7 ms·

> Is it possible for you to construct a scenario where torture is morally acceptable? Yes, it's possible to concoct a fictional scenario whereby torturing one

> Is it possible for you to construct a scenario where torture is morally acceptable? Yes, it's possible to concoct a fictional scenario whereby torturing one person saves millions of lives. Heck, why not a more plausible scenario where torturing someone saves 2 lives. But it's a non-sequitur: a true statement that is irrelevant. I won't argue this well, especially not well enough to convince someone for whom "torture" is acceptable, but principles matter. It's the only thing that separates the good guys from the bad guys. Not guns, not good looks, not firm jaws, not money, not power, not magical spells. Bad and good people have, or don't have, those things in equal measure. Torture = bad guy. Beating people in the street = bad guy. Planting evidence on a suspect = bad guy. Stealing elections = bad guy. This is important because, while some of those things might be expedient to get your desired outcome, it makes society worse. If you do that, you are the bad guy. Maybe the other guy is bad too, but you definitely are. Now when other people do it, you can't say shit. You did it. You could not come up with a better way. Society is now worse and more dangerous because of you. All the bad guys have reasons for doing bad things, but only good guys do the good things, even when it's not easy. Good people say "times are extraordinarily dangerous, so now more than ever we must fight to maintain our integrity and our values, and treat our opponents with due process and dignity, no matter how much we despise them" We now have a society where torture is considered awful, but that is hard won. Not long ago, we would burn people alive publicly as punishment for Very Serious reasons. When we start saying "torture is ok now because these times are extraordinarily dangerous", then torture is a bit more acceptable when times are not so dangerous. That's it. That's the argument.

ALittleLight 5y ago
The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy discusses a real case where a car thief stole a car with a child in the backseat. The car thief had abandoned the car somewhere, and, as it was summer and daytime, the child was going to cook to death in the car. The police detain the thief and ask him where the car and child is, they offer to reduce his charges, and he denies it was him though they have him on video stealing the car. The police decide to beat the guy until he reveals where the car is. They do and he does. Would you say the police did anything wrong?
- newuser94303 5y ago
  As long as the police are willing to face a jury for their crimes, it is fine. A jury will probably let them off but the police can not be judge and jury because the line keeps moving.
- ZoomZoomZoom 5y ago
  >Would you say the police did anything wrong? Yes? They beat the man.
  - JoeAltmaier 5y ago
    ...and saved the child. Wouldn't it have been wrong to let a child die?
    - ZoomZoomZoom 5y ago
      Saving the child would be the consequence of the wrong action. It just happens that this particular consequence is the desired one. This doesn't magically transform the ethical value of an action. Thinking otherwise ("Finis sanctificat media") is the root of all kinds of evil in the world. Should they have done it (acted wrongly)? I don't know, they have their own free will.
- a2800276 5y ago
  Ok, I'll bite: > Would you say the police did anything wrong? Yes, obviously. At the very least, they very obviously broke a law. They should file charges against themselves. The legal system is not absolute and a court / jury can decide about extenuating circumstances. I can think of few laws that don't allow me to construct some extremely hare-brained counterexample where it might be morally justified to break them.
  - ALittleLight 5y ago
    It's not obviously wrong to break a law to save a child's life though. In an extreme example, would you speed to take a dying child to the hospital? I think it would be wrong if you would refuse to (unless you had some calculation that speeding would make you less likely to save the child). Laws are ethics - they are rules that tell us how to act. Right and wrong are descriptions of morality - which is about good and bad. It's certainly a violation of the clearly established rules to beat a man to save a child, but it's not obviously wrong to do so. I would say it's not wrong at all.

ALittleLight 5y ago

The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy discusses a real case where a car thief stole a car with a child in the backseat. The car thief had abandoned the car somewhere, and, as it was summer and daytime, the child was going to cook to death in the car. The police detain the thief and ask him where the car and child is, they offer to reduce his charges, and he denies it was him though they have him on video stealing the car. The police decide to beat the guy until he reveals where the car is. They do and he does. Would you say the police did anything wrong?

newuser94303 5y ago
As long as the police are willing to face a jury for their crimes, it is fine. A jury will probably let them off but the police can not be judge and jury because the line keeps moving.
ZoomZoomZoom 5y ago
>Would you say the police did anything wrong? Yes? They beat the man.
- JoeAltmaier 5y ago
  ...and saved the child. Wouldn't it have been wrong to let a child die?
  - ZoomZoomZoom 5y ago
    Saving the child would be the consequence of the wrong action. It just happens that this particular consequence is the desired one. This doesn't magically transform the ethical value of an action. Thinking otherwise ("Finis sanctificat media") is the root of all kinds of evil in the world. Should they have done it (acted wrongly)? I don't know, they have their own free will.
a2800276 5y ago
Ok, I'll bite: > Would you say the police did anything wrong? Yes, obviously. At the very least, they very obviously broke a law. They should file charges against themselves. The legal system is not absolute and a court / jury can decide about extenuating circumstances. I can think of few laws that don't allow me to construct some extremely hare-brained counterexample where it might be morally justified to break them.
- ALittleLight 5y ago
  It's not obviously wrong to break a law to save a child's life though. In an extreme example, would you speed to take a dying child to the hospital? I think it would be wrong if you would refuse to (unless you had some calculation that speeding would make you less likely to save the child). Laws are ethics - they are rules that tell us how to act. Right and wrong are descriptions of morality - which is about good and bad. It's certainly a violation of the clearly established rules to beat a man to save a child, but it's not obviously wrong to do so. I would say it's not wrong at all.