Is purposeless torture moral?

Your moral system begins with a blog post about conservatism vs librals? I think I may have found your first problem.This is no way describes a moral system, please try again. Nobody is trying to "rewrite the dictionary definition of words". If 1, how does one determine the rules of right conduct?
If 2, how does one determine the moral quality of a character?
If 3, how does one determine what is virtous in regards to sexual matters?
If 4, which doctrine or system of morals are you refering too?
Finally, if 5, which moral instructions are you refering too?I'll simplify the matter. How, in context to your paradigm, do you determine what is morally good vs what is morally bad?

Jar"Revenge is a purpose.Retribution is a purpose.Cruelty is a purpose."Being French, language is always a bitch but I think I will give you this.These could be seen from the punishers POV as a purpose.When you apply infinity to revenge, retribution and cruelty though, it becomes quite immoral as you would be taking 10000000000000000000000000000 + years of revenge, retribution and cruelty, for offences done in less than .0000000000000000001 of a man's life.Overkill and immoral that. Right?Regards
DL

RingoIn a one for one scenario or a one for a million, justice may be the same.The criminal has given up the rights to not being tortured by subjecting his victim to losing his or her rights.Justice says that reciprocity is fair play.Seems to me that if that kidnaped child is to die if I do not administer justice, then that criminal would hurt and perhaps even die but I think morality demands it.Regards
DL

Huntard"What? The purpose? I already told you: punishing sinners."Punishing is the action, not the purpose.Why do you punish your children?
To change attitudes and actions. Right?
Those are the purposes for the punishment.What is the purpose for punishing eternaly in hell?""To those that might consider sinning against god."To sin against God? What does that mean?
God is not here for me to sin against.
How could anyone possibly hurt an all powerful entity?Impossible. Right?Regards
DL

Evlreala"My moral system begins here.
Jonathan Haidt: The moral roots of liberals and conservatives | TED TalkYour moral system begins with a blog post about conservatism vs librals? I think I may have found your first problem.This is no way describes a moral system, please try again."--------------------------------------No point in going further if you did not see the moral tenets in that clip. If you cannot understand the words of a professional scholar, you will not understand anything I have to tell you.Regards
DL

Okay, so you admit that they have a purpose.Now let's look at whether or not it is immoral.Is it immoral from the punisher's POV?

That sounds suspiciously like sinners choosing to go to hell. I can see that torturing a criminal to free a victim might be desirable but how does expediency become morality?

I understand the "moral tenets" in the clip just fine, perhaps you should rewatch the clip yourself. Several points made in the clip bring up the issue that not everybody has the same perspective on morality.The same issue I am addressing to you.In the interest of discussion and in being intellectually honest, I will ask once again.How, in your paradigm, does one determine what is good and what is evil? An argument from authority and a weak one at that. It is one question, one that is necessary to answer your question without assumptions. Why do you refuse t answer it?

JarI already indicated that it was immoral.I do not care if archetypal God thinks it moral or not. He would be wrong if he did.Regards
DL

Ringo"how does expediency become morality?"It does not. It is just a condition created by requiring haste in the scenario."but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also."Unworkable rhetoric as is much of what they put into Jesus' mouth.If a man enters your home and rapes your wife, what will you do, offer your daughter for seconds.
See what I mean? Unworkable rhetoric.Regards
DL

Evlreala"How, in your paradigm, does one determine what is good and what is evil?"Basically the old do unto others is what guides me.Regards
DL

That might very well be the moral thing to do. Again, you seem to be confusing expediency with morality. What's right is right, whether it's workable or not.

Well whoopdy doo.

So, in your idea of morality, all it takes for something to be morally good is this subjective criteria.If that's the case, all it should take for a given scenario involving torture to be moral is the perspective that the torture is fair and/or deserved by any other criteria that one is willing to apply to themselves.Using the example of hell;
A christian, whos religous ideals leads them to accept the idea of hell (in this case, hell means eternal torture) as a morally acceptable punishment for whatever their particular doctrine says is acceptable for this punishment (regardless of if you or anyone else agrees).From their perspective, hell is a moral punishment.

RingoGreatest I am writes:
If a man enters your home and rapes your wife, what will you do, offer your daughter for seconds.your reply:
That might very well be the moral thing to do.How would you justify your action to the court that would charge you with being an accessory to rape?How would you explain such a (good) moral stance to your daughter?Regards
DL