Turn on thread page Beta
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by cottonmouth)
    So your answer to my "Let me ask a question" is that you would torture your mother to save someone else? Or were you ingnoring my question? Sorry, i'm not being aggressive, i'm just not sure.
    No I thought you meant that if the mothers life was at risk, would we torture someone else to save the mother, sorry Ive not read the whole thread lol
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    I certaintly think there are cases where torture should/could be used.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by naivesincerity)
    You're in two societies! Has self-delusion set in? The sign of a true addict....
    ****, i forgot about those. The cottonmouth is great society rocks though, you should join.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by goodLife)
    Lol that didn't mean a thing, you can think of a situation like that to argue for anything to be legal!
    Well considering I wasnt arguing about legality your post isnt really relevant.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by naivesincerity)
    It leads to psychosis and eventually death
    It CAN kill, if it goes too far.

    But then so can cheese in excess.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Cheese? lol, what specific usages of cheese would cause death?
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by cottonmouth)
    So basically, most people are of the conclusion that torture is immoal, and should remain illegal here. Whcih is all i argued for the whole time.
    You argued that it is NEVER moral to torture. You are entitled to that view because morality is subjective. However it is a very odd contention, because you reach the conclusion that you are under no moral obligation to act and save the world, but in fact are morally obliged to let all humanity perish, including the potential torturee.

    (Original post by cottonmouth)
    It isn't morally right to torture. Obviously, when put in a clearly pathetic situation whee the world would be blown up, you'd do anything to save it.
    You completely miss the point. I think you need to study a little Socrates, or more accurately the Socratic method.

    If someone says: It is NEVER right to torture, then to test that hypothesis you are free to present ANY Set of events you like...

    if it is a pathetic method you best tell the vast majority of the philosphers from the last 2500 years because they all use reductio ad absurdam.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by naivesincerity)
    Cheese? lol, what specific usages of cheese would cause death?
    Heart attack? Eat too much and you'll certianly die. As the delphic oracle put it : "Nothing in excess",

    Dont know which kind is most deadly though... I suspect brie.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lawz-)
    Heart attack? Eat too much and you'll certianly die.

    Dont know which kind is most deadly though... I suspect brie.
    Or Asphyxiation by Brie. Or Stilton. Must pop up in courtcases all the time:p:
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by naivesincerity)
    Or Asphyxiation by Brie. Or Stilton. Must pop up in courtcases all the time:p:
    Not a bad way to go.

    But Id prefer a little sleep deprivation to choking on the prouct of a bacterial process.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    Actually, anything can be a poison if you take enough of it. It would be perfectly possible to overdose on cheese.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Zoecb)
    I would never be wilfully in favour of it. You don't seem to understand, which is weird because what I'm saying is very simple: Torture is wrong. I would never say that its use is "the right thing to do".

    To put it in childish terms, people might "do the wrong thing for the right reasons" - but the thing is still wrong.
    It's as clear as mud.

    How can you not be wilfully in favour of something you wilfully practice?
    You've accepted that you would practice torture in extreme situations, but then concluded that doing so to save the lives of others would NOT "the right thing to do"
    Saving the lives of others would be the "wrong thing to do".

    It might be "wrong to torture" in most situations but clearly in the situation put forward you were in favour of torture and would wilfully practice it to save your loved ones. Far from being "against" torture, you would be for it.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    What are you trying to get me to say?

    (Original post by Vienna)
    You've accepted that you would practice torture in extreme situations, but then concluded that doing so to save the lives of others would NOT "the right thing to do"
    Saving the lives of others would be the "wrong thing to do".
    Correct.

    It might be "wrong to torture" in most situations but clearly in the situation put forward you were in favour of torture and would wilfully practice it to save your loved ones. Far from being "against" torture, you would be for it.
    People wilfully betray their morals every day. I would never be morally for it. I will always be morally against it. Anyway, in this hypothetical extreme situation - not even that might do it. If I had to do it myself I'm not sure I could bring myself to, tbh.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Zoecb)
    Correct.


    As has been made clear, there is nothing wrong per se, with your seeming moral stance. That is to say, we can each define our own morals without being found in a fallacy, so long as we are consistent and they do not conflict.

    Essentially though, what you are saying is contrary to common intuition and what the vast majority of people would think, IMO - namely:

    That it is morally wrong to choose situation B, and save every human being from destruction because it would involve causing physical pain to an individual, even though without your choosing B he will be dead within a few minutes.


    There is no moral difference that I can see, between:

    Punching someone in the face repeatedly in order to get him to tell you where the bomb is, i.e. punching him to prevent the explosion and

    Punching him in the face repeatedly to get a detonator out of his hand.

    They are precisely the same thing.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Zoecb)
    Being killed is inevitable for historical figures, else they'd all be immortal.
    Hahahahaha you crack me up. That's the silliest thing I've heard all day.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Apollo)
    I certaintly think there are cases where torture should/could be used.
    That's because you watch 24
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by The Ace is Back)
    Hahahahaha you crack me up. That's the silliest thing I've heard all day.
    Everyone dies, that's a fact. I don't see anything silly about that.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Zoecb)
    Being killed is inevitable for historical figures, else they'd all be immortal.
    Heheheheh
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    That's funny because...?
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    I'd only consider torture as justifiable in a ticking bomb scenario... otherwise... just, no.
 
 
 
Reply
Submit reply
Turn on thread page Beta
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: April 22, 2006
Poll
Favourite type of bread
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.