I Remember When America was Good

The BBQ Pit
81

Eh, it’s a poor example for exactly that reason - it gives you an out to weasel. But let’s say it was murder. I just randomly shot the guy. Is it not murder until I’m legally sentenced to it? What if no one ever catches me? Am I not a murderer?

We can all agree that putting someone into some of that sick medieval torture shit was torture, right? The iron maiden, and that thing that stretched your limbs until they ripped off, etc. Would me kidnapping you and pulling your limbs off that way not constitute torture because maybe it didn’t technically fit some applicable law’s definition, or if instead of torture I called it HAPPY FUN TIME WITH MY GOOD BUDDY RAND ROVER?

Seriously, you’re better than this. You aren’t afraid to take bold ideological stances that you know people aren’t going to like. So just do the honest thing here, admit you support torture. I still think you would have a detestable view, but at least you wouldn’t have a detestable view and be a total weasel on top of it.

82

I see I get no answer for this.

Rand Rover, is a disingenuous coward. What a moron, can’t even answer basic questions about his support of war crimes.

83

You’re right. That’s why we’re not searching and stretching and philosophizing to show that. That’s FoxNews and the Republicans who are doing that.

No. We were not born with white hats on. It is not okay for us to do bad things just because it’s us and we want to. To think otherwise is to be a sociopath.

So a tribal approach to society is a good way to spend all your time fighting wars with “others”. I mean, imagine the taxes you’d have to pay for all that military spending…:wink:

84

Well, if part of the assumed facts of the hypo are that each and every element of murder as defined by the applicable jurisdiction has been met, then I agree that you are a murderer. But the torture issue isn’t like that–we don’t know whether all elements are met, we don’t even know what all the elements are. People are just using their own judgement about whether something constitutes torture and are acting like the world at large should accept that judgement. That’s not how it works–we have courts to decide that sort of thing.

Here’s an example–is Obama a “natural-born citizen”? I don’t know. I don’t even know if I am a natural-born citizen, although all facts would seem to line up in my favor. A court has never fleshed out what that term means, so it’s impossible to know. People that decide he’s not a natural-born citizen and therefore shouldn’t be president are just as stupid as people that decide that the US’s use of water-boarding is torture.

85

OK, so for starters, the Golden Rule is out. Gotcha.

But when you say “we” do you mean in a States’ Rights sense? So if you’re from, say, Georgia, then slavery was good because “we” were doing it, and the lack of slavery in Pennsylvania was bad bacause “they” were not doing it?

86

I’ve answered this question about five times in this thread. There is no objective definition of “OK.” It is OK if we do it and not OK if they do it because we are we and they are they.

87

This is ridiculous. My approach does not lead to endlessly fighting others. I’m not saying that we have an obligation to fight them because they are bad. We can choose not to fight based on practical realities.

88

That doesn’t make any sense unless you’ve been eating paint chips, or are trolling.

I’ve decided your parents aren’t in my group, my “we”. Is it okay if I start torturing them? Why or not?

89

And people are saying that the above is a moral bankrupt philosophy. We’re trying to rise above that.

90

Still?

91

Sometimes, the choice isn’t yours to make.

You can say that as an American in 2010, secure in the knowledge that, realistically speaking, your nation, at this time, faces no serious external threats to its continued existence.

Without that overweening sense of raw power, you might be more amenable to non-violent methods of restraining potetial enemies. Such as agreeing to shared moral principles.

That is also a practical reality.

92

You only have this choice, because someone else is doing the fighting for you somewhere else and protecting your right to have this choice.

93

Whoa, wait a second, I want to address the 2nd part of your tautology: How is it NOT OK for them to do it?

Setting aside the scenario of them doing “it” to us but rather to a 3rd party, doesn’t the party commiting the act get to decide whether the act is bad or not? In the absence of community standards (and clarify for us the extent to which you think there shold be community standards), isn’t everything OK?

94

Yeah good point. It’s not “not OK” just because they do it, it’s just that we can say it’s not OK if we want to.

95

Saying it is a “morally bankrupt” philosophy has no objective meaning. You are just saying “I don’t like it,” which is fine of course.

96

Does morality ever have an objective meaning? If so, please share.

97

Bryan, see my posts in the GD thread on deontology and utilitarianism. I subscribe to “emotivism,” which means that I think when someone says “that’s immoral” all they are saying is “I don’t like it,” and there is no more objective content to their statement than that.

98

Yes it fucking does have meaning. 'You stupid fucker.

If I torture your parents because I’ve decided they’re in the “they” category, am I doing anything wrong?

Why won’t you answer this question?

99

As has already been pointed out to you, dipshit, both in this thread and others, we tried, convicted, and executed Japanese people for waterboarding.

100

Okay, but what, if anything, has moral objective value to you? It should not be at all hard to provide examples.