5 ms·

If you're really trying to say that torture is 'bad' (and not illegal -- which it sort-of is), you need to really flex some intellectual muscle and not merely j

by dvt 12y ago

If you're really trying to say that torture is 'bad' (and not illegal -- which it sort-of is), you need to really flex some intellectual muscle and not merely just claim it. It's a been a pretty hotly-debated issue in (politico-)philosophical circles for the past 400 years; so don't think it'll be easy.

jobu 12y ago
It was my impression that the torture debate was settled after World War II: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geneva_Conventions http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geneva_Conventions Torture is wrong, bad, illegal, and ineffective. In a modern world it shouldn't be supported, even from an "Old Testament" sort of good guy.
- dvt 12y ago
  Small correction: the Geneva Convention says nothing about the effectiveness of torture, although other sources may. And the philosophical debate is far from over; it is ongoing: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/torture/ http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/torture/ Reading some of the literature can be quite fascinating. Ouch, the down-votes :(
  - r00fus 12y ago
    You're getting down voted because, knowingly or not, you're using conversational terrorism [1] techniques. Wary minds see/hear these words and immediately ignore any of your content. Think of it as a debating equivalent of pulling a godwin. [1] http://www.vandruff.com/art_converse.html http://www.vandruff.com/art_converse.html
    - dvt 12y ago
      What conventional terrorism technique have I used? Here's an analogue of what happened. Bob says: yeah it's pretty easy to see that every even integer greater than 2 can be expressed as the sum of two primes.[1] I say: not so fast, you can't just claim things like that. I mean it might be intuitive or 'generally accepted' (and even stochastically probable!), but the truth-value of such a statement is difficult to prove. [1] Goldbach's conjecture.
  - snowwrestler 12y ago
    I'm not sure philosophers debating is a useful signal about whether an issue is settled. I'm having a hard time thinking of a topic on which philosophers would not debate.
Chinjut 12y ago
I'm perfectly happy claiming lots of things which have been hotly debated in (politico-)-philosophical circles for a long time. And so, I imagine, are most people, including (politico)-philosophers themselves. That everyone doesn't agree with me on everything doesn't lose me sleep.
dhaivatpandya 12y ago
Why is this post being downvoted so much? Although I don't agree w/ the author's position, torture and its effectiveness are still debated.
- dvt 12y ago
  Actually, I never even stated my position! For the record, I'm pretty sure torture is usually morally wrong. But I also think that there are many cases where it may be permissible, e.g. the ticking time-bomb thought experiment. (Detractors of the ticking time-bomb experiment will argue that it's a fabricated scenario which never happens in real life. I don't think that's true.)
  - JoeAltmaier 12y ago
    How about: torture is always wrong. But sometimes I will sacrifice my immortal soul (torture somebody) to save somebody I love. And its still wrong, and I will be prosecuted for it. But my child will live, or whatever.
    - dinkumthinkum 12y ago
      How about we actually use philosophical argument and not this weak wishy-washy stuff. Perhaps contextualism is true? Perhaps actions themselves have no moral connotation but rather moral decision can only be made within a contextual framework. I think to say "torture is always wrong" is just something to say to fit in socially. I don't think you can make moral decisions about any action murder, theft, etc; there must be a contextual framework and hierarchy of values.
      - JoeAltmaier 12y ago
        That's a way to analyze it. But not all moral frameworks are going to yield to academic dissection. I'm not so worried about finding a chapter in my philosophy text to label it; we can instead explore our existing moral foundations and answer honestly. If you must rationalize it, go ahead. But you can argue yourself into any number of conclusions. In the end that's a game with no winner.

by dvt 12y ago

jobu 12y ago

It was my impression that the torture debate was settled after World War II: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geneva_Conventions http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geneva_Conventions Torture is wrong, bad, illegal, and ineffective. In a modern world it shouldn't be supported, even from an "Old Testament" sort of good guy.

dvt 12y ago
Small correction: the Geneva Convention says nothing about the effectiveness of torture, although other sources may. And the philosophical debate is far from over; it is ongoing: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/torture/ http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/torture/ Reading some of the literature can be quite fascinating. Ouch, the down-votes :(
- r00fus 12y ago
  You're getting down voted because, knowingly or not, you're using conversational terrorism [1] techniques. Wary minds see/hear these words and immediately ignore any of your content. Think of it as a debating equivalent of pulling a godwin. [1] http://www.vandruff.com/art_converse.html http://www.vandruff.com/art_converse.html
  - dvt 12y ago
    What conventional terrorism technique have I used? Here's an analogue of what happened. Bob says: yeah it's pretty easy to see that every even integer greater than 2 can be expressed as the sum of two primes.[1] I say: not so fast, you can't just claim things like that. I mean it might be intuitive or 'generally accepted' (and even stochastically probable!), but the truth-value of such a statement is difficult to prove. [1] Goldbach's conjecture.
- snowwrestler 12y ago
  I'm not sure philosophers debating is a useful signal about whether an issue is settled. I'm having a hard time thinking of a topic on which philosophers would not debate.

Chinjut 12y ago

I'm perfectly happy claiming lots of things which have been hotly debated in (politico-)-philosophical circles for a long time. And so, I imagine, are most people, including (politico)-philosophers themselves. That everyone doesn't agree with me on everything doesn't lose me sleep.

dhaivatpandya 12y ago

Why is this post being downvoted so much? Although I don't agree w/ the author's position, torture and its effectiveness are still debated.

dvt 12y ago
Actually, I never even stated my position! For the record, I'm pretty sure torture is usually morally wrong. But I also think that there are many cases where it may be permissible, e.g. the ticking time-bomb thought experiment. (Detractors of the ticking time-bomb experiment will argue that it's a fabricated scenario which never happens in real life. I don't think that's true.)
- JoeAltmaier 12y ago
  How about: torture is always wrong. But sometimes I will sacrifice my immortal soul (torture somebody) to save somebody I love. And its still wrong, and I will be prosecuted for it. But my child will live, or whatever.
  - dinkumthinkum 12y ago
    How about we actually use philosophical argument and not this weak wishy-washy stuff. Perhaps contextualism is true? Perhaps actions themselves have no moral connotation but rather moral decision can only be made within a contextual framework. I think to say "torture is always wrong" is just something to say to fit in socially. I don't think you can make moral decisions about any action murder, theft, etc; there must be a contextual framework and hierarchy of values.
    - JoeAltmaier 12y ago
      That's a way to analyze it. But not all moral frameworks are going to yield to academic dissection. I'm not so worried about finding a chapter in my philosophy text to label it; we can instead explore our existing moral foundations and answer honestly. If you must rationalize it, go ahead. But you can argue yourself into any number of conclusions. In the end that's a game with no winner.