| Welcome to The New Coffee Room. We hope you enjoy your visit. You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free. Join our community! If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features: |
| Torture is Bad; The Pentagon Finally Acknowledges | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: Sep 6 2006, 09:13 AM (1,278 Views) | |
| OperaTenor | Sep 7 2006, 02:39 PM Post #101 |
|
Pisa-Carp
|
Sorry, I missed this earlier. I honestly don't know. I don't know if it's a matter of situation, morality, or whatever. More food for thought and discernment. |
|
| |
![]() |
|
| ivorythumper | Sep 7 2006, 03:26 PM Post #102 |
|
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
|
It is a question of political philosophy: either the person enjoys an inalienable right to bodily integrity and excercise of his free will, or he does not and the State has the ability to limit that. If not, then under what conditions and upon what ground is the State entitled to limit the matter of bodily integrity (e.g., mandatory vaccinations for the general welfare) and excercise of free will (e.g, compulsory education or military service, incarceration), and what are the limits of the State in that regard? So for instance, we speak of "inalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" but these are in fact alienable once you admit to incarceration and the draft and taxes. So it is always a balancing act of the common good vs private goods, which is quite malleable based on public opinion and historical contingencies. We in the US (and the court of international opinion) tend to hold that the person does not have absolute rights of self determination, but should also be normally free to pursue one's own goods without threat provided that they are not contrary to the common good. The presumption in this case is that in the pursuit of justice "equals be treated as equally and unequals be treated unequally" (Aristotle), and that all human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. That is, of course, until they do something that makes them unequal, such as committing a crime, and then it becomes a question of how to deal with transgressors and those who seek to overthrow the common good. The UN Charter speaks quite forcefully that "No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment." Now on a certain level I am happy with that notion, but that is a declarative statement and as such holds only authority for those who agree or are pursuaded by it. But it also states that "They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood." and "In the exercise of his rights and freedoms, everyone shall be subject only to such limitations as are determined by law solely for the purpose of securing due recognition and respect for the rights and freedoms of others and of meeting the just requirements of morality, public order and the general welfare in a democratic society." So part of the Social Contract (if you are using that model) is that the enjoyment of our rights are contingent upon acting morally -- see my principles listed above). The UN, or McCarrick, or anyone else can make any declarative statements that they want -- but these are not necessarily pursuasive or complusively binding on the intellect unless you can also offer the rationale for them based on reasoned principles. |
| The dogma lives loudly within me. | |
![]() |
|
| ivorythumper | Sep 7 2006, 04:03 PM Post #103 |
|
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
|
Well it must be a red herring since you admit that after it was been discovered that the innocent Iraqi farmers were mistakenly captured that they've been let go. Do you have any evidence that conservatives are actively encouraging, or campaigning for laws to allow the incarceration and torture of innocent Iraqi farmers? I would think that all conservatives would be against such a law, and know of none who would "not taking a similar moral stand with an Iraqi farmer captured by mistake." If you know of some, please give me their names and phone numbers, and I'll call them and tell them -- as one conservative to another-- that I think they are wrong. |
| The dogma lives loudly within me. | |
![]() |
|
| QuirtEvans | Sep 7 2006, 04:07 PM Post #104 |
|
I Owe It All To John D'Oh
|
Nope. Some have been let go. After how many years? Others still languish, with no proof that they are guilty of anything. There are guilty people in the U.S. who commit serious felonies, involving bodily harm to others, that serve less jail time than the innocent Iraqis who have already been let go, or who are still locked up. |
| It would be unwise to underestimate what large groups of ill-informed people acting together can achieve. -- John D'Oh, January 14, 2010. | |
![]() |
|
| The 89th Key | Sep 8 2006, 09:12 AM Post #105 |
|
You're saying there's never a real-world example when we know someone definitely knows critical information? Don't be obtuse. |
![]() |
|
| QuirtEvans | Sep 8 2006, 09:20 AM Post #106 |
|
I Owe It All To John D'Oh
|
Yes, 89th. That's what I'm saying. You never know for certain. And, once you are willing to torture someone with less than complete certainty about what they know and how useful it would be, you're on a slippery slope. Suppose you think it's very probable that they are guilty, that they might know something, and that learning what they know might save several lives? Once you've accepted that torture is OK in some circumstances, it's a quick slide to Hell from there. |
| It would be unwise to underestimate what large groups of ill-informed people acting together can achieve. -- John D'Oh, January 14, 2010. | |
![]() |
|
| The 89th Key | Sep 8 2006, 09:25 AM Post #107 |
|
Sorry, I'm late to the thread - it's been busy over here. So to clarify your position...if a terrorist was in custody and you were in charge of interrogating him and he wasn't giving up information about a bomb that was about to destroy the Sears Tower...and you knew he had the info that could save 10,000 lives, you wouldn't torture him? You would rather let 10,000 people die because you didn't want to deny him his basic human dignity? I certainly hope not, but it wouldn't be the first time we've disagreed.
|
![]() |
|
| ivorythumper | Sep 8 2006, 09:29 AM Post #108 |
|
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
|
Of course, if you knew he was going to bomb the Sears Tower you could have that evacuated.... but what if it were a subway bomb? |
| The dogma lives loudly within me. | |
![]() |
|
| Aqua Letifer | Sep 8 2006, 09:31 AM Post #109 |
|
ZOOOOOM!
|
IT,
I don't see it as political philosophy, so much as it is moral objectivity. Like I said, torture means complete and total disregard for the existence of another human being. The death penalty might not even be as disrespectful to human life as torture is.
So, are you implying that the common good always trumps private goods?
So, we are born free and equal in dignity and rights, so long as our actions do not become contrary to the common good? I don't agree with this definition. It is my understanding that "common good" refers to a specific value that is beneficial to the whole of society. I would assume healthiness falls into this category. That would mean that being born either disabled or diseased puts society at risk, since your disability or disease could be spread to others. It would be in society's best interest to murder these individuals, would it not? This might have worked for Sparta, but I don't think it's a good model for moral integrity. |
| I cite irreconcilable differences. | |
![]() |
|
| QuirtEvans | Sep 8 2006, 09:32 AM Post #110 |
|
I Owe It All To John D'Oh
|
If a dolphin jumped out of the ocean and landed in my lap and asked me to take him to Beijing, what would I do? It's an equally plausible scenario. There's no way that I or anyone else would ever know that someone had information that could save 10,000 lives. It's not a plausible scenario. Since it's not a plausible scenario, I won't engage in "what if" analysis about it. It isn't the real world. In the real world, you never know. You might think someone has information, but you never know. Unless he comes right out and says, "Ha ha ha, I have information that could allow you to save 10,000 lives, but I'm not telling you, you enemy of Islam!" And we all know how likely that is. But to get back to the point. I've said before that I don't view drug-induced, painless coercion as torture. If you find yourself with a dolphin in your lap, do that. |
| It would be unwise to underestimate what large groups of ill-informed people acting together can achieve. -- John D'Oh, January 14, 2010. | |
![]() |
|
| The 89th Key | Sep 8 2006, 09:34 AM Post #111 |
|
Well as someone was talking about earlier, you have to go case-by-case. I don't have any proof at my fingertips, so don't ask for any, but I'm 100% sure that there have been and there ARE cases where we know someone knows critical life-saving information. To think that those situations never exist is, IMO, naive. Secondly, sure it's a slippery slope. But as someone was mentioning earlier, one must look at the whole situation. If we know with a 95% level of certainty, that someone knows where a nuke is and when it's about to go off...it's unfortunately better to do all you can to save millions of lives. Regardless...there ARE cases out there that warrant torture. As JB said...they should be very rare. But to deny that there aren't any situations that warrant torture as the last resort of getting info from someone...is naive. |
![]() |
|
| Aqua Letifer | Sep 8 2006, 09:40 AM Post #112 |
|
ZOOOOOM!
|
89th,
So you're telling me that there have been situations where someone was "100% sure" what was in the mind of another person? Talk about naive, man. |
| I cite irreconcilable differences. | |
![]() |
|
| QuirtEvans | Sep 8 2006, 09:41 AM Post #113 |
|
I Owe It All To John D'Oh
|
That's because you are safely ensconced here in the warm embrace of the U.S. of A. But if you were an innocent Iraqi farmer, picked up in the wrong place at the wrong time ... and if the interrogator accused you of knowing where a roadside bomb was planted, and shouted that finding that bomb would save the lives of a truckload of troops, and pulled out a battery and some calipers ... I'm fairly sure you'd feel differently. |
| It would be unwise to underestimate what large groups of ill-informed people acting together can achieve. -- John D'Oh, January 14, 2010. | |
![]() |
|
| The 89th Key | Sep 8 2006, 09:53 AM Post #114 |
|
Yes. For example, I'm 100% certain you know how many holes there are in a standard round of golf. Or I'm 100% that Brett knows who the director of Saving Private Ryan is. Or if you're in the military, I'm sure there are situations where someone is 100% that a caught enemy knows where this or that is, as rare as those situations may be, they DO exist. To deny that would be obtuse, naive, or blind, IMO. Plain and simple. But it wouldn't be the first (or even second) time we've disagreed on something I believe is common knowledge/sense. ![]() Sorry...back to work, it's been real busy and can't visit the CR probably until tomorrow afternoon. Adios!
|
![]() |
|
| Aqua Letifer | Sep 8 2006, 09:58 AM Post #115 |
|
ZOOOOOM!
|
Again with the common sense argument stopper. Do you bring that up when you have nothing else to say on the matter? No, you don't "know" any of those things for certain. Using your memory, you collect evidence (we have played golf before, and spoken about it many times) to formulate a conclusion. Your memory may be faulty, or your evidence leads to the wrong conclusion. You do not start with the knowledge of what I know, because that is impossible. If you want to talk about common sense, I figured that this was already a given. |
| I cite irreconcilable differences. | |
![]() |
|
| QuirtEvans | Sep 8 2006, 10:48 AM Post #116 |
|
I Owe It All To John D'Oh
|
A rather telling remark by the Justice Department official charged with defending Bush's proposal on military tribunals: Rep. GK Butterfield (D-N.C.): "Would the administration find these procedures that you've put forward to be acceptable to one of our members if they were being tried by a foreign government?" Steven G. Bradbury, the Justice Department Office of Legal Counsel's acting chief: "I think probably not." |
| It would be unwise to underestimate what large groups of ill-informed people acting together can achieve. -- John D'Oh, January 14, 2010. | |
![]() |
|
| ivorythumper | Sep 8 2006, 11:42 AM Post #117 |
|
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
|
You'll have to demonstrate that from principles... Earlier in the thread I proposed some principles for considering the question of torture in respect of the role of the State, the common good, and private goods. I am not wed to either the idea of the allowability of torture (after all, the UN Declaration is a pretty good synthesis of human rights), or to any specific language in my principles (in other words, I am still trying to figure out the limits of the State vs the responsibility of the State, and the limits of human freedom vs basic rights of conscience, free will, bodily integrity). I am not at all convinced that torture is completely untenable in a civilized society as long as there are active agents to malice that would seek to destroy that society. I would enjoy a principled discussion on this, without a priori conclusions. |
| The dogma lives loudly within me. | |
![]() |
|
| QuirtEvans | Sep 8 2006, 11:48 AM Post #118 |
|
I Owe It All To John D'Oh
|
Alas and alack, I will be away from the computer for three days, starting soon. Someone else will have to take up the sword, in my absence. Or the waterboard. |
| It would be unwise to underestimate what large groups of ill-informed people acting together can achieve. -- John D'Oh, January 14, 2010. | |
![]() |
|
| Aqua Letifer | Sep 8 2006, 11:50 AM Post #119 |
|
ZOOOOOM!
|
Thank goodness. I was hoping you would stop torturing us with your responses! ![]() (j/k; have a good weekend Quirt) EDIT By the way, IT, I have replied to your previous response, but it may have gotten lost in the shuffle. What say you? |
| I cite irreconcilable differences. | |
![]() |
|
| ivorythumper | Sep 8 2006, 12:13 PM Post #120 |
|
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
|
Well as pure ethics of an individual nature, it would be wrong to go around torturing people (or kittens) randomly. You are stating that torture is wrong as a moral absolute, but I would take exception to the notion that it is "complete and total disregard for the existence of another human being." It is (in the best sense if one will allow for legitimacy to the practice in extreme circumstances) anything but that. The subject is not objectified (as n the case of sadistic torture) but highly subjectified because of what they are presumed to know and refuse to divulge. Eg, had Al-Zarqawi been captured alive, it would be a safe assumption to believe that he knew a lot about plans, plots, cell organization, networks, locations, etc. The only reason attention is brought to bear on the subject is precisely because of their subjectivity (I am not talking about random tortures and torments of the sort that evidently happened at Abu Ghraib prison -- that to me fits your definition).
Practically speaking, yes, for without the establishment and maintenance of the common good it is impossible for folks to pursue their individual private goods.
The common good is not a specific X. (I am speaking in terms of classical liberalism, not utilitarianism) It is more the structure or systems that makes for security, order, and peace so that people can pursue their individual goods in respect of the common good. The State (shorthand for any governing authority from your scout master to the Emperor) has authority -- by consensus, power, divine right, appointment, whatever -- in order to procure what is needful for the common good. Your example of healthiness is a private good. The overall condition of sanitation and hygiene falls under the common good. Things that do violence to individual private goods (such as Sparta) can indeed do harm to the common good since the primal bonds of family and relationship would be destroyed and resentment against the government would ensue if handicapped or genetically "flawed" individuals were weeded out. |
| The dogma lives loudly within me. | |
![]() |
|
| ivorythumper | Sep 8 2006, 12:15 PM Post #121 |
|
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
|
Which is why we don't torture those who have legitimate nation status, which rogue AQ combatants don't have. And they treat our prisoners much worse -- beheadings, dragging corpses through the street, etc. |
| The dogma lives loudly within me. | |
![]() |
|
| QuirtEvans | Sep 8 2006, 12:42 PM Post #122 |
|
I Owe It All To John D'Oh
|
I seem to recall something about do unto others as you would have others do unto you ... It must be my imagination. |
| It would be unwise to underestimate what large groups of ill-informed people acting together can achieve. -- John D'Oh, January 14, 2010. | |
![]() |
|
| Aqua Letifer | Sep 8 2006, 12:47 PM Post #123 |
|
ZOOOOOM!
|
IT,
Well yes, that's what I'm asserting. Torture is wrong as a moral absolute. It is never morally just to torture a human being, regardless of circumstance. I am not a consequentialist. I say it is objective because there is a difference between, say, how one is thought of as a prisoner and how one is considered when being tortured. A prisoner is denied of some rights, but their quarantine from society is done in a humane manner. Even the most vicious criminals are treated as human beings (given food, shelter, healthcare, etc.) The government recognizes these as essential human needs, and awards them these things, acknowledging that criminals are still human beings. When the government tortures someone for information, they become "objectified" in that any and all aspects of their humanity are considered as tools to use against them. Denying them food, shelter, adequate healthcare, etc. means they are not treated as human beings. They are treated as an obstacle on the way to gather information, and they are no longer respected as being human.
I have a feeling the same were to happen if the government tortured individuals to try to extract information out of them. Taking a step back and looking at how the world is run for a second... It's wrong to steal the homelands of others, but only if that property isn't desired by someone else who could use it better, or it’s determined they have enough that they should be sharing with the rest of us. It's wrong to murder someone in cold blood, but even the government ends the life of criminals they deem to be too great a threat to society to keep them alive. It’s genocide to murder people by the masses, but it's acceptable in wartime. Especially if we are attacked first, but it's also okay as a pre-emptive, defensive strategy. It’s wrong to purposely torment another human being, but only if they abide by the current societal laws other human beings have established. If we have a possibility of extracting information from them that could save human lives, we are able to try any and all methods at our disposal. We even use different terms for these situations. Progress, capital punishment/justice, protecting our freedoms, and intelligence gathering are the alternative words we use. It's as if we let context alone define the morality of our actions. I am not a pacifist, and I'm not making any definitive judgments about these examples; I'm just bringing this up for consideration. It just seems to me that to most societies, nothing is sacred. Any actions performed by individuals, groups of people, or the government itself can be deemed morally justified, if the right situation presents itself. In my mind, there have to be some things that are intrinsically evil, regardless of circumstances. |
| I cite irreconcilable differences. | |
![]() |
|
| ivorythumper | Sep 8 2006, 03:23 PM Post #124 |
|
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
|
That works for about .0000000003 milliseconds in the political order, international relationship or law enforcement. |
| The dogma lives loudly within me. | |
![]() |
|
| ivorythumper | Sep 8 2006, 04:03 PM Post #125 |
|
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
|
Mine is not a consequentialist argument either. Nor is it proportionalism in the sense of "rule utilitarianism" which would argue it is never right to go against a principle unless there is a proportionate reason which would justify it. What I would like to see from you is a propositional argument that concludes with "It is never morally just to torture a human being". I need to understand what your assumptions are related to the person and the social order that would place the private good of one individual above the very existence of all other individuals.
Prisoners are basically warehoused. That is how they are considered, and our modern sensibilities call for adequate food, housing, medical care while they are the guests of the government. Sort of like animals in a humane shelter. I am not sure I see why you think this is an important distinction that sheds light on the question of torture.
They may set themselves up as an obstacle, but as persons they have a serious moral responsibility to proffer freely the truth of their actions that endanger others. Again, I am speaking specifically of terrorists -- not soldiers captured in battle, common criminals, etc. Again, you'd have to show me why the good of any one individual ought to be protected against the destruction of the entire society (without which there is no authority to protect any individual and chaos ensues).
There is a certain permissible presumption that the individual subject to torture is already an enemy of the people and is intent on destroying the fabric of society. I wish that all people could be convinced of the good of the West through using cellphones and having plasma screen TVs and modern medicine and affordable food and shelter widely available and the opportunity to earn a good living, etc. Unfortunately, as we've seen in the British experience recently, this is not sufficient to keep people from being radicalized even when home grown.
if you're talking about Israel, I won't go there.
That is because of the the difference between innocent life and those judged guilty of capital crimes. Again, following Aristotle, judge equally things that are equal and unequally things that are unequal.
In Just War Theory it is still not acceptable in wartime. Hiroshima and Dresden were criminal acts.
I think we are speaking of something more than abiding by the current societal laws other human beings have established. You must consider proportionality: it would be morally reprehensible to torment folks for littering or speeding. We are talking about the very security of the society in which we reside.
Not context alone, but certainly context is a key point in moral considerations.
I appreciate that this is a method of consideration. It is not "if the right situation presents itself" (which would be a sort of rule utilitarianism). It is finding the governing principles for human moral consideration that are deduced from observations of the human condition as an individual (though not a radically isolated individual as the enlightenment often holds) who is a social (not a sociable) being. |
| The dogma lives loudly within me. | |
![]() |
|
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · The New Coffee Room · Next Topic » |







12:52 AM Jul 11