4 ms·
* I would never support the use of these techniques against soldiers of a legitimate state or other criminal actors. * The perpetrators of the 9-11 attacks to
by tosser-001 12y ago
* I would never support the use of these techniques against soldiers of a legitimate state or other criminal actors.
* The perpetrators of the 9-11 attacks to me represent a completely different sort of threat than has ever been encountered - which legitimized the use of torture (though to be honest, the sorts of techniques outlined in the report don't really sound like what I would classify as "torture"; i.e., the infliction of unbearable pain with no expectation of actionable information being extracted.)
* If the techniques were in fact of no value (which the CIA disputes) then I would of course not support their continued use. I don't support the infliction of 'needless' pain or suffering. If they were providing useful information then I have no ethical or moral problem with them.
- mikeash 12y agoWhat is different about the 9/11 attacks that legitimizes the use of torture, when you would not support it against soldiers or other criminals? Do keep in mind that 9/11 doesn't even register on the atrocity scale when compared to what's been done by "soldiers of a legitimate state." If you would endorse torture to prevent another 9/11, why wouldn't you also endorse torture to prevent, say, another Hiroshima?
- tosser-001 12y ago> What is different about the 9/11 attacks that legitimizes the use of torture, when you would not support it against soldiers or other criminals? They had demonstrated the practice of mass killings of innocent civilians and expressed the desire to continue to do so. > If you would endorse torture to prevent another 9/11, why wouldn't you also endorse torture to prevent, say, another Hiroshima? Well, setting aside the moral equivalency of 9/11 to Hiroshima, I suppose if there was reason to believe there was a nuclear threat and there was access to someone for whom it was legitimately believed could provide details which would prevent it, employing torture would be morally and ethically justified.
- jaimebuelta 12y agoLet me refresh one of the key point of the report (sorry about the caps) TORTURE IS NOT EFFECTIVE This is hardly news, it has been known for a long time. CIA knew it before 9/11
- tosser-001 12y agoAgain, that to me is the crux also. If it is not effective than there is no justification. If it is, which the CIA claims it was, then I have no ethical problem with it in this limited situation
- mikeash 12y agoThe CIA is completely biased here. They have every reason to claim that torture is effective purely to defend their past actions. Their stated opinion on it means absolutely nothing, in that you'd expect them to say exactly that either way.
- mikeash 12y agoMass killings of innocent civilians are commonly carried out by "soldiers of a legitimate state." OK, so nuclear attacks by soldiers justify it. How about conventional strategic bombing? Invasions? Exactly where and why do you draw the line, if you're not drawing it where you previously said?
- tosser-001 12y agoI'll admit, you've got me. I don't know where I would draw the line, but in the case of Qeada/ISIS, they are well across my personal fuzzy gray line.
- mikeash 12y agoI think you'd better sit down and think about it a bit more before publicly advocating for torturing prisoners, then.
- tosser-001 12y agoI would also like to turn the question around though: If torture could prevent the mass killing of innocent civilians, do you see any justification in it?
- mikeash 12y agoNo. I don't think torture is ever justified, under any circumstances. No exceptions.
- pistle 12y agoIf you start bending on this, you become the thing you hate. Take the moral high-ground or slide down the mountain. Good luck finding a comfortable place somewhere before you are below the person you hate.
- Kim_Bruning 12y agoEven if I thought it prevented mass killing in the short term, it is certainly likely to lead to more mass killing in the long term.
- cyorir 12y agoYou bring up Hiroshima as an example. I think that in many ways this becomes the old Moral Absolutism versus Moral Relativism problem. You can have a moral absolutist who says, "Harming another human is wrong, therefore we will not torture under any case." (A different absolutist might be more utilitarian in arguing for torture of one to save many, but you get the point- an absolutist has a position and a rigid interpretation of that position, and sticks with it) You can have a moral relativist who says, "Harming another human is wrong. We cannot torture someone to collect information, but we cannot avoid collecting that information because if we avoid collecting that information it will lead to someone else harming more humans." Two sides to the same moral problem. I tend to agree with the relativist view of the problem rather than the absolutist view; the relativist in this case is informed by the consequences of both action and inaction whereas the absolutist in this case only cares about the consequences of action. The solution? Absolutism will provide a solution because something is either right or wrong. So absolutism is easy, attractive. Relativism provides no clear solution, which is why many people prefer to reason in moral absolutist terms.
- mikeash 12y agoYou (like so many others, sadly) assume torture is actually effective, and that objections to its use rest solely on immorality. I object to torture on moral grounds. I also object to it on practical grounds. It doesn't work. Since both of those objections point in the same direction, the solution is completely clear.
- atlantic 12y agoThe problem with that kind of reasoning is that it assigns a quantitative value to life. I don't think you can subject human life to this kind of mathematical reasoning: we'll sacrifice two lives to save three, or twenty to save five hundred. This kind of calculation is utilitarian economics, not ethics. Ethical reasoning tells us that certain categories of action are intrinsically wrong, regardless of context, and that whatever immediate benefit accrues from them, they will taint and corrupt the individual and the society that perpetrates them. Torture indisputably falls within this category.
- tracker1 12y agoWe went on to foreign soil, and abducted the prisoners in question. It's not like we found them sneaking across our borders with bombs... We have a legal declaration of war on "terror" ... all enemy combatants in such a declaration are POW, regardless of their status in a standing army. I have a fairly flexible moral code as far as even torture is concerned... this goes beyond what I would consider appropriate in any sense of the word.