3 ms·

So here's an ethical question- If the report leads to no action, where is the good in releasing it? Real risk for real people has been created. It's not theor

So here's an ethical question- If the report leads to no action, where is the good in releasing it? Real risk for real people has been created. It's not theoretical. Actual innocent people have been placed in danger. If there's no good coming from the report, was it worth placing those people in danger?

user24 12y ago
Yes because it produced the opportunity to do good. At the time of publication it couldn't be known whether good would be done or not. You can't make moral judgements from a viewpoint that assumes knowledge of the future.
- tripzilch 12y ago
  I don't disagree with your point, but: > You can't make moral judgements from a viewpoint that assumes knowledge of the future. Actually, you can. It's one of the main categories of normative ethics: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Normative_ethics#Normative_ethical_theories https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Normative_ethics#Normative_eth... "Consequentialism (Teleology) argues that the morality of an action is contingent on the action's outcome or result", this particular category includes one of the most famous theories of ethics, utilitarianism. Your problem with it is valid, however. As far as I've understood from my study of the subject matter, no ethical theory is perfect, not even utilitarianism. Check out the wiki page for the other categories. Personally I like virtue ethics, keeps me on my toes and critical. I wouldn't recommend it though, I'd prefer if the rest of the world was utilitarian :-P cough
ssmoot 12y ago
> Real risk for real people has been created. It's not theoretical. Risk of what? > Actual innocent people have been placed in danger. Who? I'm not attempting to argue the point. I haven't read the report. It just seems a strong statement to make that innocent bystanders (with no connection to torture) have been put at risk (of what?). I'm curious how legitimate this claim is since to be honest it reads a bit like FUD (that's just how it comes off; but I'm just looking for a rationale).
- waterlesscloud 12y ago
  Risk of revenge attacks leading to severe injury and death. People working for the US government overseas. Or just Americans. Or even just westerners in general. Security is heightened, units are on alert worldwide. The risk is real and serious. Remember, radical elements killed people over a silly video on youtube. This is much more inflammatory.
  - Anchor 12y ago
    McCain: Everyone knows we waterboarded. [1] [1] http://www.cnn.com/video/data/2.0/video/us/2014/12/09/lv-mccain-comments-cia-torture-report.cnn.html http://www.cnn.com/video/data/2.0/video/us/2014/12/09/lv-mcc...
  - woah 12y ago
    Would this revenge be unjustified?
    - deleted 12y ago
      [deleted]
    - waterlesscloud 12y ago
      Absolutely unjustified.
      - pluma 12y ago
        Like going to war with two nations over an unrelated terrorist attack?
elwin 12y ago
Making the information public reduces the excusability of the people responsible. It may lead to no action, but that inaction will now be complicity.
pluma 12y ago
Yes, you're absolutely right. This report is making me want to kill people in cold blood. It's probably better to keep it secret so nobody finds out about it until it's too late.
wormparoxysm 12y ago
I heard on npr radio that the purpose of torture is to intimidate, not extract information. Which makes it all clear. Incentives for information: 1.) Extract information. 2.) The information should be useful. Incentives for intimidation: 1.) Information extraction is of no concern. 2.) The torture should be so shocking, and awesome, that George Carlin style many extra syllables need to be added to the word "tor-ture" like when Diane Feinstein says the supersized Orwellian phrase that "tor-ture" has become. 3.) The details of the torture should be made public.

user24 12y ago

Yes because it produced the opportunity to do good. At the time of publication it couldn't be known whether good would be done or not. You can't make moral judgements from a viewpoint that assumes knowledge of the future.

tripzilch 12y ago
I don't disagree with your point, but: > You can't make moral judgements from a viewpoint that assumes knowledge of the future. Actually, you can. It's one of the main categories of normative ethics: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Normative_ethics#Normative_ethical_theories https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Normative_ethics#Normative_eth... "Consequentialism (Teleology) argues that the morality of an action is contingent on the action's outcome or result", this particular category includes one of the most famous theories of ethics, utilitarianism. Your problem with it is valid, however. As far as I've understood from my study of the subject matter, no ethical theory is perfect, not even utilitarianism. Check out the wiki page for the other categories. Personally I like virtue ethics, keeps me on my toes and critical. I wouldn't recommend it though, I'd prefer if the rest of the world was utilitarian :-P cough

ssmoot 12y ago

> Real risk for real people has been created. It's not theoretical. Risk of what? > Actual innocent people have been placed in danger. Who? I'm not attempting to argue the point. I haven't read the report. It just seems a strong statement to make that innocent bystanders (with no connection to torture) have been put at risk (of what?). I'm curious how legitimate this claim is since to be honest it reads a bit like FUD (that's just how it comes off; but I'm just looking for a rationale).

waterlesscloud 12y ago
Risk of revenge attacks leading to severe injury and death. People working for the US government overseas. Or just Americans. Or even just westerners in general. Security is heightened, units are on alert worldwide. The risk is real and serious. Remember, radical elements killed people over a silly video on youtube. This is much more inflammatory.
- Anchor 12y ago
  McCain: Everyone knows we waterboarded. [1] [1] http://www.cnn.com/video/data/2.0/video/us/2014/12/09/lv-mccain-comments-cia-torture-report.cnn.html http://www.cnn.com/video/data/2.0/video/us/2014/12/09/lv-mcc...
- woah 12y ago
  Would this revenge be unjustified?
  - deleted 12y ago
    [deleted]
  - waterlesscloud 12y ago
    Absolutely unjustified.
    - pluma 12y ago
      Like going to war with two nations over an unrelated terrorist attack?

elwin 12y ago

Making the information public reduces the excusability of the people responsible. It may lead to no action, but that inaction will now be complicity.

pluma 12y ago

Yes, you're absolutely right. This report is making me want to kill people in cold blood. It's probably better to keep it secret so nobody finds out about it until it's too late.

wormparoxysm 12y ago

I heard on npr radio that the purpose of torture is to intimidate, not extract information. Which makes it all clear. Incentives for information: 1.) Extract information. 2.) The information should be useful. Incentives for intimidation: 1.) Information extraction is of no concern. 2.) The torture should be so shocking, and awesome, that George Carlin style many extra syllables need to be added to the word "tor-ture" like when Diane Feinstein says the supersized Orwellian phrase that "tor-ture" has become. 3.) The details of the torture should be made public.