5 ms·

A bunch of people I've met seem to love it for utilitarian reasons. But even if, for the sake of conversation, I grant that it has utility- I still say we sho

A bunch of people I've met seem to love it for utilitarian reasons. But even if, for the sake of conversation, I grant that it has utility- I still say we shouldn't ever do it. I'd rather have an america where some people die of terrorism, than one that I feel ashamed of. To hell with the argument that we need to become evil in order to avert evil.

dv_dt 11y ago
But you shouldn't grant that it has any utility, as soon as you start torturing a suspect any information they give is uncertain. You'll never know without further research if it's made up to stop the torture or if it's real information. There is already enough uncertainty in the intelligence game without generating even more.
- Retric 11y ago
  Some information is verifiable. It's useless in a war setting as bad information can be extremely costly, but questions like "Where did you hide the money?" are different as digging is generally a low risk activity. So, from a utility standpoint, it's far more likely to be useful for the Mob than any government.
- peeters 11y ago
  I won't grant that it has utility, but that's from my ignorance. It might have utility; I don't know and am not qualified to say. The argument used matters to me, because if tomorrow it's proven that torture works, I still believe that civilized nations should be against it. If we hinge the argument on its utility, then when we lose that premise we lose the argument.
794CD01 11y ago
Is choosing not to save the lives of innocent people because you have religious concerns about the method used to save them not evil?
- trelltron 11y ago
  Parent didn't say anything about religion. Religion does not have a monopoly on basic human decency.
  - 794CD01 11y ago
    I consider any moral axiom system a religion. If that bothers you, pretend I said "strongly held personal belief" instead.
- peeters 11y ago
  It might be evil (or better, ethically unjustifiable) in some in ethical frameworks, but it's certainly not in mine. There is not a universally correct ethical framework. Even within the utilitarian framework (where "the ends might justify the means"), which you seem to be representing, you have to consider all of the "ends". Protecting innocent lives is only one of the considerations.
  - 794CD01 11y ago
    Most people, if asked in a vacuum, would put protecting innocent life at or near the top of their priority list. I certainly do. But if you think feeling good about yourself is more important, then that is your prerogative. As you say, there is not a universally correct ethical framework.
    - peeters 11y ago
      You're being needlessly combative. This isn't about feeling good about myself. Of course I put protecting innocent life near the top of the priority list. But that doesn't mean I think it's right (or ever justifiable) to kill the families of suspected terrorists. That doesn't mean I think that Americans should give up the 1st, 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th, 8th, and 15th amendments of their Constitution (all of which could be claimed as barriers to "protecting innocent life.").
      - 11y ago

dv_dt 11y ago

But you shouldn't grant that it has any utility, as soon as you start torturing a suspect any information they give is uncertain. You'll never know without further research if it's made up to stop the torture or if it's real information. There is already enough uncertainty in the intelligence game without generating even more.

Retric 11y ago
Some information is verifiable. It's useless in a war setting as bad information can be extremely costly, but questions like "Where did you hide the money?" are different as digging is generally a low risk activity. So, from a utility standpoint, it's far more likely to be useful for the Mob than any government.
peeters 11y ago
I won't grant that it has utility, but that's from my ignorance. It might have utility; I don't know and am not qualified to say. The argument used matters to me, because if tomorrow it's proven that torture works, I still believe that civilized nations should be against it. If we hinge the argument on its utility, then when we lose that premise we lose the argument.

794CD01 11y ago

Is choosing not to save the lives of innocent people because you have religious concerns about the method used to save them not evil?

trelltron 11y ago
Parent didn't say anything about religion. Religion does not have a monopoly on basic human decency.
- 794CD01 11y ago
  I consider any moral axiom system a religion. If that bothers you, pretend I said "strongly held personal belief" instead.
peeters 11y ago
It might be evil (or better, ethically unjustifiable) in some in ethical frameworks, but it's certainly not in mine. There is not a universally correct ethical framework. Even within the utilitarian framework (where "the ends might justify the means"), which you seem to be representing, you have to consider all of the "ends". Protecting innocent lives is only one of the considerations.
- 794CD01 11y ago
  Most people, if asked in a vacuum, would put protecting innocent life at or near the top of their priority list. I certainly do. But if you think feeling good about yourself is more important, then that is your prerogative. As you say, there is not a universally correct ethical framework.
  - peeters 11y ago
    You're being needlessly combative. This isn't about feeling good about myself. Of course I put protecting innocent life near the top of the priority list. But that doesn't mean I think it's right (or ever justifiable) to kill the families of suspected terrorists. That doesn't mean I think that Americans should give up the 1st, 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th, 8th, and 15th amendments of their Constitution (all of which could be claimed as barriers to "protecting innocent life.").
    - 11y ago