Yes
No
It doesn't matter. Evilness is independent of whether or not you torture people.
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?
If a person needs to steal to feed his family is that person evil?
No, just a criminal.
"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.
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.
Why is that action "criminal"? Please define criminal behavior.
greatest show ever...i can't believe i have to wait like another month to see that again, wtf?
Are you puposely changing your thread subject from morality to legality?
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.
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?
fire with fire baby.
It's a dangerous world out there.
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.
You mean, if a person "chooses" to steal...
And, the answer is no. That doesn't make them evil.
Yes, I agree.
Yes, I agree.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
If action X protects children, then it is ethical.
ooooh. There is a good one.
Let's see what else we can subs ute 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.
I said no such thing. Please show me where I have said such a thing.
Please don't distort my beliefs in this manner.
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.Your implication that stealing would make someone a criminal, and therefore, in society's view evil, seems to contradict that.
Sorry.
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.
Speaking of rationalizing, I have to get back to work.
See you over the weekend, in between bookkeeping appointments perhaps. Sigh.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote