Forums

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Spanky, I'm overwhelmed by the length of your posts, so I'm not going to try to respond point by point.

Why not just address a few points instead of trying to make a blanket summary? In the past, you usually do these summay posts because you are claiming you are saving time, and want to get to the heart of the matter. However, whatever your intent, it has been my experience that when you take this tactic you miss the point completely, repeat statements you have already made that I have addressed (but since you don't address my statements point by point you can conveniently overlook that fact) and turn the whole conversation into a nested loop. I hope this time this "summary" post is different, but my hopes are not high.

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop I don't think I'm putting words in your mouth when I say that you take a utilitarian view of torture -- that it's not something to be done lightly, but that it is acceptable when the benefits (the prospect of saving "innocent" lives) outweigh the harms. Thus, you would be OK with torturing, say, an innocent child (e.g., the infant daughter of a terrorist) if the prospect of saving other innocents was real.

I take both a utilitarian view and a moral view, not just a utilitarian view. You stated I just take a utilitarian view which I reject. I think the utilitarian view revolves around whether torture is effective and if it is; is there another means that can be used.

The moral issue revolves around whether or not torture is always immoral. To me the moral issue has to revolve around the UMC which is an instinct we all have. Like I said before, the use of the term moral, immoral, just, and unjust implies there is a UMC that we all agree on. Just like the term legal and non legal assumes that there is a legal code we all agree is valid. Without a legal code that we agree on the terms legal and illegal are meaningless. Or if we use two different legal codes we can argue all day but get no where. If there is not a UMC, then what is moral to you may not be moral to me, and we can argue about it all day but get nowhere. If morality is subjective it is useless to argue about it.

When it comes to the moral issues we simply turn to our instincts. When you give the ticking time bomb example most people will say that in that case it is moral to torture the terrorist. The question of “what most people would say” is relevant because you are talking about the UMC and therefore peoples instincts. If there is an internal UMC inside all of us, then the majority of us should come down the same way on the issue. If that were not the case, then what the majority thinks is irrelevant. The logic of the position would trump majority vote, and you wouldn’t care “what most people think”. In my view, if most people think that it is OK to torture the terrorist in the ticking time bomb case, that is the end of the discussion. It is clearly moral to do so. Other people may try and argue that it is an immoral imperative, but for reasons I think are obvious, if there is such thing as an immoral imperative then we can never agree on what is moral and immoral. The whole morality argument becomes fruitless and irrelevant.

Now there is an issue of how the obvious morality of the situation should be translated into the legal code. There are arguments on both sides. This issue is where the issue of abuse becomes central to the argument. But until you agree that torture is moral in some circumstances, then you can't address the times it can be used, and you can't address the issue of abuse.

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
One can't argue against this view on its own terms. John Stuart Mill and Jeremy Bentham would approve. However, it raises some questions:

- how do you weigh the harms of torture against the benefits? to some degree, they are incommensurable. also, there's this question of the uncertainty of the benefits. the "ticking time bomb" scenario asks one to accept as a hypothesis that you know that you'll be able to find the bomb, but in real life we have been torturing people without knowing (ex ante) what they know, and whether it will help.

At this point, once you enter the realm of doing a cost benefit analysis you are assuming some times torture is OK. Once you do that then you have to develop a policy of when or when it is not OK to use it. But why would I get into that discussion when you and I haven't even agreed that it some point torture is moral?

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop - why do you not seem concerned about the abuse (i.e., overuse) of torture?

Where do you get that? Of course I am concerned about the abuse. I already stated I don't think torture should be allowed in our domestic legal system, even if in some circumstances its use would be moral, because of the potential for abuse. Do you think I said that because I am totally unconcerned about abuse? And why does my "concern" matter. Is this a discussion on "The View"? Either the potential for abuse is relevant to the issue at hand or it is not.

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop in a conversation about the misuse of torture, you popped up (again) to argue that torture is sometimes ok. if you were motivated by a straight cost-benefit analysis, one might think that you'd have a little time for the prospect that our government is torturing too much, but it's not something you seem to notice.

“one might think that you'd have a little time....." This statement is a perfect example of where it seems to me that your legal training leaves you and you enter the irrational realm. If the subject is relevant to the issue, I will address it; if it is not then I won't address it. On the subject of whether or not the use of torture is moral, the issue of whether it will or can be abused is irrelevant. On the issue of whether or not it is OK to incorporate the use of torture into policy, the potential for abuse is very relevant, and in that regard I have addressed it.

But this statement above seems to me to be an argument for me to recognize and address subjects that are irrelevant to the issue at hand.

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop why is this sort of cost-benefit balancing not the way you approach other social problems? e.g., why not tax the very rich to pay for food for the poor? a cost-benefit analysis surely suggests that a few rich people need the extra money less than the poor need food. and so on.

I do cost benefit analysis all the time when I address all sorts of issues. This is really ripe. I was just arguing the other day for a progressive income tax citing both the moral and utilitarian reasons for having one. In fact, I even went into a cost benefit analysis. However, to directly address your point, using the cost benefits analysis doesn't mean you grossly simplify the subject and then do an analysis. Taxing the rich (and taxation in general) brings up a very intricate cost benefit analysis. The example you use here is a gross oversimplification, and therefore would lead to faulty and poorly based conclusions.

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop what does "innocence" have to do with it? i keep noting that you refer to "innocent" victims of terror and implying the "guilt" of terrorists,

You accuse me of lack of values before and then you ask me what innocence has to do with it? Do you not think that people have to take responsibility for their actions? Do you not think people have to be taken to task for their actions? Isn't that the basis of our entire legal system? If a terrorist sets up a ticking time bomb shouldn't they have to account for that? Should the innocent be punished or made to take into account for something they didn't do? If a terrorist sets a ticking time bomb, should another person be punished?

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
from which i infer that you seem torture as a sort of punishment, but this is hardly clear to me.

This is why a discussion with you is only productive if you are forced to address my specific points. I have said again and again that torture is not to be used as a form of punishment. Torture is solely used as a means to elicit information. But whether or not you can use torture to elicit information depends on the innocence or guilt of the victim. The guilty person has participated in events that have made the torture necessary. But for their actions and inactions the torture would not be necessary. This is not true of the innocent victim. That is why, in the ticking time bomb case, if the proposed victim of the torture set the bomb the decision is so easy for most people to make.

In the future, if you want to discuss this issue:

1) Answer the question if you think it is moral or immoral to torture someone in the ticking time bomb scenario (and if you complain again for me asking this question "because you have already answered it", fine, at least answer the question after you express your indignation).

2) when stating something point out whether or not you are addressing the moral or utilitarian issue. But of course if you think torture is always immoral then a utilitarian discussion is not relevant (unless of course you concede the point for sake of argument)

3) Don't assume I have taken any position that I have not said I have taken.

This will somewhat prevent the discussion from going in circles and positions having to be repeated endlessly.