Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
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:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
  • Pages:
  • 1
  • 3
High Value Information
Topic Started: Apr 21 2009, 05:45 PM (913 Views)
Jeff
Senior Carp
QuirtEvans
Apr 23 2009, 04:35 AM
It doesn't destroy my position. I ignore it because it's silly.

The fact that there is a line, and some things might be close to the line, doesn't mean that other things far away from the line aren't clear.
Go ahead, make my day: define "torture" such that waterboarding is, and forced standing and sleeplessness for 3 days is not, torture.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Jeff
Senior Carp
QuirtEvans
Apr 23 2009, 04:37 AM
Jeff
Apr 23 2009, 03:42 AM
QuirtEvans
Apr 23 2009, 01:32 AM

If it turns out that you tortured the wrong guy, oh well, sh!t happens.
If it turns out more planes get flown into office buildings, oh well, stuff happens.
Maybe you should talk to your rabbi about whether it's OK to sacrifice some innocents in order to protect others.

Hey, if I torture you, maybe I'll get information about terrorist attacks. We'll never know until we try, right?

Maybe I could torture an entire ethnic group to see what information I might get. That's never happened in history, right?
The fact that you need straw arguments like this shows the weakness of your position.

Physical coercion has been and can be used for both good and bad purposes. If Warsaw partisans saw fit to physically coerce a captive Nazi guard to reveal operational plans for the assault on the ghetto, good for them!!
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
QuirtEvans
Member Avatar
I Owe It All To John D'Oh
Jeff
Apr 23 2009, 07:01 AM
QuirtEvans
Apr 23 2009, 04:37 AM
Jeff
Apr 23 2009, 03:42 AM
QuirtEvans
Apr 23 2009, 01:32 AM

If it turns out that you tortured the wrong guy, oh well, sh!t happens.
If it turns out more planes get flown into office buildings, oh well, stuff happens.
Maybe you should talk to your rabbi about whether it's OK to sacrifice some innocents in order to protect others.

Hey, if I torture you, maybe I'll get information about terrorist attacks. We'll never know until we try, right?

Maybe I could torture an entire ethnic group to see what information I might get. That's never happened in history, right?
The fact that you need straw arguments like this shows the weakness of your position.

Physical coercion has been and can be used for both good and bad purposes. If Warsaw partisans saw fit to physically coerce a captive Nazi guard to reveal operational plans for the assault on the ghetto, good for them!!
No, Jeffrey. The fact that you are unable to distinguish between torturing one person, and torturing many, proves the weakness of your position.

Once again, I point out ... I think you might have some information about terrorist attacks. Are we free to torture you, just because we think it might stop a terrorist attack? We'll be sure to apologize later if we're wrong.
It would be unwise to underestimate what large groups of ill-informed people acting together can achieve. -- John D'Oh, January 14, 2010.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
QuirtEvans
Member Avatar
I Owe It All To John D'Oh
And by the way, where do you draw the line? Is it OK to use lit cigarettes? Electric shock? Pull out nails, and teeth? Cut off fingers? Is all of that OK, simply because you suspect that someone might have information about a terrorist plot?

After you answer that question, be sure to tell your rabbi how you answered it, OK?
It would be unwise to underestimate what large groups of ill-informed people acting together can achieve. -- John D'Oh, January 14, 2010.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Renauda
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!
Jeff
Apr 23 2009, 03:34 AM
The times he would be tortured would have been zero, if he followed his moral obligation to tell others of his group's plans to kill many innocent people. He does not have the moral right to keep this information private. Torture is never a morally legitimate form of punishment - it is simply to get information, and it is clearly effective at that when simple discussion is not.
He is a belligerent/combatant in a war. I don't think he has a moral obligation to do or say anything that could construed as collaboration with the enemy.

But yes, torture has its utility in such cases.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Frank_W
Member Avatar
Resident Misanthrope
Agreed, Renauda.
Anatomy Prof: "The human body has about 20 sq. meters of skin."
Me: "Man, that's a lot of lampshades!"
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Jeff
Senior Carp
QuirtEvans
Apr 23 2009, 07:13 AM
And by the way, where do you draw the line? Is it OK to use lit cigarettes? Electric shock? Pull out nails, and teeth? Cut off fingers? Is all of that OK, simply because you suspect that someone might have information about a terrorist plot?

After you answer that question, be sure to tell your rabbi how you answered it, OK?
What rabbi? Why should I regard rabbis as having any special moral insight?

And do you ask your priest before forming an opinion on gay marriage?


And I see that you still refuse to define torture or acknowledge that extreme forms of physical coercion are, right now, legal under international law, for more or less the reasons I have given.

And should I take it that physically coercing a Nazi guard for information on the assault on the Warsaw ghetto by Jewish partisans is morally legitimate? You seemed to acknowledge this in your reply, basically abandoning your absolutist position on "torture". Unless you reject that example, I will take it you have abandoned your position.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ivorythumper
Member Avatar
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
Jeff
Apr 23 2009, 03:32 AM
ivorythumper
Apr 22 2009, 09:00 PM
(1) I think you can build an argument about what is a healthier way to live based on empirical observation of the human condition (don't steal from others, don't lie, don't renege on promises, don't try to dominate others because others can band together and kill you, etc)


(2) There can no appeal to any sort of justice that one ought to pursue, or a standard of moral behavior (or emotional detachment) that one ought to conform one's life to in order to live a well lived life as a human being (as Aristotle or the Stoics would have argued) that can be morally persuasive to the individual.
I think Aristotle and the Stoics should be interpreted along the lines of (1).

The "stronger" stuff does not follow at all if they are interpreted that way.

You are conflating the question "What is morality?" and "Why be moral?". This is a standard issue when discussing Ethical Naturalism.
You have to do an anachronistic reading of Aristotle to get there, Jeff. That is not interpreting but shoe horning them into what ever your theory is.

There is no confusion on my part between the two questions. Your answers seem to be:

"What is morality?" Conformance with the mandates of those in power.

"Why be moral?" Because otherwise those in power will hurt you.

You cloak it under conventional language of rights and moral responsibility but at the end of the day, that is all you seem to be saying. I have no problem if that is as far as you can go with the argument, but again you have not given any truly human reasoning for morality, and are not really talking about morality any more than training a dog to not poop in the house is making them a moral agent.
The dogma lives loudly within me.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
QuirtEvans
Member Avatar
I Owe It All To John D'Oh
Jeff
Apr 23 2009, 09:28 AM
QuirtEvans
Apr 23 2009, 07:13 AM
And by the way, where do you draw the line? Is it OK to use lit cigarettes? Electric shock? Pull out nails, and teeth? Cut off fingers? Is all of that OK, simply because you suspect that someone might have information about a terrorist plot?

After you answer that question, be sure to tell your rabbi how you answered it, OK?
What rabbi? Why should I regard rabbis as having any special moral insight?

And do you ask your priest before forming an opinion on gay marriage?


And I see that you still refuse to define torture or acknowledge that extreme forms of physical coercion are, right now, legal under international law, for more or less the reasons I have given.

And should I take it that physically coercing a Nazi guard for information on the assault on the Warsaw ghetto by Jewish partisans is morally legitimate? You seemed to acknowledge this in your reply, basically abandoning your absolutist position on "torture". Unless you reject that example, I will take it you have abandoned your position.
The reason I keep referring to your rabbi is because you seem to lack any moral compass on this issue. I'm kind of hoping there is some spiritual counselor in your life who can bring you back to your senses.

As for what you choose to "take", you can and do take anything you like. That doesn't mean it's justified, of course. I haven't responded, but that doesn't mean that I have abandoned any part of my position, or accepted any portion of yours.

But, to respond ... no, it wouldn't be justified to torture a Nazi prison guard.

As for how you define torture ... it's an incredibly difficult definition to parse. As a Supreme Court justice has said on the issue of pornography, though, I know it when I see it.
It would be unwise to underestimate what large groups of ill-informed people acting together can achieve. -- John D'Oh, January 14, 2010.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ivorythumper
Member Avatar
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
Quirt: I am not sure what your moral principle is here, unless it is an absolute right to bodily integrity or some hierarchy that allows certain actions against bodily integrity such as imprisonment but not inflicting any form of psychological, emotional or physical duress, or allowing some but not others.

I don't think you'd disagree that the State rightly has compulsory powers over individuals in the maintenance of the civil order -- and I also don't think that you'd disagree that the State needs to be proportionate between the offense and the means of obtaining compliance -- but if you accept that then you have to give some framework for understanding what the limitations of the State are regarding extraordinary circumstances and threats to where severe interrogation techniques (aka torture -- but that is obviously now a politicized term) can and cannot be applied.
The dogma lives loudly within me.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Renauda
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!
QuirtEvans
Apr 23 2009, 10:52 AM
But, to respond ... no, it wouldn't be justified to torture a Nazi prison guard.

True, but summary execution or an extended and unspecified work detail on Siberian infrastructure projects would be perfectly justifiable
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
QuirtEvans
Member Avatar
I Owe It All To John D'Oh
Morally, or legally?

Legally is easy. We're party to treaties that prohibit torture, and the international community generally defines waterboarding as torture.

Morally is harder to define, as I've said. Yes, of course, the state can incarcerate people ... but only pending a fair trial, which must be both speedy and fair. And, if convicted, the state can continue to incarcerate them afterwards, in a manner that is proportional to both the crime committed and the potential for future harm.

However, deliberate infliction of pain and emotional distress, beyond that, seems unwarranted to me.

I also have a real problem with using what you refer to as severe interrogation techniques on someone who has not yet been found guilty of anything. If we are indeed allowed to do that, all in the name of protecting ourselves, then ... well, I won't go through all the various hypotheticals here. But suffice it to say, once you've acknowledged that it's OK to commit a wrong on a person in the name of self-protection, when you aren't under immediate and direct threat from the person who you are "severely interrogating", you're on a very slippery slope and there's no place to stop before the bottom.
It would be unwise to underestimate what large groups of ill-informed people acting together can achieve. -- John D'Oh, January 14, 2010.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ivorythumper
Member Avatar
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
I was speaking morally, not legally. I wistfully think that legal actions of the state ought to be rooted in some moral precepts and not in arbitrary rules based on what seems to work for crowd control.

We could after all be parties to treaties that allow torture, or if the international community did not politically consider waterboarding torture, then you would not have that argument.

Is there any moral basis for your judgment (which I don't necessarily disagree with BTW -- I strongly do think there are serious limitations to the power of the State over the individual), or is it a legal argument that you think works best to balance the complexities?
The dogma lives loudly within me.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
QuirtEvans
Member Avatar
I Owe It All To John D'Oh
ivorythumper
Apr 23 2009, 11:23 AM
I was speaking morally, not legally. I wistfully think that legal actions of the state ought to be rooted in some moral precepts and not in arbitrary rules based on what seems to work for crowd control.

We could after all be parties to treaties that allow torture, or if the international community did not politically consider waterboarding torture, then you would not have that argument.

Is there any moral basis for your judgment (which I don't necessarily disagree with BTW -- I strongly do think there are serious limitations to the power of the State over the individual), or is it a legal argument that you think works best to balance the complexities?
I think the moral basis is threefold. First is the notion that the state should cause the least harm possible to individuals in protecting all of the citizens within its responsibility. Second is the notion that no individual should be subject to pain or incarceration without having their guilt established. And third is the idea that, whenever possible, we should err in favor of protecting the innocent rather than punishing the guilty. (I recognize that Jeffrey will twist this last one to say that his plan IS to protect the innocent, but you can't do that by harming another innocent, and even a suspected terrorist is innocent until proven guilty.)
It would be unwise to underestimate what large groups of ill-informed people acting together can achieve. -- John D'Oh, January 14, 2010.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ivorythumper
Member Avatar
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
OK, I appreciate those considerations. Thanks for clarifying your position.
The dogma lives loudly within me.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Jeff
Senior Carp
ivorythumper
Apr 23 2009, 10:45 AM

"What is morality?" Conformance with the mandates of those in power.

"Why be moral?" Because otherwise those in power will hurt you.
*shrug*

What a silly response, since nothing I have said is even vaguely close to that.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Frank_W
Member Avatar
Resident Misanthrope
I just don't believe that the peacetime and civilian legal system can be applied to what happens to enemy combatants captured on the field of battle. If the Judge Adjutant General came down and said that waterboarding was torture, then that would be good enough for me and I would accept it as such.

Barring that... :shrug:
Anatomy Prof: "The human body has about 20 sq. meters of skin."
Me: "Man, that's a lot of lampshades!"
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Jeff
Senior Carp
QuirtEvans
Apr 23 2009, 10:52 AM

But, to respond ... no, it wouldn't be justified to torture a Nazi prison guard.

As for how you define torture ... it's an incredibly difficult definition to parse. As a Supreme Court justice has said on the issue of pornography, though, I know it when I see it.
(1) Re: Nazi guard. It seems to be you who lack any moral compass on this issue, and I take your objecting to this clear case as your admitting your position is simply wrong.

(2) Wow - your random intuitions you admit you can't even explain are more important than the lives of innocent people KSM wanted to kill.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Jeff
Senior Carp
Renauda
Apr 23 2009, 11:09 AM
QuirtEvans
Apr 23 2009, 10:52 AM
But, to respond ... no, it wouldn't be justified to torture a Nazi prison guard.

True, but summary execution or an extended and unspecified work detail on Siberian infrastructure projects would be perfectly justifiable
In my example the Nazi guard also had knowledge of the operational plans for the assault on the Warsaw ghetto, which the partisans were justified in obtaining.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ivorythumper
Member Avatar
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
Jeff
Apr 23 2009, 11:42 AM
ivorythumper
Apr 23 2009, 10:45 AM

"What is morality?" Conformance with the mandates of those in power.

"Why be moral?" Because otherwise those in power will hurt you.
*shrug*

What a silly response, since nothing I have said is even vaguely close to that.
The problem is that you really don't define what you are speaking of, so all we have to go on is your cryptic little statements about "conflating the question" while continuing to use conventional moral language about "moral responsibility" and "moral obligation" that certainly allow such understandings.

What is the basis for morality apart from the judgment of a particular society about how it is best to act?

Why be moral in anyone else's judgment of what that term means if not to avoid the coercive power of the collective?
The dogma lives loudly within me.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
George K
Member Avatar
Finally
(content warning)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aEtFMj6ZiHM



So there. :lol2:
A guide to GKSR: Click

"Now look here, you Baltic gas passer... "
- Mik, 6/14/08


Nothing is as effective as homeopathy.

I'd rather listen to an hour of Abba than an hour of The Beatles.
- Klaus, 4/29/18
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ivorythumper
Member Avatar
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
(pause) oops. :lol2:
The dogma lives loudly within me.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Frank_W
Member Avatar
Resident Misanthrope
Wow. Score another point for dignity.
Anatomy Prof: "The human body has about 20 sq. meters of skin."
Me: "Man, that's a lot of lampshades!"
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
« Previous Topic · The New Coffee Room · Next Topic »
Add Reply
  • Pages:
  • 1
  • 3