- Joined
- Jul 28, 2008
- Messages
- 45,596
- Reaction score
- 22,536
- Location
- Everywhere and nowhere
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Progressive
What are you babbling about? My moral views are undeniable fact - they exist for me; I hold them, I observe them, I follow them. Your moral views are undeniable fact as well. Although I cannot say with conviction that yours do not change with the situation ["I wouldn't ever beat the **** out of anyone that I'd tied up, but AAKK!! My family is in danger!"], I can say with authority that mine do not.
My use of the word "true" was intended to show the distinction between those whose moral position on torture does not change with the circumstance (yes, even in "AAKK!! My family is in danger!" situations) as opposed to those whose moral position on torture does. "True" as in reliable, unfailing, unchanging, unbreakable, regardless of the situation or circumstance. Sorry that wasn't clearer.
Now get up off the floor and wipe your tears. Mommy's tired of your tantrums.
My use of the word "true" was intended to show the distinction between those whose moral position on torture does not change with the circumstance (yes, even in "AAKK!! My family is in danger!" situations) as opposed to those whose moral position on torture does.
The hypothetical was Ethereal's, actually.
And you are referring to a specific instance of torture that isn't related to the hypothetical.
I agreed and added info to what SS said.Originally Posted by Slippery Slope
Curious commentary. I think it's been pretty well established that torture rarely yields viable intelligence, never in a timely fashion, and is morally reprehensible not to mention against the law and values of the civilized world in general.
Let me ask this of the people arguing against all forms of torture as immoral:
Do you think it is possible for someone to hold the view that they would personally use torture in a certain, specific situation without supporting the torture used by the government?
Would you sleep with me for $10? No? Would you sleep with me for $100 billion? Yes? Well, we have established "what" you are. Now we just need to haggle over the price.
I was responding to this:
I agreed and added info to what SS said.
I find these hypos to be ridiculous. Laws are not made because of them. They do not reflect the real world. We have never been in a "ticking time bomb" situation. And to modify it for someone's family is just as ludicrous.
They remind me of...
Which was directed at me. I thought it meant your comments were vicariously aimed at me.
No hypothetical is designed to perfectly reflect the real world. If they were, they wouldn't be called hypotehticals.
It was not directed at you. I quoted SS and replied to him. It just happened to come after one of your posts.
I understand that but, I won't play it. It's a game to try to do just what you described. If we admit there is even 1 chance in 1 million that we would use torture then the right will use that to say we agree torture should be used. That would not be true.
Too many of our country's leaders took stands against torture. If those stands and morals got us this far, through much harder times, I'm confident they will get us thru these times.
America chooses to NOT torture. Period.
Unless torture doesn't work or is unreliable.Yes, consistent with my utilitarian ethical perspective. The application of felicific calculus would yield the obvious estimate of the suffering caused by murder being an imposition of greater intensity and duration than the suffering caused by torture, and torture would thus produce a utility maximization.
If it is not morally offensive, why not? Because it can be abused? So the abuse of using torture is morally offensive? What is this abuse, using it for a purpose other than extracting information? Like for vengence?I think you aren't grasping my points in any way shape or form. I'm not for the government torturing people because I think it is a power that the government should not be granted.
I think that people who utilize torture deserve to be punished because I don't believe that it is a power that people should be granted.
This statement says - I believe torture works - so your objection to people using it is that it can be abused. So again you are saying it's not morally offensive.If my family were in danger, I would utilize a power I should not have and willingly accept the consequences of that legal violation because I utilized a power I should not have.
No, irrational in that it is unreliable and yet you're willing to use it anyway.Being willing to break the law to save my family is irrational? Perhaps. I admit that the decision would be based on emotion as much as anything else.
You fear for the safety of your family and are therefore willing to do things you agree don't work.Ohhh Kayyy. How does this relate to my statements?
What abuse, that it will be used for vengence? I think you could easily make such an argument against many laws or government institutions.It's not contradictory if you understand what I mean. Even if it were 100% effective, I wouldn't agree with legalization of torture for the reasons I've described: I believe it is a power that nobody should legally wield over another. In part because it would almost definitely be abused.
I would expect to be punished for utilizing a power that I should not have. I am of the belief that the punishment would be worth it in order to save my family.
Why not? is there a moral component? If it's effective then why is it immoral?Because of it's vast potential for misuse. Because I don't believe that the government should be granted that kind of power. Because I don't view efficacy as the barometer for legality.
Unless torture doesn't work or is unreliable.
It cannot yield a "utility maximization" (not that I can figure out why you feel it's necessary to be so pedantic, but that's for you and your therapist to figure out) because of it's well known unreliability and when it's proven to yield accurate/actionable intel. it takes far too long or far too many instances. The three touted as the example all expose the large number of instances PROVING that it does not in any way work in a time sensitive crisis.Of course, but that's a technical objection, not an ideological one. And even with that obstacle in place, it's still likely to yield a utility maximization in certain cases.
If it is not morally offensive, why not? Because it can be abused? So the abuse of using torture is morally offensive? What is this abuse, using it for a purpose other than extracting information? Like for vengence?
You should have learned by now that making silly comments are not going to advance your argument with me. If I've made a mistake in interpreting or understanding your post(s) then I am more than willing to admit it and have done so numerous times. So let's have a look shall we?The order you should take in approaching one of my posts is :
Step 1: Read
Step 2: Comprehend
Step 3: Reply.
If you are having problems with 2, don't skip it. Ask for clarification as to what I mean. Whatever you do, don't skip 2. It'll waste too much time for both of us.
If you want to rebut a straw man, go ahead, but have the courtesy to build it yourself instead of mutating my posts to make it your straw man.
This is in bold so I can connect your morality comments to your denial of making morality comments.The fact that you "rebut" with more morality nonsense means you have failed to comprehend my post.
Where did I say torture never works? I believe I said "I think it's been pretty well established that torture rarely yields viable intelligence, never in a timely fashion, and is morally reprehensible not to mention against the law and values of the civilized world in general."Plus, you want to make this about your mistaken belief that "torture never works". That's a silly comment because "torture is unreliable" =/= "doesn't work". it means "doesn't always work". Sometimes it DOES work. It's what's that word... Oh... UNRELIABLE. Look it up. I guarantee you that unreliable doe NOT mean "never works". Unreliable is caused by INCONSISTENT working.
That's an odd statement to make.Btu even more to the point, my arguments have nothing to do with the consistency of efficacy, nothing to do with morality, nothing to do with any of your "rebuttal" points.
Two points:
1. How have I damaged any arguments that I have made in this thread? Cops have to allow a detainee Miranda rights. They can't torture the info out of them because they are confined by the laws and it must be assumed that they won't be willing to break them in order to save my family.
2. I believe that a proscription on police and all government officials form engaging in torture is correct. I support the laws that prevent police officers from using torture. The point I'm making is that in the given hypothetical I would utilize torture. Personally. As in a free citizen, not associated with the government, breaking the laws of the nation in order to achieve a goal.
OK, so why would you use torture when you know it is ineffective in producing timely and reliable information.I on the other hand, would risk everything to save my family. I'd willfully break any law in order to do so.
Sounds like a moral argument to me.My position is that the individual may be able to legitimately conclude that torture is moral under certain circumstances, but that the powers of the government should still be limited such so that it is banned from using torture in any circumstance.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?