Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

The Torture Problem Watch

Announcements
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Okorange)
    I would rather die fighting than die being executed by the enemy.
    Yes i would also.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    Unfortunately forcing prisoners to commit horrific acts against other prisoners including friends / and or family is a common form of torture in use world wide.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by bubadeeboop)
    I'm playing no game, I genuinly didn't understand what your point is.


    I insist on my viewpoint because it is the law, it's not unjustified since it is based in fact. I know my ****, why do you think British troops are punished harshly for breaches of military law? We have LOAC drummed into us before deployment on operational tours, for a number of reasons, breaches turn the local population against us, if the media discover it, it turns public opinion against us and it harms the repuatation of the Army.

    The fact I have engaged opposing views and carried out a long drawn discussion over the issue surely indicates that I am not ignoring arguments, I have even admitted my own mistake on grey areas of the issue of duress.

    I have also said that morality is an individual concept and differs from person to person.

    So the only thing I can imagine you have taken issue with ...is the fact I didn't say in my opinion at the end of my statement?

    I really am having diffuculty understanding what your issue is.
    Let's rewind then!

    I don't know much about regular law let alone military law, so I'm taking your word for that. No problems.

    My objection was that in your first post (that I quoted; not necessarily the first in the thread) you specified that you were talking about legal and moral justification, and then you said that it was wrong however one tries to justify it. Since you'd specified you were talking about morality and not just the law, and since everyone in the thread had been talking about morality itself, I took your viewpoint to be that you thought it was wrong and weren't prepared to listen to the arguments suggesting otherwise. It's the bit in italics I took issue with.

    I haven't personally commented because I'm not sure. Morality is tough, and there's a voice in my head saying "obviously you shouldn't rape the prisoner you ****ing moron, you're not a criminal"... but I'm not knowledgeable enough to tear apart the utilitarian arguments others have been making. So for now I'm sitting back and thinking more about how I determine what is right and wrong.
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Implication)
    Let's rewind then!

    I don't know much about regular law let alone military law, so I'm taking your word for that. No problems.

    My objection was that in your first post (that I quoted; not necessarily the first in the thread) you specified that you were talking about legal and moral justification, and then you said that it was wrong however one tries to justify it. Since you'd specified you were talking about morality and not just the law, and since everyone in the thread had been talking about morality itself, I took your viewpoint to be that you thought it was wrong and weren't prepared to listen to the arguments suggesting otherwise. It's the bit in italics I took issue with.

    I haven't personally commented because I'm not sure. Morality is tough, and there's a voice in my head saying "obviously you shouldn't rape the prisoner you ****ing moron, you're not a criminal"... but I'm not knowledgeable enough to tear apart the utilitarian arguments others have been making. So for now I'm sitting back and thinking more about how I determine what is right and wrong.

    So, as I understand it, your disagreement is with me not framing my statment as an opinion? ... or that I didn't give written permission for people to disagree with me?

    I mean I made the assumption that people know when I am employing opinion and know they were free to disagree with.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by bubadeeboop)
    So, as I understand it, your disagreement is with me not framing my statment as an opinion? ... or that I didn't give written permission for people to disagree with me?

    I mean I made the assumption that people know when I am employing opinion and know they were free to disagree with.
    Well, is saying "x is wrong" just an opinion? Many people here (possibly myself included) would disagree, and argue that moral statements describe objective reality in the same way that other material statements do.

    That aside, my problem wasn't that you didn't give permission for people to disagree with you; it was that you seemed to be implying that you didn't care what reasons people had for disagreeing with you. And that is basically the definition of narrow-mindedness!
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Implication)
    Well, is saying "x is wrong" just an opinion? Many people here (possibly myself included) would disagree, and argue that moral statements describe objective reality in the same way that other material statements do.
    If someone says homosexuality is wrong, is that an opinion? If someone says it is right, is that an opinon? If I say something it is obviously my opinion, it is the way I see things ...and to be quite honest this segment of the discussion is becoming rapidly stale.
    How should I have worded my opinion and should I get you to double check everything I write from now on?

    (Original post by Implication)
    That aside, my problem wasn't that you didn't give permission for people to disagree with you; it was that you seemed to be implying that you didn't care what reasons people had for disagreeing with you. And that is basically the definition of narrow-mindedness!
    I don't care, I will listen to counter arguments, and I am open to correction, as can plainly be seen in the course of this thread. It's not about disagreeing with me, I was just explaining the law.

    i said

    "obey that order and you have no defence no protection, legal or moral, you are a rapist and war criminal"

    So tell me two things.

    What is a rapist?

    What is a war criminal?


    Then tell me about how I am wrong.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by bubadeeboop)
    If someone says homosexuality is wrong, is that an opinion? If someone says it is right, is that an opinon? If I say something it is obviously my opinion, it is the way I see things ...and to be quite honest this segment of the discussion is becoming rapidly stale.
    Well if that's what you mean by "opinion" then just because something is an opinion doesn't make it immune to criticism or questioning so I'm not sure of the relevance!


    How should I have worded my opinion and should I get you to double check everything I write from now on?



    I don't care, I will listen to counter arguments, and I am open to correction, as can plainly be seen in the course of this thread. It's not about disagreeing with me, I was just explaining the law.

    i said

    "obey that order and you have no defence no protection, legal or moral, you are a rapist and war criminal"

    So tell me two things.

    What is a rapist?

    What is a war criminal?


    Then tell me about how I am wrong.
    I feel like this is getting more and more confused since you keep asking me about the bits I wasn't really disputing! Let's be clear: are you unwilling to listen to arguments as to why it might be moral (forget legal) to obey the order? If you are unwilling, then you are narrow-minded, and if this is what you meant in that original post that I replied to then the debates forum is not an appropriate place for you to post. If you are willing, then this is entire conversation has just been one massive miscommunication and I'm quite happy to apologise and leave it at that!
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Implication)
    Well if that's what you mean by "opinion" then just because something is an opinion doesn't make it immune to criticism or questioning so I'm not sure of the relevance!
    I never claimed opinion was immune from criticism and I agree about not being sure of the relevance, of this debate, I am pretty confused.

    (Original post by Implication)
    I feel like this is getting more and more confused since you keep asking me about the bits I wasn't really disputing! Let's be clear: are you unwilling to listen to arguments as to why it might be moral (forget legal) to obey the order? If you are unwilling, then you are narrow-minded, and if this is what you meant in that original post that I replied to then the debates forum is not an appropriate place for you to post. If you are willing, then this is entire conversation has just been one massive miscommunication and I'm quite happy to apologise and leave it at that!
    No, no I am not unwilling, hence why I engaged in a discussion.

    No one has made a really convincing argument about morality beyond, it would lessen their suffering ...which is preposterous because Private Jack has no idea what the result of his refusal to obey the order will actually result in, regardless of what he has been told will will happen.

    Even if the victim would 100% deffinatly be raped and murdered either way, do people think the victim will be grateful that Jack gently raped and murdered them?
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by bubadeeboop)
    I never claimed opinion was immune from criticism and I agree about not being sure of the relevance, of this debate, I am pretty confused.



    No, no I am not unwilling, hence why I engaged in a discussion.
    Our discussion has been on a different point (or not, since we both seem confused about that was now!) Regardless, I apologise for the confusion.


    No one has made a really convincing argument about morality beyond, it would lessen their suffering ...which is preposterous because Private Jack has no idea what the result of his refusal to obey the order will actually result in, regardless of what he has been told will will happen.

    Even if the victim would 100% deffinatly be raped and murdered either way, do people think the victim will be grateful that Jack gently raped and murdered them?
    Aye, but I gathered the point of the thought experiment was to test this kind of "minimise suffering" view of morality. Of course it's preposterous to think "Jack" could know precisely what will happen, but I think the element of uncertainty is deliberately removed in order to test the worldview. If you were 100% certain she would be raped and murdered violently and you were 100% certain you could reduce this, what would be the moral course of action? If you subscribe to utilitarianism, it seems the answer is simple - you obey. And yet I think anyone lacking sociopathic tendencies is made uncomfortable by this idea, and it's probably the sort of thing that does stop people sticking with such ethical theories.

    Anyway, I'm out because I haven't resolved my own moral compass yet. Goodnight.
 
 
 
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Will you be richer or poorer than your parents?
    Useful resources
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • 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

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