kantian ethics is his categorical imperative, which is a set of universal rules that outline 'that only the good will, a will to act out of a sense of duty, has unqualified moral worth' (Pojman, 1998, p194).

Using deontological theory whereby actions are intrinsically right or wrong, torture can be seen to be unacceptable, whatever the circumstances and consequences. Deontologists hold that one cannot undertake immoral acts like torture even if the outcome is morally preferable, such as the early ending of a war or the saving of lives.

Edmund Burke, the late eighteenth century writer and politician, accused the British of suffering from what he termed 'geographical morality' (Lee & Smith, 2004, p16). 'Geographical morality' is when people are prepared to be shocked by and to condemn torture in other countries while condoning its practice by their own authorities. The British are not the only ones to be guilty of this, many countries, especially in the West can be accused of 'geographical morality'.

However, there are many other theories that show that torture could be morally acceptable in some situations.

John Stuart Mill (1808-73) put forward an ethical theory known as utilitarianism. Utilitarianism can be summed up in the phrase, 'everyone should act in such a way to bring the largest possibly balance of good over evil for everyone involved' (Almond, 1988, p127). Using this theory, torture can be justified if it brings about a 'greater good for a greater number of people'. The ends justify the means. Using Utilitarianism Theory, if the torture of one person means that several people are located and rescued from a dire situation, then that torture is justifiable.

Consequentialism offers the idea that torture is justifiable if the consequences of the torture are morally right. Consequentialism is an ethical view that establishes the rightness or wrongness of actions by the good or bad produced by its consequences.

Interlaced with the question 'can torture ever be justified?' is the question 'can war ever be justified?' As torture is an agent of war, this seems appropriate. Just War Theory can be used to justify torture on the grounds that it is acceptable in response to certain situations. St Thomas Aquinas (1225-74) described 'jus ad bellum', the conditions that he believed has to be met for war to be justified. War has to be ordered by a legitimate authority, it must be waged for a just cause and the intention of those who wage war should be the triumph of good over evil (Almond, 1998, p197). Of course, the problem with utilizing this Just War theory is that fulfillment of the conditions is subjective. However, it is possible that torture could be morally justified using the Just War Theory if it was carried out by a legitimate government whose general aim is good and with the best of intentions.

The concept of proportionality is found in Acquinas' consideration of the Just War Theory. He argued that warring activity should be proportionate to the aggression made and therefore not excessive to that aggression. This would imply that torture, an extremely aggressive warring activity, would be ethically acceptable in response to extremely aggressive actions.

It can be argued that the intentions of a torturer make a difference to the moral value of the action of torture. In consequentialist theories of ethics, intention is important, as intention is what you hope to achieve by the action. For Kant, intention can make all the difference between morally correct behavior and morally incorrect behavior.

Ideology can play a part in legitimizing the use of torture. Ideology is the body of ideas and beliefs of a group, possibly religious, or nation (Maran, 1989, p11). If the ideology of the tortured is believed to be morally wrong and the act of torture prevents the spread of this ideology then torture can be deemed to be justified.

So, in conclusion, there are ethical theories that both state that torture can never be justified and those that state it can be, in different, varying circumstances.

Case Study: Torture in the Algerian War (1954-1962)