Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
x Turn on thread page Beta

Torture watch

Announcements
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Zoecb)
    I view prison as a DETERRENT more than anything else. So do you condone being stolen from? That's what the imprisonment of this hypothetical other person implies.


    The television writer Steven S. Deknight would be flattered you think so.
    Zoe- they are ust twisting what you said, doing the whole straw-man thing again. Because you said ALL TORTURE UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES IS WRONG WRONG WRONG they have jumped on it. Eventually you'll be accused of hypocrisy, if you havent been already. It doesnt matter. What you have said id basically the same as me. It should never be legal, but we can see circumsances where torture would or could be used. We however, do not condone it, whether it needs to be done for the greater good or not.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by cottonmouth)
    How ridiculous. I have said that in personal situations when, i am at risk, or my family is at risk of death, i would do things. But objectively, and in law, it shouldnt be right.
    a) what if we removed you and your family and friends from this. What if we said you had the option to be transferred to another planet just like earth, but that all others here would perish.

    b) We are talking morality not law.

    (Original post by cottonmouth)
    I would choose B. But i'd still want it to be a case of me breaking the law to save mankind.
    Besides, if this guy was as crazy as this, and wanted to wipe out the world, i doubt he'd give in to torture, and have his plans ruined. Whats his option? Dont say anything and destroy the earth, or give in to torture and have his plan folied and the rest of his life in jail?(sorry, had to carry on the ridiculous scenario)
    Theres not much point questioning the facts, i can simply tailor them to meet your points. The issue is in the end the choice - A or B. Is it morally wrong to choose B?
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by cottonmouth)
    Zoe- they are ust twisting what you said, doing the whole straw-man thing again. Because you said ALL TORTURE UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES IS WRONG WRONG WRONG they have jumped on it. Eventually you'll be accused of hypocrisy, if you havent been already. It doesnt matter. What you have said id basically the same as me. It should never be legal, but we can see circumsances where torture would or could be used. We however, do not condone it, whether it needs to be done for the greater good or not.
    You dont seem to know what staw men are. You use the term way too much when it doesnt apply.

    He said something, we questioned the wisdom of it. How is that straw anything? It was HIS argument - not one I've concocted to knock down.

    You seem to be doing it though. Inserting the word legal where none was to be found.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lawz-)
    You dont seem to know what staw men are. You use the term way too much when it doesnt apply.

    He said something, we questioned the wisdom of it. How is that straw anything? It was HIS argument - not one I've concocted to knock down.

    You seem to be doing it though. Inserting the word legal where none was to be found.
    Yeah, i do know what a straw man argument is. It is taking the weaker points of someone elses arguments and attacking those specifically, ignoring the stronger ones, so that you look right, when you really aren't. And by constantly trying to show Zoe to be a hypocrite because of her wording, you have made straw man arguments.

    We were talking lw and morality, from the beginning. The whole thread started when the guy said the police should be allowed to torture information out of people. That, therefore, is a law issue, and it was what i stuck to. Sorry for not riding beside you morality line.

    To answer the moral side, yes, B would be the immoral choice, if you don't believe in harming other peopel. It would be immoral from my standpoint to torture this guy. That doesn't mean i wouldn't do it. And it doesnt mean that i wouldn't sympathise with anyone else who would. But its immoral all the same. I do not believe in torture at all.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    Lawz:

    - I don't really know how your prison thing was relevent.

    - Quite possibly. Wherever it's from I agree. Original source would be welcome.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by cottonmouth)
    Yeah, i do know what a straw man argument is. It is taking the weaker points of someone elses arguments and attacking those specifically, ignoring the stronger ones, so that you look right, when you really aren't. And by constantly trying to show Zoe to be a hypocrite because of her wording, you have made straw man arguments.
    Actually that isnt what it is.

    It is an argument or opponent set up so as to be easily refuted or defeated. Ie - an argument that I have set up or concocted. Not one that exists.

    Pray tell though, how exactly am I choosing her weaker points? I picked her main contention and questioned it.

    The question at hand is - can torture ever be morally justified. How on earth am I ignoring the stronger points? Please enlighten me as to what they are?

    (Original post by cottonmouth)
    We were talking lw and morality, from the beginning.
    Her post that I responded to had nothing to do with law. You inserted tht.

    (Original post by cottonmouth)
    The whole thread started when the guy said the police should be allowed to torture information out of people. That, therefore, is a law issue, and it was what i stuck to. Sorry for not riding beside you morality line.
    Since I replied to HER post and not his and made a separate point, I dont see how that is relevant. We have constantly referred to MORALS not laws. I would have thought that would be clear.

    (Original post by cottonmouth)
    To answer the moral side, yes, B would be the immoral choice, if you don't believe in harming other peopel. It would be immoral from my standpoint to torture this guy. That doesn't mean i wouldn't do it. And it doesnt mean that i wouldn't sympathise with anyone else who would. But its immoral all the same. I do not believe in torture at all.
    That is rather circular. It also makes a false distnction between action and omission to act. If you have a choice to make where far more harm will result than if you make the alternate choice, then the choice nto to act is simply not in line with your basic moral precept.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by cottonmouth)
    Zoe- they are just twisting what you said, doing the whole straw-man thing again. Because you said ALL TORTURE UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES IS WRONG WRONG WRONG they have jumped on it. Eventually you'll be accused of hypocrisy, if you haven't been already. It doesn't matter. What you have said I'd basically the same as me. It should never be legal, but we can see circumsances where torture would or could be used. We however, do not condone it, whether it needs to be done for the greater good or not.
    But I admit to it. When pushed I may well be a hypocrite and not do the right thing. But I'd never kid myself that I had the moral high ground in doing it.

    I don't condone it as acceptable in any circumstances, it's wrong wrong wrong, as you say.

    But I doubt many would have the strengh to stand by this opinion in practice if they stood to lose someone they loved.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Zoecb)
    Lawz:

    - I don't really know how your prison thing was relevent.
    Your point was that torture was wrong - and to support that you said it contravened the golden rule - ie that you shoudl do unto others as you would have them do unto you.

    That reasoning aplies to ANY AND ALL punishment.

    Eg - dont imprison people because you ouldnt like to be imprisoned.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Zoecb)
    I don't condone it as acceptable in any circumstances, it's wrong wrong wrong, as you say.
    Why is it wrong?
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lawz-)
    (Original post by Zoecb)
    Lawz:

    - I don't really know how your prison thing was relevent.
    Your point was that torture was wrong - and to support that you said it contravened the golden rule - ie. that you should do unto others as you would have them do unto you.

    That reasoning aplies to ANY AND ALL punishment.

    Eg - don't imprison people because you wouldn't like to be imprisoned.
    You're being very simplistic. If I comitted a crime then yes I would deserve to be imprisoned, not because it is a punishment in a retaliation sense but because other people need to realise that crime is not acceptable.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Zoecb)
    You're being very simplistic. If I comitted a crime then yes I would deserve to be imprisoned, not because it is a punishment in a retaliation sense but because other people need to realise that crime is not acceptable.
    And torture would also be a demonstration that the crime was not acceptable. Your point draws no real distinction.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lawz-)
    Why is it wrong?
    Because no-one has the right to hurt someone else against their will! Why is rape wrong? Why is murder wrong? Do you think those are fine?
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lawz-)
    And torture would also be a demonstration that the crime was not acceptable. Your point draws no real distinction.
    Prison doesn't hurt you. You get landed there after a fair trial. Therefore it is acceptable.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Zoecb)
    Prison doesn't hurt you. You get landed there after a fair trial. Therefore it is acceptable.
    This is cyclical. You dont accept it bcause it's unacceptable.

    Anyway, its getting away from the main point.

    To say that torture is never acceptable is to say that it is unacceptable to choose scenario B and save all mankind.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lawz-)
    Actually that isnt what it is.

    It is an argument or opponent set up so as to be easily refuted or defeated. Ie - an argument that I have set up or concocted. Not one that exists.

    Pray tell though, how exactly am I choosing her weaker points? I picked her main contention and questioned it.

    The question at hand is - can torture ever be morally justified. How on earth am I ignoring the stronger points? Please enlighten me as to what they are?



    Her post that I responded to had nothing to do with law. You inserted tht.



    Since I replied to HER post and not his and made a separate point, I dont see how that is relevant. We have constantly referred to MORALS not laws. I would have thought that would be clear.



    That is rather circular. It also makes a false distnction between action and omission to act. If you have a choice to make where far more harm will result than if you make the alternate choice, then the choice nto to act is simply not in line with your basic moral precept.

    Dear dear, they must change the meaning of straw man a lot, because that is the way i learned it. You could say that both can be acceptable interpretations, because both refer to weak arguments being deconstructed. What i accused you specifically of was attacking her for saying absolutely that torture is wrong, knowing full well that she would have to concede if it got personal, thats all.

    The damn post is about law and morality, sorry for getting i the way of turning it one-sided!

    Yes it is in line with my moral precept. I stated that i MYSELF do not condone torture, and that i would if i had to, and that i can understand situations where other people would use it.

    The dichotomy allows me two options- to directly harm someone, or to indirectly harm many more. My moral is that I MYSELF don't agree with hurting others. So, omitting to act wouldn't affect my morals. Omission isn't a crime, and i don't believe it is morally wrong, particulalry if it conflicts with your base morals.

    Saying that, you've stilla ccused me wrongly. Because i said i would choose B, even though it is morally wrong in my opinion. The thoughts of the world and other people would override my own morals in this circumsance.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Zoecb)
    Because no-one has the right to hurt someone else against their will! Why is rape wrong? Why is murder wrong? Do you think those are fine?
    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.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lawz-)
    This is cyclical. You dont accept it bcause it's unacceptable.

    Anyway, its getting away from the main point.

    To say that torture is never acceptable is to say that it is unacceptable to choose scenario B and save all mankind.
    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 elses body.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by cottonmouth)
    Dear dear, they must change the meaning of straw man a lot, because that is the way i learned it. You could say that both can be acceptable interpretations, because both refer to weak arguments being deconstructed. What i accused you specifically of was attacking her for saying absolutely that torture is wrong, knowing full well that she would have to concede if it got personal, thats all.
    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?

    (Original post by cottonmouth)
    The damn post is about law and morality, sorry for getting i the way of turning it one-sided!
    You replied to my point, with a completely unrelated issue. If you wanted to address the OP - then quote him - not me.

    (Original post by cottonmouth)
    Yes it is in line with my moral precept. I stated that i MYSELF do not condone torture, and that i would if i had to, and that i can understand situations where other people would use it.
    What is your moral precept on which this judgement is based?

    (Original post by cottonmouth)
    The dichotomy allows me two options- to directly harm someone, or to indirectly harm many more. My moral is that I MYSELF don't agree with hurting others. So, omitting to act wouldn't affect my morals.
    That's a fairly baseless distinction. When you get to law school read some Hart and Honore on caustation.

    (Original post by cottonmouth)
    Omission isn't a crime, and i don't believe it is morally wrong, particulalry if it conflicts with your base morals.
    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.

    (Original post by cottonmouth)
    Saying that, you've stilla ccused me wrongly. Because i said i would choose B, even though it is morally wrong in my opinion.
    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?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by The Ace is Back)
    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.
    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.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by cottonmouth)
    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.
    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.
 
 
 
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
Do I go to The Streets tomorrow night?
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.