4 ms·

It's a real case that went to trial in New Zealand. The car thief was on video stealing the car, he confessed to stealing the car (admittedly under torture), an

It's a real case that went to trial in New Zealand. The car thief was on video stealing the car, he confessed to stealing the car (admittedly under torture), and he was able to locate the stolen car and child. As it happens, we know what would've happened had the police not beat him, because they tried that first. The man refused to say where the car was. He would rather let a child die than admit to car theft. Of course, maybe, if they had let the child die a magic genie would've prevented all future crime - it's as plausible as your hypothetical - so maybe the police did wrong after all... As for your question my moral judgements are tuned to reality, not nonsense fantasy land. I don't have a strong sense of what is right and wrong in a universe that does not obey causality as I know it. I would, however, be willing to beat the thief if it were my child in the car.

rendall 5y ago
Cops beat people quite often in the US, and exactly zero-point-never times is it to save the life of a child. Yet for some reason, you find it necessary to bring up that one time in New Zealand to justify torture. I'm sorry, but I find that baffling. Seems to me very much not tuned to reality, but maybe we should just agree to disagree here.
- ALittleLight 5y ago
  The original comment of yours that I replied to says that "torture = bad" and that all that separates good and bad people is principle. I have two reasons for challenging this. First, it's just not true. Torture, in some cases, is completely justified. These cases are both hypothetical (you need to find the dirty bomb going to kill millions) and real (beat a car thief to save a child). Second is to question the underlying principle that makes torture usually immoral.
  - rendall 5y ago
    I can ask it no clearer: Given that your counterfactual is an exceedingly rare edge case, why do you feel it is important to counter the valuable moral heuristic of "torture=bad"? What are you gaining by doing that?
    - ALittleLight 5y ago
      If I said "All prime numbers are odd" I would not question what you gain by bringing up the example of 2.
      - rendall 5y ago
        We're talking about torture, not mathematics. Ok. Feel free to have the last word.

rendall 5y ago

Cops beat people quite often in the US, and exactly zero-point-never times is it to save the life of a child. Yet for some reason, you find it necessary to bring up that one time in New Zealand to justify torture. I'm sorry, but I find that baffling. Seems to me very much not tuned to reality, but maybe we should just agree to disagree here.

ALittleLight 5y ago
The original comment of yours that I replied to says that "torture = bad" and that all that separates good and bad people is principle. I have two reasons for challenging this. First, it's just not true. Torture, in some cases, is completely justified. These cases are both hypothetical (you need to find the dirty bomb going to kill millions) and real (beat a car thief to save a child). Second is to question the underlying principle that makes torture usually immoral.
- rendall 5y ago
  I can ask it no clearer: Given that your counterfactual is an exceedingly rare edge case, why do you feel it is important to counter the valuable moral heuristic of "torture=bad"? What are you gaining by doing that?
  - ALittleLight 5y ago
    If I said "All prime numbers are odd" I would not question what you gain by bringing up the example of 2.
    - rendall 5y ago
      We're talking about torture, not mathematics. Ok. Feel free to have the last word.