Turn on thread page Beta

Torture watch

Announcements
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    cottonmouth your points about people picking up on crap arguments is so silly - of course people pick up on crap arguments, it's only right that these arguments are put down as fast as possible.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lawz-)
    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?
    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. But of course, i would vote for him to do so.
    Offline

    11
    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.
    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!

    (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.

    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.
    Same here.

    (Original post by Lawz-)
    You would choose the immoral option over the moral one? Why?
    To save the world.

    These morals are absolute and based on the individual. The logic of that being that if each individual acted in this moral way, we wouldn't have these problems, and following an absolute morality yourself if leading by example.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by cottonmouth)
    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.
    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.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lawz-)
    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.
    No, i said that my morals say that i should never harm another person, because it is wrong to do so. And i've got the law to back me up there. Go and look there to seek why harming others is wrong.

    Greater good is morally right in my opinion too. But the two things are not synonymous. These are separate issues. You could do something for the greater good without breaking any of your own moral codes.

    However, in the sitution you gave me, these two moral principles conflict each other. Shall i go with the moral that wants the greater good for everyone? Or the moral that dictates that i do no harm to another? I've aid which one i'd go for. But choosing one moral over another doesn't negate the other moral. I would be acting immorally in one sense, morally in another, depending on which was more important, and which would have the biggest knock- on effect.

    In any case, since your hypothetical situation is so out-there, we cant really use ot to advocate a change in laws, which are based in moral codes.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Zoecb)
    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!
    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.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by cottonmouth)
    Stop with the straw man stuff, it isn't relevent- i was probably wrong to accuse you. End of that one.
    done.

    (Original post by cottonmouth)
    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.
    Again - Im not talking about Law. Or at least I am only doing so because you keep bringing it up.

    (Original post by cottonmouth)
    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.
    I altered the scenari oto remove the personal element.

    (Original post by cottonmouth)
    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.
    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.

    (Original post by cottonmouth)
    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!
    Obviously, though one an highlight that your morals produce a fairly absurd result as we see below:
    (Original post by cottonmouth)
    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.
    To most that would be ridiculous. But yes - of course - we can all chooe our own moral system .
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by The Ace is Back)
    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.
    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 was showing the flaws in your logic, from that post. Now you've gone a step further to explain yourself, which is better than the previous effort. Well done.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    Which am I? (I've never been called a socialist before... and I really wouldn't say I'm narrow minded).

    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.)
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lawz-)
    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 .
    Read post 65
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lawz-)
    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.
    Because you're not causing it! You didn't plant a bomb. You have done nothing wrong. The criminal is causing it.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by cottonmouth)
    Why did you have to add idiot? It would have been a fine reply without the use of jibes.
    I find the word describes you perfectly.

    (Original post by cottonmouth)
    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. Did I talk about the intrinsic morals of the means (torture)? No. I focused on the [b]ends[b] as desirable. The ends being the prevention of the loss of at least one life. Read, think, speak. Not the other way round.
    Offline

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

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Zoecb)
    In my example it was the same end. And yet you're calling one form of pain-infliction more wrong than another. Why?
    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.

    (Original post by Zoecb)
    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.)
    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?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by cottonmouth)
    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.
    You think I'm laughing over here? Jesus you have an odd sense of humour.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Zoecb)
    Because you're not causing it! You didn't plant a bomb. You have done nothing wrong. The criminal is causing it.
    INDIRECTLY YOU ARE RESPONSIBLE. The two roughly equate, the distinction between the two is a mere technicality.
    Offline

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


    *Bring back Lawz!*
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by The Ace is Back)
    INDIRECTLY YOU ARE RESPONSIBLE. The two roughly equate, the distinction between the two is a mere technicality.
    Wrong you are. You aren't in any way responsible, as the law says. What do you want? It to be a crime to omit from action? You always argue the state forces too much on us, but you want them to force us to act on situations that have nothing to do with us too?
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by The Ace is Back)
    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.
    Rape could be considered a form of torture. One that clearly disgusts you. The types that you're condoning have an equally disgusting effect imo.

    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?
    They don't have the right to and neither do we.


    You don't seem to understand what 'It would be wrong for me to do it' means. Murder is wrong, right? Everyone can agree on that. It still happens. People do go against their own morals. Obviously, total psychopaths don't really have morals but sometimes otherwise good people have been provoked to murder... crime of passion and all that. I'm not saying it's right I'm saying it happens and although we don't condone it, it's roughly understandable. Still wrong though, isn't it?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by cottonmouth)
    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.
    If it is morally wrong, it is unjustifiable. How then can you say that others are also entitled to that right?
 
 
 
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 you think parents should charge rent?
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.