40% of Australians think torturing an enemy to obtain vital information is OK http://tinyurl.com/ljvcy9. There is some academic support for that position, witness some of the articles that we have published by Mirko Bagaric, like this one http://tinyurl.com/npp5uh. And what would a spy movie be without the torture scene?

But that is all theory. How willing would any of us be to torture? There is evidence that it might be more easy than we would like to admit http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milgram_experiment.

In fact, my observation of some of the trainers at my gym suggests that the torture impulse might not be that far below some people's skins, given a framework which licences bullying and characterises it as necessary to a good outcome.

im reluctant to reply...but have noticed a growing trend to yell at people as being normal...witness the fat camps..of the greatest loosers

but back to the torture issue...notably the failure to reveal the 'other' torture photoes...suppressed by obama...reportedly showing child rape..[of the t-errorists..own children/spouces..to get info out of the enemy]...

thats really the way to go obama...let those doing most vile..[and calling it to be done for the cause of good]...

a rightious man should not be afraid...of their works being broadcast far and wide..why not..that scum be exposed as the scuuuum they really are...we either..reveal the whole truth..or its the same old lie's

anyhow..the info is out there..that when we truelly hate others..we will seek to hurt them...vile and us good..if only to end our own pain...we are willing to cause further pains...worser pain...again and again...till we go numb...and the media goes silent

on the aspect of doing it..at home..reportedly far worse..occurs behind those drawn curtains and barred windows of suburbia...if only via that we are chosing to be watching on tv

Graham asks:

"How willing would any of us be to torture?"

I suspect that it would be a very much smaller number than the 40% who seem to be happy to let other people do it.

And given that the descriptor is "willing", I'm not sure that the Milford experiment is particularly relevant, which was designed to uncover our response to authority.

Being told to do something, and complying, does not automatically imply willingness, merely submission.

If we were asked "how many of you would inflict torture if ordered to do so", I suspect most of us would insist that we would not get ourselves into that position in the first place. Which, when you consider the relative positions of combatant and non-combatant, is not unreasonable.

The ethics of torture itself were covered from both sides following Mirko's article. For myself, I found that I disagreed from the outset with the premise that killing innocent people is intrinsically worse that torturing someone.

It's like having the choice between jumping off the roof or shooting yourself in the head. The motive quickly becomes irrelevant once the end is achieved.

Milgram, not Milford. Sorry.

I would willingly torture someone if it meant saving the life of my children or friends. I would have blood on my hands if I allowed them to die because of some sort of failed ideology. Funny enough many who oppose torture at all costs have no problem in killing the unborn.

Pericles, I think authority comes in many forms. The Holocaust is of the same nature as torture, and whole populations conspired in that to some extent or another. Fashion is possibly a stronger driver than outright, but unfashionable, coercion.