3 ms·

No, because we've found empirically that torture doesn't work. If it did, why not? I know many will not like that conclusion, but again, presuming an amoral un

No, because we've found empirically that torture doesn't work. If it did, why not? I know many will not like that conclusion, but again, presuming an amoral universe, and I have little evidence outside of a religious world view that I'm wrong to presume such, there is no right or wrong. You admitted in your first sentence. Comment is helpful in that many people, from all backgrounds, assume that ethics are absolute. An atheist will never claim otherwise in discourse. However, they act contrarily to this view. They get mad when someone violates one of their rules. Edit: corrected to empirically.

Falling3 10y ago
Torture is used for reasons other than obtaining information. It's also used as a form of punishment/vengeance. Does that context change your answer?
- virmundi 10y ago
  If we're doing it for those reason, sure, go ahead as long as you don't weaken society. An arbitrary line is that society is good. If you Torture and it causes civil unrest to the degree that it destabilizes an otherwise productive society, then you should not do it.
burkaman 10y ago
I doubt most people around here are moral absolutists. I didn't downvote your comment, but it did feel a little irrelevant, in that "ethics are manmade" applies to every situation if you believe it, and no situation if you don't. I'm not sure what you mean by your atheist comment. It is not contradictory to hold strong morals while accepting moral relativism. As long as you accept that there is no objective moral truth, but have some coherent basis for your beliefs, there is no contradiction. Having no morals whatsoever would be inhuman.
- rybosome 10y ago
  Well articulated. The entirety of my atheist morality is centered around the recognition that other humans are as acutely conscious as I am, and inflicting suffering on them (or allowing them to suffer through negligence or inaction) is cruel and distasteful. This is a fancy version of "treat others as you want to be treated", and is rooted in basic human empathy which stretches back millions of years - there is evidence of early hominids surviving years after grievous injuries because they were supported by other hominids. That I feel this was selected for as an effective strategy to ensure survival rather than laid down by a god does not mean I reject the views or hold them weakly. I see no contradiction in stating that my feelings are a byproduct of biology while still having them.
  - notdonspaulding 10y ago
    This worldview is fine, so long as you keep it to yourself. The trouble with this worldview comes when someone who holds it thinks anyone other than themselves ought to behave this way. Once you say people should treat others a certain way, you've crossed the line into moral absolutism. You think other people should live by some standard which you find better than the one they live by. Why should they? In the morally relativistic worldview, where do the terms "wrong", "bad", and "evil" find their roots? Put another way, why shouldn't I go around raping people? Isn't that good for the survival of my genes?
    - rybosome 10y ago
      > Put another way, why shouldn't I go around raping people? Isn't that good for the survival of my genes? Quoting myself: "The entirety of my atheist morality is centered around the recognition that other humans are as acutely conscious as I am, and inflicting suffering on them...is cruel and distasteful". I'm honestly not sure how you made the leap to my comment justifying rape, though I take your question in good faith. Maybe you're pointing out that I've misunderstood relativism/absolutism? I feel that a moral hierarchy exists, but it does not exist independently of the (collective) human mind. I do think that everyone should behave with empathy because all humans have an equal capacity to suffer, and from that conclusion you get obvious things like "rape is bad", "murder is bad", etc. This still leaves a lot of ambiguity, however, and doesn't result in a strict, absolute code of ethics. Am I actually a moral absolutist, but misunderstanding the terminology?
jessaustin 10y ago
...torture doesn't work. If torturing animals could make them talk, maybe we should do it for research, even if they end up telling us lies...

Falling3 10y ago

Torture is used for reasons other than obtaining information. It's also used as a form of punishment/vengeance. Does that context change your answer?

virmundi 10y ago
If we're doing it for those reason, sure, go ahead as long as you don't weaken society. An arbitrary line is that society is good. If you Torture and it causes civil unrest to the degree that it destabilizes an otherwise productive society, then you should not do it.

burkaman 10y ago

I doubt most people around here are moral absolutists. I didn't downvote your comment, but it did feel a little irrelevant, in that "ethics are manmade" applies to every situation if you believe it, and no situation if you don't. I'm not sure what you mean by your atheist comment. It is not contradictory to hold strong morals while accepting moral relativism. As long as you accept that there is no objective moral truth, but have some coherent basis for your beliefs, there is no contradiction. Having no morals whatsoever would be inhuman.

rybosome 10y ago
Well articulated. The entirety of my atheist morality is centered around the recognition that other humans are as acutely conscious as I am, and inflicting suffering on them (or allowing them to suffer through negligence or inaction) is cruel and distasteful. This is a fancy version of "treat others as you want to be treated", and is rooted in basic human empathy which stretches back millions of years - there is evidence of early hominids surviving years after grievous injuries because they were supported by other hominids. That I feel this was selected for as an effective strategy to ensure survival rather than laid down by a god does not mean I reject the views or hold them weakly. I see no contradiction in stating that my feelings are a byproduct of biology while still having them.
- notdonspaulding 10y ago
  This worldview is fine, so long as you keep it to yourself. The trouble with this worldview comes when someone who holds it thinks anyone other than themselves ought to behave this way. Once you say people should treat others a certain way, you've crossed the line into moral absolutism. You think other people should live by some standard which you find better than the one they live by. Why should they? In the morally relativistic worldview, where do the terms "wrong", "bad", and "evil" find their roots? Put another way, why shouldn't I go around raping people? Isn't that good for the survival of my genes?
  - rybosome 10y ago
    > Put another way, why shouldn't I go around raping people? Isn't that good for the survival of my genes? Quoting myself: "The entirety of my atheist morality is centered around the recognition that other humans are as acutely conscious as I am, and inflicting suffering on them...is cruel and distasteful". I'm honestly not sure how you made the leap to my comment justifying rape, though I take your question in good faith. Maybe you're pointing out that I've misunderstood relativism/absolutism? I feel that a moral hierarchy exists, but it does not exist independently of the (collective) human mind. I do think that everyone should behave with empathy because all humans have an equal capacity to suffer, and from that conclusion you get obvious things like "rape is bad", "murder is bad", etc. This still leaves a lot of ambiguity, however, and doesn't result in a strict, absolute code of ethics. Am I actually a moral absolutist, but misunderstanding the terminology?

jessaustin 10y ago

...torture doesn't work. If torturing animals could make them talk, maybe we should do it for research, even if they end up telling us lies...