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 The Ace is Back)
    Give them a ****load of money and a formal apology. That's all you can do really. Thing is though, I wouldn't torture the guy in the first place unless I had some kind of reason. If you knew there was going to be a terrorist act happening that day which would cost the lives of millions, and this was your only lead, surely you would do the same?
    Well I've no idea what I'd do. I'd hardly be comfortable with torturing someone
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Vienna)
    Thats not what the original statement says. Your actions would dictate that you were wilfully in favour of using torture, which voids your claim that you're "completely against torture of ANYONE in ANY SITUATION ever"
    She already backed down from this rather daft position earlier on.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by naivesincerity)
    Well I've no idea what I'd do. I'd hardly be comfortable with torturing someone
    I wouldn't torture him myself, good heavens no. I don't see that it's a very difficult choice to make though - having someone torture him (temporary physical pain) and potentially preventing the loss of lives, or opting for the alternative which is the certain loss of millions of lives.
    Offline

    0
    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.
    The charge? "Twisting what you said"

    Evidence: "I am completely against torture of ANYONE in ANY SITUATION ever"

    "It should never be legal, but we can see circumsances where torture would or could be used."

    So having seen circumstances where it would be used, and Zoecb has told us that she would engage in torture in these circumstances, we assume she took a wilful decision to engage in torture rather than not act. That is to say, she favoured torture in that circumstance.

    Conclusion? Nothing needs to be twisted on our part because the original statement has been rejected by clarifications on the matter since. This was the very point Lawz and others set out to make.

    The only twisting that appears to be going on is on your part.

    "I am completely against torture of ANYONE in ANY SITUATION ever", which you have translated into a matter of legality, "It should never be legal, but"

    I think Lawz has already pointed out your misunderstanding in regards to a straw man.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by The Ace is Back)
    She already backed down from this rather daft position earlier on.
    Looked like squirming to me. In any case Lawz did a good job of presenting why such a position of inaction is likely to be considered 'immoral' by the majority of our society.

    We may agree that two courses of action can be considered immoral but when faced with a moral choice between one immorality and another, one must favour the one that, by virture of the other, is of greater good. This would render such a decision justifiably moral.

    In the general scenario that has been repeated on the thread: To spare a criminal(that Zoecb is willing to otherwise punish) physical pain is to choose, through inaction, the deaths of others. Which is (more)immoral?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Yeah Lawz clearly won this one hands down.

    As for the last bit of your post, hasn't it all already been covered? The only confusion which seems to arise is when people either:

    a) don't understand the points being made

    or

    b) seem to think morality = law
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Vienna)
    That's not what the original statement says. Your actions would dictate that you were wilfully in favour of using torture, which voids your claim that you're "completely against torture of ANYONE in ANY SITUATION ever"
    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.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Zoe - seriously, re-read the thread. It's all been covered.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    Me, re-read the thread??? I know! Covered by me! I think Vienna needs to re-read the thread...
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Zoecb)
    I just am. Hurting others is wrong. Hurting them because they have hurt others is still wrong. *Digs up Ghandi's eye for an eye and everyone's blind quote* - Criminals hurt others. In a civilised world we need a civilised justice system.

    Torture is unnacceptable no matter who does it.
    yes and look at our society where criminals increasingly ignore and poke fun at the law and the law then increasingly gets softer and softer beacuse of PC people screaming about human rights and those who break the law keep laughing at us.

    sometimes it takes a sword to defeat a sword
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Vienna)
    Looked like squirming to me. In any case Lawz did a good job of presenting why such a position of inaction is likely to be considered 'immoral' by the majority of our society.

    We may agree that two courses of action can be considered immoral but when faced with a moral choice between one immorality and another, one must favour the one that, by virture of the other, is of greater good. This would render such a decision justifiably moral.

    In the general scenario that has been repeated on the thread: To spare a criminal(that Zoecb is willing to otherwise punish) physical pain is to choose, through inaction, the deaths of others. Which is (more)immoral?

    Honestly, we all resolved this ages ago. I was defending Zoe becaus ei knew what she was trying to say, but they took her words to literally without bothering to giv her any scope to advance what she meant, it was just pendantic attitudes all round.

    I'm glad that you agree with me then, because Lawz didn't concerning having two sets of morals and having to choose the one which is more beneficial. What i was saying is that i find torture morally wrong and i don't believe it should EVER be legal. However, i cans ee situations- albeit over-the-top unlikely situations- where i would have to use it myself. For example, if my younger siblings were raped and murdered, i'd not be able to stop myself from attacking whoever did it. Or if there was a bomb about to blow the world up(:rolleyes: ), then i would have a moral dilemma. Do i save everyone, as it is in my moral nature to help others. Or do i torture someone, though it is in my moral nature not to hurt others? In the end, one moral has to trump the other, doesn't it?

    But though the choice would justify the torture, it still wouldn't be morally okay to do it. You would judt have to override your own sense of morals- for the greater good.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by cottonmouth)
    I'm glad that you agree with me then, because Lawz didn't concerning having two sets of morals and having to choose the one which is more beneficial.


    Thats not what I said at ALL .

    You cant have ABSOLUTE moral precepts like:

    "One should ensure the greatest good"

    and

    "One should never torture"

    Because they are inconsistent. Im not saying people have ONLY ONE moral rule for themselves.

    (Original post by cottonmouth)
    What i was saying is that i find torture morally wrong and i don't believe it should EVER be legal.


    Legality was not at issue.

    (Original post by cottonmouth)
    Or if there was a bomb about to blow the world up( ), then i would have a moral dilemma. Do i save everyone, as it is in my moral nature to help others. Or do i torture someone, though it is in my moral nature not to hurt others? In the end, one moral has to trump the other, doesn't it?


    PRECISELY. You modify one moral to accommodate your moral choice.

    You cannot on the one hand say - It is immoral to torture no matter what.

    And on the other say - It is immoral not to act to prevent the destruction of all humankind.

    (Original post by cottonmouth)
    But though the choice would justify the torture, it still wouldn't be morally okay to do it. You would judt have to override your own sense of morals- for the greater good.


    If your metric for morality IS the greatest god, then that makes no sense.

    Why is the greatest good important if it is not a moral issue?

    What IS your metric for morality?
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Cadre_Of_Storms)
    yes and look at our society where criminals increasingly ignore and poke fun at the law and the law then increasingly gets softer and softer beacuse of PC people screaming about human rights and those who break the law keep laughing at us.

    sometimes it takes a sword to defeat a sword
    I disagree. I'm with Martin Luther King when he said that only light could drive out darkness.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Zoecb)
    I disagree. I'm with Martin Luther King when he said that only light could drive out darkness.
    Catchy - but obviously wrong in this example.

    "Light! Drive out the darkness! No torture! Love! Hugs! Kisses! No Violence!

    Boom."
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    Lets get this clear then - which decision is the right one MORALLY?

    A or B?

    forget which you would choose - which one is the most immoral?
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    Was A leave everything as it is but everyone has their human rights intact and B "We barge in, much in the style of John Wayne?" and save the world?

    OK, A is the right one morally, but most people would choose B because let's face it, on a personal level, our friends and relatives are more important to us than our principles.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lawz-)
    Lets get this clear then - which decision is the right one MORALLY?

    A or B?

    forget which you would choose - which one is the most immoral?
    Are we presuming that John definately knows where the bomb is and that he will tell us exactly where it is if we torture him and only if we torture him? Because surely it's immoral to inflict physical harm if on an individual who know nothing.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Zoecb)
    I disagree. I'm with Martin Luther King when he said that only light could drive out darkness.
    And look what happened to him.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Kapster)
    Are we presuming that John definately knows where the bomb is and that he will tell us exactly where it is if we torture him and only if we torture him? Because surely it's immoral to inflict physical harm if on an individual who know nothing.
    We are sure. Sure. He will. Sure.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Howard)
    And look what happened to him.
    On a roll it seems.
 
 
 
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.