4 ms·
I think this is missing the point. Shooting people works at what it sets out to do. Torture doesn't. Despite this, they're both portrayed as effective in gettin
by rriepe 7y ago
I think this is missing the point. Shooting people works at what it sets out to do. Torture doesn't. Despite this, they're both portrayed as effective in getting their intended outcomes.
The problem isn't portraying torture, but portraying it as something that always gets actionable, accurate information.
- kybernetikos 7y agoThe problem is both. Torture is both ineffective and immoral. Portraying it as effective is a problem. Portraying it as morally acceptable is a problem.
- rriepe 7y agoYeah but the moral argument for torture boils down entirely to whether or not it works, aside from a few sadists who think of it as revenge or a deterrent.
- mirimir 7y agoEffectiveness and morality are independent, I think.
- rriepe 7y agoWhat moral argument is there if it's ineffective?
- cjhopman 7y agoThe point isn't that there may be an argument that it's moral even if it's ineffective, but rather that, even were it effective there's no moral argument to be made for it.
- keithlfrost 7y agoThis is clearly not true. If it were an effective means of getting accurate information, then there would be moral arguments for using it in some situations, to prevent even worse events (An imminent nuclear attack? Biological weapons attack? Whatever horrific scenarios you care to imagine) from coming to pass.
- mirimir 7y agoSure, one could argue that. My only point was that morality isn't necessarily related to effectiveness. But some moral positions could of course depend on effectiveness.
- cheerlessbog 7y agoI don't believe in these mathematical greater evil arguments. I assume you would not kill a baby even if it was guaranteed to prevent a plane crash killing a hundred people. One should not make relativistic moral calculations with fundamentally unacceptable acts.
- rhn_mk1 7y agoYou don't believe it, because you consider some acts fundamentally unacceptable, in your moral framework. That doesn't have any bearing on other people's moral frameworks, in which relativistic calculations may be the right thing to do.
- cheerlessbog 7y agoYour point seems to be : people have different moral frameworks. Mine differs to some others. This seems self evident.
- rhn_mk1 7y agoThat's exactly right. In this light, what one should and shouldn't according to a single person (what your last post was about) doesn't have any meaning when discussing what many individuals could value: that's on a higher meta level. It becomes at best a statement of opinion, and at worst it can be taken as dismissive of the values of others.
- mirimir 7y agoSomeone could consider revenge to be moral, no?