Torture

a) The meaning has not changed at all

b) The term implies that the person at whom it is directed is the one who set up the argument to be knocked down - not that you focused in on what you thought was a weak point.

c) What I did, by taking issue with her central point, was in no way straw anything.

d) Personal - when did it get personal?



You replied to my point, with a completely unrelated issue. If you wanted to address the OP - then quote him - not me.



What is your moral precept on which this judgement is based?



That's a fairly baseless distinction. When you get to law school read some Hart and Honore on caustation.



Omission is a crime in some countries. And I am not about to get into a legal debate when I was dicusssing something entirely different.

Torture is wrong is not a grundnorm. You ask why? Why is it wrong?

Because its bad to caue harm to people? It seems to me, and most people, that to not torture someone because you want to prevent/fail to do harm, when that choice will kill him, kill you, kill billions, is an entirely unworkable, illogical an inconsistent moral system.



You would choose the immoral option over the moral one? Why?

You would contend that someone who decided to take the necessary action to save all mankind, including the bomber, would be immoral, while someone who let everyone die a long and painful death would be virtuous?

hahahahahaha that is so ridiculous. Rape and murder are completely different issues - torture is a means to an end, the lesser of two evils. Rape and murder are just pure evil.

No, it isn't sayin that! It is still morally wrong, but you would do it anyway. You would go against your own morals for everyones sake.

In any case, in this situation, i don't know if i could bring myself to torture someone. I'd be the wrong man for the job. My flesh crawls at the thought of breaking a bone in someones else's body.

You would choose the immoral option over the moral one? Why?

It isn't ridiculous in the context she said it in.

Torture is the means to an end? Then so is murder or rape if you want to be so simplistic. People who kill ant the person they are killing to be dead. The killing is the means to the desired result. Rapists want sexual gratification from a defenceless person. The sex is the means to the desired result. Yes, both are evil. You said that yourself. But why are they evil? Because it isn't fair on the victim? Same reason torture is evil too! The only distinction you draw is that the tortured person may or may not be witholding important, needed information. orry, that doesn't cut it in my opinion.

Well you have a strange moral metric then.

If your metric is the greater good, or the prevention of mass suffering, then the torture is perfectly moral.

What exactly IS your moral metric - how do you determine the moality/immorality of something.

I'm saying the means are evil enough not to justify the end.
If you didn't have any handy torture implements to hand would you rape the information out of them? It's for mankind's sake you know!

Stop with the straw man stuff, it isn't relevent- i was probably wrong to accuse you. End of that one.

Omission isn't a crime here though is it? And it shouldn't be, unless you are advocating that people should be forced into intervening at risk of being locked up in any situation.

When i said personal, i meant in context of a given situation- such as the analogy you offered with the bomb. That is personal, as opposed to an objective view, because you would be directly involved.

For Gods sake, how many times do i have to say this! Yes, i would choose the immoral option. Immoral in my opinion, because my morals tell me that it is wrong to cause purposeful harm to another person.

Whether the decision is right or wrong is another matter. We all have different morals don't we? I'm not going to contradict myself. If my morals tell me it is wrong to hurt someone, then if i do that, i am acting against my own morals. Not necessarily everyon elses morals!

So to answer your question, yes, i would contend, in line with my own morals, that said persons decision to save all mankind, whether right or wrong, would be immoral if he had to torture someone.

Idiot. Torture is a means to what almost 100% of society would classify a desirable end - preventing the loss of at least one other life. Rape and murder do nothing of the sort, but merely act as means to instant gratification. I can't honestly believe you are trying to draw links between them.

done.



Again - Im not talking about Law. Or at least I am only doing so because you keep bringing it up.



I altered the scenari oto remove the personal element.



On what basis do you distinguish morally between doing something to cause relatively minor harm, and doing nothing to cause total destruction of all mankind.



Obviously, though one an highlight that your morals produce a fairly absurd result as we see below:


To most that would be ridiculous. But yes - of course - we can all chooe our own moral system .

On what basis do you distinguish morally between doing something to cause relatively minor harm, and doing nothing to cause total destruction of all mankind.

Why did you have to add idiot? It would have been a fine reply without the use of jibes.

You think almost 100%? Is that why torture is illegal then? Because it's what nearly ALL people agree with?

I can't believe I'm hearing this. Rape and murder are, BY DEFINITION, not means to the same end as torture. Christ. On the one hand I'm up against the most narrow-minded and opinionated socialist I have ever come across, and on the other I'm up against an idiot. The two of you make an incredible team - a blend of pure idiocy mixed in with a dogged determination to argue an undefendable position. Hypocrital? Yes you are, and whether you like it or not, that matters.

In my example it was the same end. And yet you're calling one form of pain-infliction more wrong than another. Why?

And why does hypocrisy matter here? I'm never planning on being in these situations! I'm saying that something is wrong and immoral but that I might do it anyway if pushed. I would be wrong to do it but I still might. (Although, like cottonmouth, I doubt it for squeamish reasons.)

I take it i'm the narrow-minded opinionated socialist who has a dogged determination to argue undefendable position? And heres me thinking for once i was engaged in rational, quite entertaining, intelligent debate with people. Ace, just grow up, you sound pathetic, and noone thinks you are funny.

Because you're not causing it! You didn't plant a bomb. You have done nothing wrong. The criminal is causing it.

Rape and murder are not the same as torture, nor by definition do they lead to the same end. Your example is therefore rendered useless.


Look I'm sorry, but you and cottonmouth seem to think that saying it 'would be wrong to do it but I still might' makes it excusable. Well no, in the context of a debate, hypocrisy is invalid. If you would do it, then on what grounds can you possibly argue that others don't equally have the right to?

INDIRECTLY YOU ARE RESPONSIBLE. The two roughly equate, the distinction between the two is a mere technicality.

Rape and murder are not the same as torture, nor by definition do they lead to the same end. Your example is therefore rendered useless.

We aren't arguing that others dont equally have the right to if they were in the same situation we were in when we would use torture! But it's still morally wrong in our opinions, whether the outcome of said torture is good or not.