3 ms·
The intent of e.g. a drone strike is to kill the target. So even in terms of intent that is worse. The thing is that nobody even cares about that: arguments aga
by jules 11y ago
The intent of e.g. a drone strike is to kill the target. So even in terms of intent that is worse. The thing is that nobody even cares about that: arguments against drone strikes are virtually always about collateral damage of innocent people. Compare and contrast with the discussion about torture where people are not even willing to make a cost benefit analysis.
- scotty79 11y ago> The intent of e.g. a drone strike is to kill the target. So even in terms of intent that is worse. For you and me yes. For people who believe targets are "bad people" worth killing it's noble intent.
- jules 11y agoWell, lets talk about people who are not like that, but people who think drone strikes are might be okay in certain circumstances. My point is that those are the same people who say that torture is not okay under any circumstance. That is the inconsistency I'm pointing out.
- scotty79 11y agoI think in case of drone strikes those people can claim that people (other than target that should in their opinion be killed) are killed by accident. In case of torture you can't claim that individual you torture is somehow accidentally hurt. Probsbly those people would be fine with torture if they thought hurting the tortured individual is desired outcome.
- jules 11y agoIt's not really an accident though if it's a likely outcome. The point is simply this: on the one hand people accept a substantial probability of killing innocent people and intentionally killing guilty people if the upsides are good enough, but these same people are unwilling to accept mere torture of guilty people no matter the upsides.
- scotty79 11y agoMaybe it's something about drones being remote. Torture was shown so many times on tv that it's closer to home. Not many pictures of people blown to bits by invisible thing in the sky.
- jules 11y agoThe question why people are so bad at intuitively weighing harm is a different but interesting question. There have been some studies that suggest that there is an inverse relationship. When asked how much money they would give to save 2 lives people offer less than they do when asked to how much they would give to save 1 life. Not less per life, less total. As the number of lives goes up, what they offer goes down. This may have something to do with abstracting the harm. With torture it's easy to understand what's happening. With a single death it's harder to fathom how much is lost. The thousands that die in traffic each year hardly register. The incompetence of humans to intuitively make moral judgements is precisely why we should think rationally about morality rather than emotionally.