3 ms·
You 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 ab
by cyorir 12y ago
You 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.
- rqebmm 12y agoThis has also been stated by many interrogation professionals, so it's not like it's just uninformed civilians running around saying "torture doesn't work, so don't use it"
- cyorir 12y agoCertainly, I accept your objection on practical grounds, but cannot quite accept the objection on moral grounds. If something doesn't work, then don't do it. Hiroshima was an extreme example of that. By August the political establishment in Japan was split, with consensus moving rapidly to peace out of the war because by mid 1945 the industrial centers of Osaka and Tokyo were ruined by fire bombings. It just so happens that at the same time the government is moving to surrender, we use two bombs to vaporize more people. "We need to use these bombs to end the war sooner." A fine argument to the intentionalist, regardless of outcome, but the consequentialist will have a problem with it because the atomic bombings did not lead to an early conclusion of the war, the fire bombings did.
- refurb 12y agoIt just so happens that at the same time the government is moving to surrender, we use two bombs to vaporize more people. They were so close to surrendering that the US had to drop two atomic bombs on Japan?