h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

> "What turns someone's gentle son or loving husband into a remorseless torturer? The desire to dominate, subjugate, and impose one's will on another person is a basic component of the personalities of all human beings and, wherever social and political climates nourish that streak of nastiness, there will always be people who cannot resist the call."

Is it not remotely possible that some people end up torturing because they are s**t-scared that if they don't follow orders then they'll be executed or tortured themselves?
And because they've judged, correctly, that if they martyr themselves to their ideals their superiors will just find someone else to do the same job, probably with less compassion.

Come to that, is it not possible that some who order tortures carried out are simply mislead? By religious ideals, political ideals, or simply a desire to save lives. Would you torture a terrorist to find out where in London he'd planted a nuclear bomb? Would you hesitate for even a second?

I'm sure some people are as sadistic as you claim - but we don't live in a world where the bad guys all wear black and have lightning flashes cued up on their voice. A bit less universally judgemental, if you please.

If you read the Entry again I'm sure you'll agree that nothing in it suggests that the issue is a simple one; and, as you suggest, the factors that motivate individuals to act, in any context, are vast and complex. The point of the phrase you have quoted is intended to illustrate just how complex the subject of motivation can be. There is a real danger in thinking of people who do evil things as 'the bad guys', which is a dangerously simplistic approach. Anyone under the right set of circumstances can and will behave monstrously... it's in all of us. That is the point... which I think you may have misread.

JTG

Probably - just the way it came across to me first time...

Is it not remotely possible that some people end up torturing because they are s**t-scared that if they don't follow orders then they'll be executed or tortured themselves?

A lot of Nazis used that one after the war, but the fact remained that those who point blank said they would not work in the concentration camps and participate in mass murder were not punished by the Nazi authorities. Perhaps because they realised that just as some people were easily turned into torturers, others would never fit the mould.

As for why torture is carried out, based on the reports that I've read over the years, it seems to have three main reasons:

1) The police (or other authorities) want information the easy way.

2) The authorities want to scare people. (ie torture someone for weeks/months then release them to show what happens to people who step out of line)

3) Just for the hell of it. People torture prisoners simply because they can. This is different from the other two reasons in that torture is no longer a means to an end, but is an end in and of itself.

> "The fact remained that those who point blank said they would not work in the concentration camps and participate in mass murder were not punished by the Nazi authorities."

And I'm sure said Nazi authorities made sure this was well publicised so everyone they asked to torture had all the information available to them. They probably had a daily reminder on the 6 o' clock news. Just after the bit where they reminded people that if they had a conscientious objection to joining the army that was perfectly ok, and they'd be treated much better than the evil people in the UK treated their COs.

Let's see {tries to switch on empathy}. I'm in a country which has turned fascist. I'm in the army. I know that if I displease my superiors they can find any one of a million hellholes to post me to, and any one of a million suicidal missions to go on. If I desert, I get shot or worse. I've been trained, like the members of every army in the world, to instantly obey any order without question - without even thought. If someone asks me to torture, what am I likely to do?

Say "Yes sir". Or maybe "How hard?".

That must surely be one of the most terrible decisions a human being could ever be asked to make, along the lines of "which child gets the last of the food". Whatever one decides, it is the wrong answer for one reason or another. Just thank god that you probably won't ever have to make that choice. My understanding of the psychology of basic training is that, in part, it reduces the recruit's reliance on his/her own system of values in favour of those imposed by the military society he/she is being indoctrinated into. That's something else we should take into consideration when we're asked to judge other people: They are programmed to act like that in virtually every armed service in the world, regardless of the system of government they are there to defend. A sick dilemma, isn't it?

JTG

Altruism, although rarely seen, is very celebrated when it does occur. Lets face it, if it were as proliphic as we would like it to be, we'd probably die out as a species.

"If someone asks me to torture, what am I likely to do?"

Well if you were in the German army (or even the SS) you said to hell with that send me to the front. There were conscientious objectors in the German armed forces who refused to take part, and they were never punished for it, in part because the military in general, and those at the front in particular, looked down upon those who stayed at home and tortured the helpless rather than do the 'manly' thing and fight. Those who worked as camp guards were held in contempt by those who fought at the front, especially since they knew that a simple request would get anyone out of working in the camps.

That request would indeed get you sent to the front, and the choice seems to have been between working at Belsen or Auswich and taking your chances at the front...