This is what you wrote:
And this gem:
Again, the general tone of your posts gives the reader an idea of where you stand.
CLedet: Which is where? You’re telling me what I’ve said (which I don’t deny or repudiate), but you’re not telling me what you think that means. Are you incensed because I seem to support bin Laden over the United States or because I don’t think the United States has any sort of moral superiority? Where do I stand, in your analysis?
spoke-: The ‘ticking bomb’ scenario is exactly the kind of abstract scenario that has no place in a discussion of a very real situation. God forbid anyone should actually decide to carry out such a plan, but if something like that should happen, it won’t be as a result of such a clear-cut case (irrational hatred of the US) that the US would have any claim to absolute moral justification. Such an attack, like those of September 11, would be carried out because the attackers (rightly, IMO) view the US as an oppressor and see this as the only effective way to strike back. They won’t plant a bomb in NYC simply because 150 million women aren’t forced to wear the burqa or because our leaders don’t force us to bow towards Mecca five times a day.
Ok, Olentzero, but I didn’t ask you whether the hypothetical terrorist attack might be justified. (You seem to think it might be.)
I’m asking what you would do if you were in a position of authority in the scenario I described. Can you answer that question?
It’s an abstract scenario. It’s Frank Stockton’s “Lady and the Tiger.” If I say “Yes, torture him,” then you can say “Aha, so torture is justifiable to you under certain circumstances, so your anti-torture sentiment doesn’t amount to a hill of beans.” If I say “No, don’t torture him,” then you can say “Nice going, you just sentenced the entire city of New York to a horrific, agonizing death.” I lose either way.
I don’t play those games.
Don’t you people get the pattern yet?
Morals, laws and treaties are to bash others around the head with.
As soon as it is ‘not in America’s interest’ it all goes out the window.
[Geddy Lee]
If you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice.
[/Geddy Lee]
Me, I say it’s a morally acceptable choice to break out the cattle prods to prevent the ticking bomb from exploding, provided that you know the bomb exists and that there are no alternative means to prevent its explosion. Of course, such a situation is a far cry from what our government is doing to detainees at Baghram Air Base.
minty green - that’s as may be (re: Geddy Lee), but I still fail to see how contructing a straw man is any constructive way to conduct a debate.
It’s not a strawman–just an intellectual exercise, and one that bears little or no relationship to the actions described in the Post article. You can freely answer the hypothetical without fear of compromising your stance on the current activities of the U.S. government, since the situations are in no way comparable.
That’s exactly what a straw man is, minty - an illogical situation (e.g. one that bears little or no relationship to the real scenario under discussion) constructed solely to “prove” the untenability of an assertion or sentiment. They don’t move the debate around the issue forward - in fact, it’s nothing more than a distraction. IMO, a complete waste of time.
Actually, a strawman occurs when, instead of dealing with an opponent’s actual beliefs, the speaker attacks a different, but superficially similar argument. For example, I could attack you as being a supporter of Osama bin Laden instead of dealing with your actual belief that America has plenty of blood on its hands in re: the Islamic world. The ticking bomb scenario, at worst, is merely a rhetorical device for determining whether you really believe that torture is never acceptable.
The Socratic method, a complete waste of time?
If used properly, no it’s not. But my understanding of the Socratic method is the reverse of what’s going on here - the use of real-world, actually occurring, examples to expose the logical weaknesses in a person’s position.
At what point between ticking bomb and prisoners at the base does torture become unacceptable? Is there a life ratio, say, if it’ll save 1 million lives, it should be used; but when you hit 100 the moral and social implications outweigh the lives that will be saved?
Me? I take the easy stance, that it isn’t acceptable, period. I don’t trust that if it is acceptable, that the fact that it can be acceptable won’t be used to make the practice more and more common. Once you dehumanize the target, it’s not like you’re doing this to real person.
On consideration, I also find the implication that medical personnell are cooperating to be disturbing; pain medication being withheld during questioning to a man shot in the groin, or sly comments that
pain management is subjective.
I’ll agree that the “ticking bomb” scenario represents the first step down a slippery slope. Which is why torture should remain illegal under all circumstances.
Moral absolutism is a dangerous thing too, though. Leads to zealotry, IMHO.
On checking a couple sources, I withdraw the accusation of “straw man”. It’s more of a false dichotomy, but still an unproductive intellectual exercise.
I don’t think all causation of pain is inherently bad, which would be the moral absolutist position. Surgery causes pain, but its intent is to ameliorate or alleviate a condition - moreover, advances in medical science over the past century and a half has greatly reduced the amount of pain a patient is forced to endure while undergoing surgery. I have no objections whatsoever to surgery and medical practice.
Torture, on the other hand, is the deliberate causation of pain to achieve a goal that is of direct benefit to the torturer - with no intent of pain relief being applied, unless eitiher the goal is met or it becomes part of the strategic plan to achieve that goal. This is what I object to, both strenuously and absolutely. It is not, however, moral absolutism.
It is neither a straw man nor a false dichotomy.
It is, as minty said, a thought exercise desgned to make you think about whether you are truly an absolutist. It is not really important to me that you answer, only that you consider the question.
-
I have never conceded that the UN “definition” of torture is valid. It isn’t. It is meaningless in the extreme, so much so that nearly any punishment, or no punishment could be made to fit. Like all such BS UN rhetoric, it was made by a commitee who made it both weasle-worded & PC at the same time. The US did not “agree” to it- they signed it as a meaningless political gesture. I haven’t seen any of the dictionaries the Goverment uses changed to include that meaningless “definition”, nor will we ever.
-
Look to my first post. There I used a valid definition of “torture”, one that I agree with. Physical pain. Not annoyances- no matter how “severe”. I don’t need to define “severe” in the context of your meaningless UN defintion- that’s the whole point. They used a word that is so open, that even using the UN definition of “torture” one can argue that the things the US is being accused of are not “torture”- EVEN UNDER THAT DEFINITION.
-
Right- none of the details are confirmed- so why do you assume the US is guilty? If we can’t punish these “suspected terrorists” becuase “innocent until proven guilty”- why do you so happily condemn the US as guilty of torture? I was willing to concede the agents of the US used questioning methods that made the suspected terrorists uncomfortable.
-
Exactly- and there won’t be any. That resolution is toothless & meaningless. And, if Heads of State were to be convicted under it for “torture”- then most of the members who signed that thing would be rotting in jail cells long before they got to us. And another reason there won’t be any- the US did not commit any acts of “torture”.
-
Hmm, Jon Benet? OK, the poster who can come up with the most logical fallacies this last line comes under wins a prize.
:rolleyes:
It does nothing, however, to further the course of this debate, and in fact distracts from the main theme of whether or not the US is somehow morally justified in the use of torture against Afghani prisoners for whatever goal it is they hope to achieve.
**
So, the US cannot be trusted to keep the agreements it signs?
**
For the purposes of this debate, I am saying that if the US is employing torture, it is in the wrong. ‘Uncomfortable’ is a very comfortable word. ‘They’re just uncomfortable, it’s not really hurting them.’ At what point does uncomfortable turn into torture? That’s a subjective point. Possibly one for debate. However, the US has condemned beatings et al when employed by other nations as interrogation techniques. If the US is using them now, it is a hypocracy I will not support.