Quote:
Originally posted by Spanky 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.
|
In this part of the conversation, I was just trying to understand your views, not arguing with you. I characterized your views as utilitarian, because I understand that you see the morality (or immorality) of torture as a function of outcomes. For example, in the ticking-time-bomb scenario, you think it's moral to torture a terrorist because the innocent lives saved through learning information are more valuable than the harm done to the guilty terrorist. I didn't mean to suggest that utilitarian is immoral, from a descriptive perspective -- clearly, it is a view of morality. How do the moral issues fit with the utilitarian perspective in your mind?
So I'm a little confused about your paragraph above about the moral issue and the UMC. At this point, I'm not trying to find common ground (yet) -- I'm just trying to understand your views. Also, the question of legality is potentially distinct -- one can imagine reasons why morality might permit what the law does not, or vice versa. But I wasn't there yet, either.
I'm inclined to table the other issues raised by our posts until I understand where you're coming from on this stuff.
