Am I evil?: You decide.

[RandomGuy]

Let's see what an informal poll pulls up.

BEGIN EDIT, probably a day too late:

This question is to be taken on its face, with no other intended or implied interpretations.

It was not intended to be code words for "if I torture terrorists..."

I am simply trying to determine if it is reasonable to conclude that someone is evil if you know nothing about them other than the fact that they torture other people. No more, no less.

I hope that helps clarify the issue.

[clambake]

freeloaders are evil, unless you're republican.

[Yonivore]

Rephrase the question:

"I torture a terrorist because I know he has information that will save innocent lives. Am I evil?"

A) Yes

B) No

C) It won't make a difference. Those who believe I'm evil won't change their opinion and those who don't will understand the rationale.

Try that one.

[balli]

Not the torture, but only because you're human. And apparently Jesus absolves you of this, if you so choose, so just accept Christ and you'll be good to go. But I can't vote three, because I feel that being a torturer would work to enhance the evilness that is already inherently human. And I'm not sure about Jesus's views on the extra evil amongst us- they might be fucked.

[Oh, Gee!!]

Or--

Can Yoni provide any credible evidence when torture saved innocent lives?

a--yes, but the evidence will cite only hearsay about some vague information that probably saved lives somewhere at some time.

b--no

c--he should go back to plagarizing bloggers

[ChumpDumper]

D) Life is exactly like 24.

[timvp]

The colon after the question mark was pretty evil.

[DarrinS]

If you torture a terrorist, you are my friend.

[doobs]

Please define "torture"--otherwise, yes you're evil for making such a stupid poll.

[Phenomanul]

Rendition was a great movie...

I believe we should invest in thought extraction technologies (i.e. true lie detection capability - currently being developed at MIT)... that type of technology would definitely solve this dilemma... among other things, such as:

Prevent innocent people from ending up in our penitentiary system.

Reduce fraudulent litigation, which in turn would reduce:
--Attorney costs
--Insurance costs
--Court costs
--Prison costs
--Price of healthcare

Reduce fraudulent entitlement to federal aid, which in turn would reduce:
--Magnitude of federal aid.
--Number of lazy people who take themselves out of the workforce at taxpayers expense...
--amount of red-tape required for people to receive genuinely needed aid.
--Price of medicine...

This type of technology would solve many of our society's problems if properly used. It would push people towards truthful living... because you wouldn't be able to lie to judges, juries, government workers, police, insurance adjusters etc...

[spurster]

Does the wishful end justify the evil means?

[dg7md]

Horribly written question, as in general torturing is seen as a vicious crime and tediously evil technique with selfish payoff with a consensus going to pretty much say that yes, you are evil if you do that.

However if you meant torture in a war-like sense against terrorists, while still I believe torture in that way is just as bad as they'd do to people (we are above terrorists in terms of what we should do), it can be disputed greatly through people's perspectives about what it could accomplish.

[RobinsontoDuncan]

Rendition was a great movie...

I believe we should invest in thought extraction technologies (i.e. true lie detection capability - currently being developed at MIT)... that type of technology would definitely solve this dilemma... among other things, such as:

Prevent innocent people from ending up in our penitentiary system.

Reduce fraudulent litigation, which in turn would reduce:
--Attorney costs
--Insurance costs
--Court costs
--Prison costs
--Price of healthcare

Reduce fraudulent entitlement to federal aid, which in turn would reduce:
--Magnitude of federal aid.
--Number of lazy people who take themselves out of the workforce at taxpayers expense...
--amount of red-tape required for people to receive genuinely needed aid.
--Price of medicine...

This type of technology would solve many of our society's problems if properly used. It would push people towards truthful living... because you wouldn't be able to lie to judges, juries, government workers, police, insurance adjusters etc...

Thought extraction technologies? are you fucking serious?

Ok--well I guess there goes any remaining semblance of free society, how's it going big brother?

[romad_20]

Thought extraction technologies? are you fucking serious?

Ok--well I guess there goes any remaining semblance of free society, how's it going big brother?

Its all going to hell in a handbasket anyway. I'm just trying to save enough money to get off the grid.

[balli]

http://io9.com/5050009/indian-court-accepts-brain-scans-as-evidence-of-murder


When 24 year-old Aditi Sharma was tried for the murder of her former fiance, her brain was the chief witness for the prosecution. Sharma had submitted to the highly controversial Brain Electrical Oscillations Signature test (BEOS), now employed by prosecutors in the Indian states of Maharashta and Gujarat. Going beyond lie detection, the BEOS test is supposedly able to identify whether an individual possesses memories related to a specific event. And Sharma's conviction represents the first time an Indian court has accepted the BEOS results as proof of guilt, although neuroscientists remain skeptical about the technology's reliability.

Prosecution offices in India have set up labs to examine suspects who submit to the test. When areas of the brain associated with memory, such as those dealing with smell and sound, light up during the description of a crime, prosecutors see that as evidence of the subject's commission of the crime:

Ms. Sharma, 24, agreed to take a BEOS test in Mumbai, the capital of Maharashtra. (Suspects may be tested only with their consent, but forensic investigators say many agree because they assume it will spare them an aggressive police interrogation.)

After placing 32 electrodes on Ms. Sharma's head, investigators said, they read aloud their version of events, speaking in the first person (“I bought arsenic”; “I met Udit at McDonald's”), along with neutral statements like “The sky is blue,” which help the software distinguish memories from normal cognition.

For an hour, Ms. Sharma said nothing. But the relevant nooks of her brain where memories are thought to be stored buzzed when the crime was recounted, according to Mr. Joseph, the state investigator. The judge endorsed Mr. Joseph's assertion that the scans were proof of “experiential knowledge” of having committed the murder, rather than just having heard about it.

Previously, Indian courts had accepted BEOS results only as corroborating evidence, not proof in itself of criminal activity. Citing the seriousness of the outcome (Sharma received a life sentence), many neuroscientists and bioethicists in the US have stated that the technology, which has not yet been peer-reviewed, has entered the legal system far too soon. But even if these supposed mind-reading technologies never meet the evidentiary standards of courts outside of India, other possible public and private uses exist:

No Lie MRI, a company in California, promises on its Web site to use the scans to help with developing interpersonal trust and military intelligence, among other tasks. In August, a committee of the National Research Council in Washington predicted that, with greater research, brain scans could eventually aid “the acquisition of intelligence from captured unlawful combatants” and “the screening of terrorism suspects at checkpoints.”

[Kobe24Forever]

who you mean the axis of evil, does it have to do with something like iran and north korea, i havent heard of those in a long time either.

[AFBlue]

Am I the only one that had the balls to answer "no" to this question?

[Phenomanul]

Thought extraction technologies? are you fucking serious?

Ok--well I guess there goes any remaining semblance of free society, how's it going big brother?


With proper regulation this would be much better than having innocent people end up in prison, or the 'need' for torture, or having a society where people lie to the government for handouts knowing fully well that they are capable of working. This would help healthcare become more affordable, and drive every known insurance cost down. ''Freedoms'' would not be relinquished unless you were knowingly trying to deceive the government.

I'm not talking about The Riddler's technology here... I'm talking about an improved lie-detection test.

[byrontx]

What would Washington do?

No to torture. It's not American.

[fyatuk]

Am I the only one that had the balls to answer "no" to this question?

The last 2 answers are both no. One just has more detail.

[DarrinS]

I remember reading a story, I'm not sure if it was in Chechnya or Afghanistan, but the story goes something like this. A Russian soldier is wounded and unable to move. He was nailed to a cross by his captors and his penis was cut off and stuffed in his mouth. He was left to bleed out. If I remember correctly, this was done to him by civilians.

[Yonivore]

I remember reading a story, I'm not sure if it was in Chechnya or Afghanistan, but the story goes something like this. A Russian soldier is wounded and unable to move. He was nailed to a cross by his captors and his penis was cut off and stuffed in his mouth. He was left to bleed out. If I remember correctly, this was done to him by civilians.

Was that done to him because the Russians waterboarded three Chechnyans or Afghanis?

Just curious.

[DarrinS]

Was that done to him because the Russians waterboarded three Chechnyans or Afghanis?

Just curious.


I don't recall. War is not pretty.


For the record, I'm against the US Govt randomly selecting people for torture. Some people seem to think that's what's going on.

[Yonivore]

I don't recall. War is not pretty.


For the record, I'm against the US Govt randomly selecting people for torture. Some people seem to think that's what's going on.
Yeah, I've noticed.

[RandomGuy]

The colon after the question mark was pretty evil.

Arrgh. Sorry man.

[RandomGuy]

Rephrase the question:

"I torture a terrorist because I know he has information that will save innocent lives. Am I evil?"

That would not supply me with the answer I seek.

I seek to find an answer to the question:

"Is it reasonable to conclude someone is evil, if you know nothing else about them other than they torture other people?"

Perhaps I should have phrased the question this way specifically, but the question field doesn't let you make for long questions, so I decided to keep it short and to the point.

[Yonivore]

That would not supply me with the answer I seek.

I seek to find an answer to the question:

"Is it reasonable to conclude someone is evil, if you know nothing else about them other than they torture other people?"

Perhaps I should have phrased the question this way specifically, but the question field doesn't let you make for long questions, so I decided to keep it short and to the point.
The answer to that question is no. There is not enough information known about the alleged torturer.

Stipulating your position for a moment; if a father believes torturing a kidnapper will reveal his chid's location, is he evil for wanting to employ the measure?

[RandomGuy]

The answer to that question is no. There is not enough information known about the alleged torturer.

Stipulating your position for a moment; if a father believes torturing a kidnapper will reveal his chid's location, is he evil for wanting to employ the measure?

If a person needs to steal to feed his family is that person evil?

[DarrinS]

If a person needs to steal to feed his family is that person evil?


No, just a criminal.

[RandomGuy]

"Is it reasonable to conclude someone is evil, if you know nothing else about them other than they torture other people?"


The answer to that question is no. There is not enough information known about the alleged torturer.

You are, thank goodness, in the minority in that opinion.

So if it is OK to torture to save lives then, is it evil for an Al Qaeda operative to torture an American airman to determine combat flight schedules?

US military airstikes often kill women and children in the area around high-value targets. If the operative's motivation is to save the women and children from being killed then, according to your logic, that is not evil.

[RandomGuy]

No, just a criminal.

Why is that action "criminal"? Please define criminal behavior.

[tonylongoriafan]

D) Life is exactly like 24.

greatest show ever...i can't believe i have to wait like another month to see that shit again, wtf?

[DarrinS]

Why is that action "criminal"? Please define criminal behavior.



Are you puposely changing your thread subject from morality to legality?

[DarrinS]

So if it is OK to torture to save lives then, is it evil for an Al Qaeda operative to torture an American airman to determine combat flight schedules?

US military airstikes often kill women and children in the area around high-value targets. If the operative's motivation is to save the women and children from being killed then, according to your logic, that is not evil.



Greatest example of moral equivalence I've ever seen. This is a keeper. Thank you.

[RandomGuy]

Greatest example of moral equivalence I've ever seen. This is a keeper. Thank you.

I am simply following the logic to where it leads.

Yoni has stated the motive for torture is important in determining the whether or not the act is evil, and if the motive is to save lives, then torture is perfectly acceptable.

Based on this fairly stated position, then anyone whose motivation is to save lives can ethically torture another human being, just as the Al Qaeda operative might in order to save lives.

[RandomGuy]

Are you puposely changing your thread subject from morality to legality?

Not at all. Now please define, in your own words, what criminal behavior is.

[DarrinS]

Not at all. Now please define, in your own words, what criminal behavior is.

meh, I'd rather stick to your OP.


Here's a hypothetical for you:


If, by torturing ONE person, you could have prevented 911, thereby preventing the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan _AND_ solve the current economic crisis, _AND_ cure your beloved global warming crisis, _AND_ find cures for cancer and AIDS, _AND_ eliminate poverty -- globally, would it be morally justified?

[Anti.Hero]

fire with fire baby.

It's a dangerous world out there.

[RandomGuy]

meh, I'd rather stick to your OP.

The thread is simply about evil and morals.

Yoni implies, and you would seem to agree that a father would be ethical to torture someone to protect his children.

If a father then seeks to protect his children from starvation by stealing then that would be perfectly ethical as well by the same logic.

If action X protects children, then it is ethical.

Your implication that stealing would make someone a criminal, and therefore, in society's view evil, seems to contradict that.

I merely want to know if you view stealing as evil. Yes, or no?

If stealing is evil, then it is not ethical. This then disproves the logical statement: If action X protects children, then it is ethical.

[Yonivore]

If a person needs to steal to feed his family is that person evil?

You mean, if a person "chooses" to steal...

And, the answer is no. That doesn't make them evil.

[DarrinS]

The thread is simply about evil and morals.

Yoni implies, and you would seem to agree that a father would be ethical to torture someone to protect his children.


Yes, I agree.



If a father then seeks to protect his children from starvation by stealing then that would be perfectly ethical as well by the same logic.

If action X protects children, then it is ethical.



Yes, I agree.



Your implication that stealing would make someone a criminal, and therefore, in society's view evil, seems to contradict that.

I merely want to know if you view stealing as evil. Yes, or no?


You need to make a distinction between morality and legality. Running a red light is illegal, but does not make you evil.






THIS is evil. Are these the kind of people you are worried that we are torturing?

aqoywrAe5iE

[Yonivore]

"Is it reasonable to conclude someone is evil, if you know nothing else about them other than they torture other people?"



You are, thank goodness, in the minority in that opinion.
I don't think I'm in the minority in believing it is not "reasonable to conclude" someone is evil, if you know nothing else about them other than they torture people?"

Where your logic breaks down is that we know a lot more about al Qaeda and their reasons for torture than your innocent question suggests. They torture, on camera, before they kill in order to terrorize the victim before death and to terrorize the viewers of the videos they then promptly post on the internet.


So if it is OK to torture to save lives then, is it evil for an Al Qaeda operative to torture an American airman to determine combat flight schedules?
Your question predisposes al Qaeda even considers the moral, legal, or ethical ramifications of such a decision. At that point they don't care what I think about their actions.

Okay? No. Expected? Yes. But, let's take it one step further. If al Qaeda were able to capture someone in the U.S. Military at the level of a Khalid Shaihk Mohammed, I would fully expect them to use whatever technique they had at their disposal to extract valuable intelligence. And, I fully believe they'd do so without worrying about what you or, for that matter, anyone else (in the Muslim world, al Qaeda, or Disneyland) thought about their practices.

That doesn't make it okay.


US military airstikes often kill women and children in the area around high-value targets. If the operative's motivation is to save the women and children from being killed then, according to your logic, that is not evil.
Your suggestion for their motivation of torture stretches credulity (particularly given all the video examples they've provided on the internet.) but, in that case, their actions -- if, in fact, they were motivated to save the lives of innocent people -- would not necessarily be evil.

What it boils down to is motivation.

[Yonivore]

The thread is simply about evil and morals.

Yoni implies, and you would seem to agree that a father would be ethical to torture someone to protect his children.

If a father then seeks to protect his children from starvation by stealing then that would be perfectly ethical as well by the same logic.

If action X protects children, then it is ethical.

Your implication that stealing would make someone a criminal, and therefore, in society's view evil, seems to contradict that.

I merely want to know if you view stealing as evil. Yes, or no?

If stealing is evil, then it is not ethical. This then disproves the logical statement: If action X protects children, then it is ethical.
If you replaced the word "ethical" with "understandable" or "forgivable" or "justifiable," we'd be closer to agreement.

Your sense that criminality and evil are mutually inclusive is novel.

[RandomGuy]

If action X protects children, then it is ethical.



Yes, I agree.

ooooh. There is a good one.

Let's see what else we can substitute for "action X".

"aborting every other fetus at any stage of pregancy"

"using live babies as stew"

"bashing the brains out of homeless people with a shovel"

"starving millions of people in slave labor camps"

"vivisection after cutting the vocal cords to avoid that all that pesky screaming"

"purposefully inflicting diseases on live human subjects to evaluate lethality"

All we have to do is come to the reasonable conclusion that any of these action "protects children".

Your statement leaves no room for ambiguity, Darrin.

This is what you have agreed to. Rationalizing is such fun.

[RandomGuy]

Your sense that criminality and evil are mutually inclusive is novel.

I said no such thing. Please show me where I have said such a thing.

Please don't distort my beliefs in this manner.

[Yonivore]

I said no such thing. Please show me where I have said such a thing.

Please don't distort my beliefs in this manner.


Your implication that stealing would make someone a criminal, and therefore, in society's view evil, seems to contradict that.
I believe you said that. No?

[DarrinS]

I said no such thing. Please show me where I have said such a thing.

Please don't distort my beliefs in this manner.


Here you go.



Your implication that stealing would make someone a criminal, and therefore, in society's view evil, seems to contradict that.

[RandomGuy]

Your implication that stealing would make someone a criminal, and therefore, in society's view evil, seems to contradict that.


I believe you said that. No?

That was not a statement of my position. It was merely an attempt at fairly stating and interpreting Darrins.

Sorry.

[RandomGuy]

I would go so far as to say that most societies tend to criminalize what they view as "evil" behavior. That seems to me to be a reasonable statement.

But I did not say that all criminal behavior is inherently evil.

[RandomGuy]

Speaking of rationalizing, I have to get back to work.

See you over the weekend, in between bookkeeping appointments perhaps. Sigh.

[Yonivore]

That was not a statement of my position. It was merely an attempt at fairly stating and interpreting Darrins.

Sorry.
Okay, where did Darren say that, in Society's view, a theif would be evil?

I don't think he did.

Did you Darren?

[Yonivore]

I would go so far as to say that most societies tend to criminalize what they view as "evil" behavior.
Well, not in America. We tend to criminalize that which violates the rights of the individual or that works against the public good.

Granted there have been hundreds of thousands of laws that deviate from that principle but, none-the-less, that is the general rationale behind law.


That seems to me to be a reasonable statement.
No; not so reasonable at all. Maybe in religious government such as you'll find in the Muslim world but, not in most western nations.

But I did not say that all criminal behavior is inherently evil.[/QUOTE]
Yeah, you pretty much did with that whole "Society views" criminality as evil statement.

[spurster]

Here's a hypothetical for you:


If, by torturing ONE person, you could have prevented 911, thereby preventing the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan _AND_ solve the current economic crisis, _AND_ cure your beloved global warming crisis, _AND_ find cures for cancer and AIDS, _AND_ eliminate poverty -- globally, would it be morally justified?

This is an example of using a wishful end to justify the evil means. I would rather base my actions on facts rather than fantasy, but that's just me.

[Yonivore]

Speaking of rationalizing, I have to get back to work.

See you over the weekend, in between bookkeeping appointments perhaps. Sigh.

Have a good weekend.

[Bigzax]

ethics and morals in war?

war is business.

[DarrinS]

This is an example of using a wishful end to justify the evil means. I would rather base my actions on facts rather than fantasy, but that's just me.


From http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/hypothetical

hy⋅po⋅thet⋅i⋅cal

–adjective

1. assumed by hypothesis; supposed: a hypothetical case.
2. of, pertaining to, involving, or characterized by hypothesis: hypothetical reasoning.
3. given to making hypotheses.
4. Logic. a. (of a proposition) highly conjectural; not well supported by available evidence.
b. (of a proposition or syllogism) conditional.

–noun
5. a hypothetical situation, instance, etc.: The Secretary of Defense refused to discuss hypotheticals with the reporters.

[Extra Stout]

I misunderstood the question. I thought it was asking whether RandomGuy himself is personally evil. He is an accountant by trade, so the answer is "yes."

[Wild Cobra]

How can one not read into the question when torture is not defined in the poll?

I answered yes. However, I haven't heard of any torture by the USA in these last several years by my definition of torture.

[possessed]

Evil only exists within the Christian mind.

[Yonivore]

Evil only exists within the Christian mind.

Then it exists. Just like all human constructs.

But, I think Muslims, Buddhists, Jews, and other faiths believe evil exists, as well. I'm betting an athiest would say something is evil -- even if they don't believe so in the "biblical" sense or actually call it evil.

They might call it barbaric or some such.

[spurster]

From http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/hypothetical

hy⋅po⋅thet⋅i⋅cal

–adjective

1. assumed by hypothesis; supposed: a hypothetical case.
2. of, pertaining to, involving, or characterized by hypothesis: hypothetical reasoning.
3. given to making hypotheses.
4. Logic. a. (of a proposition) highly conjectural; not well supported by available evidence.
b. (of a proposition or syllogism) conditional.

–noun
5. a hypothetical situation, instance, etc.: The Secretary of Defense refused to discuss hypotheticals with the reporters.

I'll take definition 4a.

[Nbadan]

Then it exists. Just like all human constructs

...mass psychosis? Many culture believe in opposite forces, not good and evil....Confucious say, ying-and-yang...

[Yonivore]

...mass psychosis? Many culture believe in opposite forces, not good and evil....Confucious say, ying-and-yang...
Not as many as believe in good and evil.

[Nbadan]

...well, technically christianity is a off-spring of these ancient philosophies...

[Yonivore]

...well, technically christianity is a off-spring of these ancient philosophies...
And, technically, the vast majority of human beings believe in good and evil; right and wrong; moral and immoral; just and unjust; etc... What's your point?

[Nbadan]

And, technically, the vast majority of human beings believe in good and evil; right and wrong; moral and immoral; just and unjust; etc... What's your point?

So.....if good versus evil is a human construct then what is eternal damnation?

[Nbadan]

...and it depends RG you may or may-not be evil, but not just because of your actions...you maybe evil because of your intentions...

[Yonivore]

So.....if good versus evil is a human construct then what is eternal damnation?
Everything is a human construct based on our understanding of our existence. Reality is what we interpret it to be from our own experiences.

Who knows what God actually calls good and evil or eternal damnation. He inspired the Word -- He didn't write it. He created Miriam Webster, not the dictionary. He created matter, set in motion physical laws, and started the clock...We fashioned that creation into our world through our own human constructs.

[Yonivore]

...and it depends RG you may or may-not be evil, but not just because of your actions...you maybe evil because of your intentions...
That was my point.

[RandomGuy]

I misunderstood the question. I thought it was asking whether RandomGuy himself is personally evil. He is an accountant by trade, so the answer is "yes."

Well, the one thing an auditor has in common with a torturer is that the subjects always want it to stop and be done with as soon as possible...

:p:

[RandomGuy]

...and it depends RG you may or may-not be evil, but not just because of your actions...you maybe evil because of your intentions...

You would agree with Yoni on that point.

He does not ascribe torture to be specifically evil in and of itself.

Scary isn't it?

The poll here though seeks to answer the question whether most people find it reasonable to assume that if you torture somebody you are probably a bit evil.

This becomes relevant to the cost/benefit analysis in the "war" on terror.

[RandomGuy]

Evil only exists within the Christian mind.

:rolleyes

[RandomGuy]

That was my point.

"The end justifies the means."

The refrain of tyrants, petty and grand.

[RandomGuy]

Bump.

Because I am sure that most regs have voted, but I would like to get as wide a selection as possible.

[RandomGuy]

Bump. Just to let anybody else vote who wants to.