1
   

Not enough (official) torture in the world?

 
 
rayban1
 
  1  
Reply Wed 1 Jun, 2005 10:44 pm
Joe

Why didn't you ask a question as a subject of the thread instead of putting a ring in our nose and leading us in the direction you wanted us to go? Very Happy

Why didn't you ask........Is there a case for torture in today's war on Islamic Fascism? The answer is......yes of course there is just as the Professor argues. But first you must make a practical judgement of whether or not it will likely result in a favorable outcome for society as a whole....and are the circumstances dire enough to justify it? Notice I didn't say.....Moral Judgement ...... because there is nothing moral about torture not the decision to use it. IMO.....there can be no moral or legal justification for torture however there are practical considerations that not only justify it but cause it to be the only logical alternative. You can put forth all the moral and legal arguments for or against but in the final analysis, practicality can be the only justification

There is no slippery slope to worry about........no legal niceties to complicate the issue. We all know that torture is inhuman but the enemy has made the decision easier for us When you tie a hostages hands behind his back, put a mask over your face and saw off his head in front of television cameras, you have indentified yourself as a subhuman species.
There can be no compromise with such an enemy therefore any behavior to gain information or attempt to save another hostage, is justified and we have made a judgement to lower ourselves to a level that he understands. If it is more effective to send such a prisoner to a country where torture is common.....then do it. If you must cut off one testicle to start the flow of information......then do it. If however, once any information given has failed the test of validity then further torture should be suspended as this could be considered proof he only wanted to stop the pain. It would not be wise to kill the sob, therefore we must put him in the hospital to recover.......there is always the possibility he is totally innocent. Where they would kill one of their prisoners, we cannot sink to that lowest level and do the same.

As the good professor points out:

<First, no right or interest is absolute. Secondly, rights must always yield to consequences, which are the ultimate criteria upon which the soundness of a decision is gauged. Lost lives hurt a lot more than bent principles.

Thirdly, we must take responsibility not only for the things that we do, but also for the things that we can - but fail to - prevent. The retort that we are not responsible for the lives lost through a decision not to torture a wrongdoer because we did not create the situation is code for moral indifference>.

Once that initial decision is made.......there is no going back, so the possible consequences should be studied very carefully. It must be acknowledged to the electorate with full accountability right up to the President.
0 Replies
 
val
 
  1  
Reply Thu 2 Jun, 2005 02:52 am
Quote:
Why didn't you ask........Is there a case for torture in today's war on Islamic Fascism? The answer is......yes of course there is just as the Professor argues. But first you must make a practical judgement of whether or not it will likely result in a favorable outcome for society as a whole....


First problem: if you accept torture on someone because you suspect he is a terrorist, you are judging him already as guilty without a trial.
Second problem: he can be innocent. You can be wrong.
Third problem: if USA, in a few years, becomes a fundamentalist christian
society, do you think that torturing atheists would be acceptable, regarding the favorable outcome for society as a whole?

Now two questions:
Why do you feel the need to call US enemies as "Islamic Fascism"? Do you think it makes easier to accept, that way, to torture them?
And who decides when there is a favorable outcome for society as a whole?

No, an exercise of imagination: you torture an islamic terrorist. You torture 100 islamic terrorists. They reveal where the bombs are, their next attacks, the cells of terrorists in USA.

Tomorrow, an american pilot bombs Iraq or other muslim country. He is captured by muslim soldiers. They say: you are a christian fascist. So, they torture him in order to obtain the informations they need.
Is torture here justified?

Look around you. There are many islamic fascists, as you say, among us. But look better, in your own country, the US: don't you see an impressive number of christian fascists around you?
0 Replies
 
joefromchicago
 
  1  
Reply Thu 2 Jun, 2005 08:22 am
rayban1 wrote:
Joe

Why didn't you ask a question as a subject of the thread instead of putting a ring in our nose and leading us in the direction you wanted us to go? Very Happy

Actually, I did ask a question as the subject of this thread: "Not enough (official) torture in the world?"

rayban1 wrote:
Why didn't you ask........Is there a case for torture in today's war on Islamic Fascism?

I didn't need to ask that question. The participants in the thread are more than capable of asking that question for themselves, as you have demonstrated.

rayban1 wrote:
The answer is......yes of course there is just as the Professor argues. But first you must make a practical judgement of whether or not it will likely result in a favorable outcome for society as a whole....and are the circumstances dire enough to justify it? Notice I didn't say.....Moral Judgement ...... because there is nothing moral about torture not the decision to use it. IMO.....there can be no moral or legal justification for torture however there are practical considerations that not only justify it but cause it to be the only logical alternative. You can put forth all the moral and legal arguments for or against but in the final analysis, practicality can be the only justification

If something is "good" because it is "practical," then you are making "practicality" the measure of morality. Your attempt to avoid any moral questions by making torture a question of practicality, therefore, must fail. You haven't avoided morality, you've merely redefined it.

rayban1 wrote:
There is no slippery slope to worry about........no legal niceties to complicate the issue. We all know that torture is inhuman but the enemy has made the decision easier for us When you tie a hostages hands behind his back, put a mask over your face and saw off his head in front of television cameras, you have indentified yourself as a subhuman species.
There can be no compromise with such an enemy therefore any behavior to gain information or attempt to save another hostage, is justified and we have made a judgement to lower ourselves to a level that he understands. If it is more effective to send such a prisoner to a country where torture is common.....then do it. If you must cut off one testicle to start the flow of information......then do it. If however, once any information given has failed the test of validity then further torture should be suspended as this could be considered proof he only wanted to stop the pain. It would not be wise to kill the sob, therefore we must put him in the hospital to recover.......there is always the possibility he is totally innocent. Where they would kill one of their prisoners, we cannot sink to that lowest level and do the same.

Your confusion over morality is quite evident in this passage. If you are saying that one should not continue to torture prisoners who give false information, then you're saying that it would be wrong to torture them. Now, to be fair, I think your point is that it's no longer practical to torture them, but, as I mentioned above, you have essentially raised "practicality" to the level of "the good," so there's really no difference between what is "practical" and what is "good." In effect, you are proposing a utilitarian or consequentialist form of morality here.

rayban1 wrote:
As the good professor points out:

<First, no right or interest is absolute. Secondly, rights must always yield to consequences, which are the ultimate criteria upon which the soundness of a decision is gauged. Lost lives hurt a lot more than bent principles.

Thirdly, we must take responsibility not only for the things that we do, but also for the things that we can - but fail to - prevent. The retort that we are not responsible for the lives lost through a decision not to torture a wrongdoer because we did not create the situation is code for moral indifference>.

Once that initial decision is made.......there is no going back, so the possible consequences should be studied very carefully. It must be acknowledged to the electorate with full accountability right up to the President.

That's an odd position. You stated previously that "there is no slippery slope to worry about," yet you conclude by saying that "the possible consequences should be studied very carefully." If the "possible consequences" don't involve any kind of "slippery slope," then why worry about them?
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Thu 2 Jun, 2005 08:22 am
It should be obvious that the use of "facist" in such a case is sheerly an artifact of a fervid and overheated imagination. Facism is a economic and political structure which can hardly be applied to "state-less" terrorists. As you correctly note, Val, using facist is a means of dehumanizing anyone potentially identifiable as the enemy.
0 Replies
 
rayban1
 
  1  
Reply Thu 2 Jun, 2005 09:03 am
val wrote:
Quote:
Why didn't you ask........Is there a case for torture in today's war on Islamic Fascism? The answer is......yes of course there is just as the Professor argues. But first you must make a practical judgement of whether or not it will likely result in a favorable outcome for society as a whole....


First problem: if you accept torture on someone because you suspect he is a terrorist, you are judging him already as guilty without a trial.
Second problem: he can be innocent. You can be wrong.
Third problem: if USA, in a few years, becomes a fundamentalist christian
society, do you think that torturing atheists would be acceptable, regarding the favorable outcome for society as a whole?

Now two questions:
Why do you feel the need to call US enemies as "Islamic Fascism"? Do you think it makes easier to accept, that way, to torture them?
And who decides when there is a favorable outcome for society as a whole?

No, an exercise of imagination: you torture an islamic terrorist. You torture 100 islamic terrorists. They reveal where the bombs are, their next attacks, the cells of terrorists in USA.

Tomorrow, an american pilot bombs Iraq or other muslim country. He is captured by muslim soldiers. They say: you are a christian fascist. So, they torture him in order to obtain the informations they need.
Is torture here justified?

Look around you. There are many islamic fascists, as you say, among us. But look better, in your own country, the US: don't you see an impressive number of christian fascists around you?


1. Islamic Fascism is the only group that has declared war on this country and through their actions of beheading and suicide bombing of innocent people, have further declared that they have withdrawn from the human race thereby abdicating any claim to humane treatment.

2. American pilots expect to be tortured because the same treatment is already a historical fact......in North Korea and in North Vietnam. Why should they expect anything less from another species whose ideology has blinded them.

3. Christan fundamentalists (Anti abortion fanatics) are not the only terrorist group in this country. You have eco- terrorists and animal rights
fanatics and if they start to take hostages, and behead people to advertise their cause then they also relinguish their rights to humane treatment but another decision must be made regarding their actual threat to society.

4. Who makes the decision? The President and his advisors after evaluating all the consequences including the possibility that one who is tortured could be innocent. However, when one associates with those who would do harm to Americans then they should expect to suffer the consequences if captured. If you think we kidnap single people off the streets and torture them then your imagination has taken control of your brain.

5. Christian fascists have not been identified as a threat to our society.
0 Replies
 
rayban1
 
  1  
Reply Thu 2 Jun, 2005 10:01 am
Joe wrote:

<If something is "good" because it is "practical," then you are making "practicality" the measure of morality. Your attempt to avoid any moral questions by making torture a question of practicality, therefore, must fail. You haven't avoided morality, you've merely redefined it. >

I have chosen to use "practicality" in order to reduce the level of complexity which the word "morality" brings to this subject. When one attempts to define every situation and every instance you become a captive in your own trap. I prefer to equate this to a life and death struggle where survival is the only acceptable outcome.........end of discussion for me.

If you choose to consider my wording as a redefinition of morality then so be it........I hope you can find your way out of the maze that you create by attempting to make a decision that all would find acceptable based on morality and legality.
0 Replies
 
rayban1
 
  1  
Reply Thu 2 Jun, 2005 10:16 am
Setanta wrote:
It should be obvious that the use of "facist" in such a case is sheerly an artifact of a fervid and overheated imagination. Facism is a economic and political structure which can hardly be applied to "state-less" terrorists. As you correctly note, Val, using facist is a means of dehumanizing anyone potentially identifiable as the enemy.


You are obviously a legend of penetrating intellectual wizardry in your own mind and it matters not what other people think so why should I bother to make the attempt to penetrate the self congratulatory cocoon in which you reside
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Thu 2 Jun, 2005 10:19 am
That was a completely meaningless response. Just precisely how do you contend that Muslims terrorists are facists? See if you can answer the question, instead of simply dribbling snot down the front of your shirt.
0 Replies
 
rayban1
 
  1  
Reply Thu 2 Jun, 2005 10:28 am
Setanta wrote:
That was a completely meaningless response. Just precisely how do you contend that Muslims terrorists are facists? See if you can answer the question, instead of simply dribbling snot down the front of your shirt.


I will let Joe deal with the simplistic stupidity of this comment ....... he will probably spank you and send you to stand in a corner or perhaps wash your mouth out with soap. You simply don't belong in any type of civil discussion.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Thu 2 Jun, 2005 10:32 am
I see . . . and when i had responded to Val about the use of the term facist, you demonstrated your high moral tone and civility in your reaction to that? Hoist on your own petard, Bubba, you simply don't belong in any type of civil discussion. God, the irony is murderous . . .

I note that you haven't addressed the issue of whether or not someone to be subjected to torture is to be considered a terrorist, absent due process which proves the case.
0 Replies
 
rayban1
 
  1  
Reply Thu 2 Jun, 2005 10:49 am
Setanta wrote:


I note that you haven't addressed the issue of whether or not someone to be subjected to torture is to be considered a terrorist, absent due process which proves the case.


When the decision is made based on practicality, the need for due process has already been considered and eliminated due to the very short time requirement in the case of a suspected mass destruction device (nuclear, bio, or chemical) being planted in an unknown location. Due to the very short time frame and a smirk on the face of the suspect, I would blow off a kneecap to get his attention and then proceed from there

You seem to be lost in the maze of complexities created by the incessant discussion of morality and legality
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Thu 2 Jun, 2005 10:56 am
As that was an almost civil reply, i will simply refer you to the entire thread. It appears that you jumped in without reading all of it. One thing which you might note in the process of reading it is that the discussion was completely civil--until you showed up.

I personally find the concept of morality ridiculous and abhorent. I do believe that societies must have ethical and legal standards if they are to survive and prosper. The Shrub is always touting his cause by alluding the an alleged hatred which Muslim terrorists have for our freedom and our democratic institutions. Apart from being a completely irrelevant statement with regard to the motivations of terrorists, it makes the behavior of those in responsible positions in the administration appear both criminal and stupid. If we indulge means such as torture, we have thrown out in the very beginning a cherished principle of our democratic institutions--the presumption of innocence. When we are no better than the terrorists in our methods, they will have won by reference to the Shrub's terms.
0 Replies
 
rayban1
 
  1  
Reply Thu 2 Jun, 2005 11:10 am
Setanta wrote:

I personally find the concept of morality ridiculous and abhorent.


Morality.....ridiculous and abhorent??????? Now that's interesting
0 Replies
 
joefromchicago
 
  1  
Reply Thu 2 Jun, 2005 11:18 am
rayban1 wrote:
I have chosen to use "practicality" in order to reduce the level of complexity which the word "morality" brings to this subject. When one attempts to define every situation and every instance you become a captive in your own trap. I prefer to equate this to a life and death struggle where survival is the only acceptable outcome.........end of discussion for me.

I suppose simplistic times call for simplistic solutions.

rayban1 wrote:
If you choose to consider my wording as a redefinition of morality then so be it........I hope you can find your way out of the maze that you create by attempting to make a decision that all would find acceptable based on morality and legality.

I am quite sure that, on this issue, it would be impossible for me to find a solution that would be acceptable to both me and Prof. Bagaric. But then I don't see why we need to come up with a solution that universally acceptable rather than one that is generally acceptable.
0 Replies
 
rayban1
 
  1  
Reply Thu 2 Jun, 2005 11:44 am
joefromchicago wrote:
rayban1 wrote:
I have chosen to use "practicality" in order to reduce the level of complexity which the word "morality" brings to this subject. When one attempts to define every situation and every instance you become a captive in your own trap. I prefer to equate this to a life and death struggle where survival is the only acceptable outcome.........end of discussion for me.

I suppose simplistic times call for simplistic solutions.

rayban1 wrote:
If you choose to consider my wording as a redefinition of morality then so be it........I hope you can find your way out of the maze that you create by attempting to make a decision that all would find acceptable based on morality and legality.

I am quite sure that, on this issue, it would be impossible for me to find a solution that would be acceptable to both me and Prof. Bagaric. But then I don't see why we need to come up with a solution that universally acceptable rather than one that is generally acceptable.


Universally acceptable....OR...generally acceptable? I refer you to the standard to which you and all Bush's critics hold him.........UNIVERSAL Cool

In regard to your: "I suppose simplistic times call for simplistic solutions".

It would appear that your usually high standard for acceptable answers has been lowered considerably.

We live in extremely complex times which demands that we not yield to the temptation to overcomplicate the issues but to employ new thinking in order to reduce solutions to one elegant equation when the necessity of survival demands it.
0 Replies
 
joefromchicago
 
  1  
Reply Thu 2 Jun, 2005 11:48 am
rayban1 wrote:
Universally acceptable....OR...generally acceptable? I refer you to the standard to which you and all Bush's hold him.........UNIVERSAL Cool

Hunh?

rayban1 wrote:
In regard to your: "I suppose simplistic times call for simplistic solutions".

It would appear that your usually high standard for acceptable answers has been lowered considerably.

Sorry, I'm new here.

rayban1 wrote:
We live in extremely complex times which demands that we not yield to the temptation to overcomplicate the issues but to employ new thinking in order to reduce solutions to one elegant equation when the necessity of survival demands it.

Yeah, like I said: simplistic times call for simplistic solutions.
0 Replies
 
rayban1
 
  1  
Reply Thu 2 Jun, 2005 11:58 am
rayban1 wrote:
We live in extremely complex times which demands that we not yield to the temptation to overcomplicate the issues but to employ new thinking in order to reduce solutions to one elegant equation when the necessity of survival demands it.

Yeah, like I said: simplistic times call for simplistic solutions.[/quote]

Oh, so you're not familiar with the mathematical term, "elegant equation" with it's reduction of thousands of calculations to one simple equation. :wink:
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Thu 2 Jun, 2005 11:59 am
rayban1 wrote:
Morality.....ridiculous and abhorent??????? Now that's interesting


You'll need better bait than that to fish these waters . . .
0 Replies
 
rayban1
 
  1  
Reply Thu 2 Jun, 2005 12:42 pm
Setanta wrote:
rayban1 wrote:
Morality.....ridiculous and abhorent??????? Now that's interesting


You'll need better bait than that to fish these waters . . .


Oh....I dispute that. I have observed "large" fish lunging clear out of the water on smaller bait.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Thu 2 Jun, 2005 01:03 pm
Not this one . . .
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

How can we be sure? - Discussion by Raishu-tensho
Proof of nonexistence of free will - Discussion by litewave
morals and ethics, how are they different? - Question by existential potential
Destroy My Belief System, Please! - Discussion by Thomas
Star Wars in Philosophy. - Discussion by Logicus
Existence of Everything. - Discussion by Logicus
Is it better to be feared or loved? - Discussion by Black King
 
Copyright © 2023 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 01/31/2023 at 07:52:50