|
The Core of the Argument
Ty you stated: "None of those "assumptions" are faulty
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I know you hate dealing with logic and logical arguments but which one of these assumptions did you think was faulty?
1) Al Qaeda can only pull off effective terrorist acts to kill innocent people if certain information stays secret.
2) Al Qaeda operatives have varying levels of access to such information
3) We have captured and continue to capture Al Qaeda operatives
4) Many captured operatives won't want to give to our interrogators this pertinent information.
5) Not always, but in many cases pain and the threat of pain can induce people to do things they are reluctant to do.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It seems to me then that if all these are true, then you have to conclude that the use of torture will save innocent lives. Especially if you add six and seven.
6) in some circumstances torture is more effective than other forms of interrogation.
7) We are reasonably doubtful we can get the same information without expending a significant amount of additional resources or can get the information as quickly with other means.
However, the whole argument falls apart if either of the following two arguments is valid:
A) Torture does not work, or is not an effective means for procuring relevant information. If that were true then there would be absolutely no reason to use torture. However if that statement were true that begs the question of:
1) Why the Gestapo was able to break up resistance rings every time they captured an operative?
2) Why did these groups change their tactics as the war went on to make sure that every operative only was familiar with a limited number of operatives and no one was ever told any one else’s true name?
3) Why did the KGB have the reputation of always getting information out of captured operatives?
4) Why were the North Vietnamese able to get so much classified information from captured pilots and why did John McCain say that it was too much to expect any of these down pilots not to divulge classified information.
B) If torture does work, but there are better means of getting the information. If there are better means to get this information then there would be absolutely no reason to use torture. But if this were true then:
1) Why have I never heard of another non torture technique that is as effective as torture? People keep saying they are out there but how come no one can identify one?
2) I have heard of other “non torture” techniques that have worked, but in all these cases the promoter of the certain technique was promoting a technique that really was torture, they just were not calling it such (for example water boarding, sleep deprivation etc). Has someone heard different?
It would be great if either of those argument were valid, but it seems to me they are unsupportable if you can't answer those questions I posed.
If both these arguments fail, then it seems to me that the argument against torture comes down to the idea that it is always immoral, no matter how utilitarian its use may be. But if torture is always immoral, then why has no one told me that it would be immoral to use torture in the ticking time bomb case (especially if the torture is used on the person that set the bomb). If torture is not immoral in that case, then clearly there are exceptions to the rule that torture is always wrong.
Do you believe that torture is immoral even in the ticking time bomb scenario?
Can you answer these questions?
If not, are these questions loaded or unreasonable? Why are they not valid questions? At a certain point in time I thought torture was always,wrong, but I changed my mind when faced with the above reasoning. Do you really think the above summary really that off base?
Last edited by Spanky; 12-22-2006 at 10:56 PM..
|
Threaded Mode