Reply With Quote
You're late to the party.
Ignignokt is busy defending why absolutely anything - including raping children - is moral/ethical if it could possibly save lives.
According to whom?
You're late to the party.
Ignignokt is busy defending why absolutely anything - including raping children - is moral/ethical if it could possibly save lives.
Ahh... the good old 24 ticking time bomb scenario...
How would a high ranking alqueda member be innocent?
You're a dumbass, i never defended raping children. LOL UTSA
According to human nature. Children are not capable of making rational decisions, he's not a fully formed individual where he can assess things. Ultimately reality is the final arbiter, that even the courts should be subject to.
Children have yet to conceptualize risks and they are not honored in a contract in a civil society because they are incapable of taking care of themselves without proper guidance.
You also mentioned the lowly couriers. Don't forget about them.
Yeah, you did. In fact, you still are. Anything is ethical/moral if it saves lives, right?
The real question for anyone is, should you sacrifice the lives of innocent people you're bound to protect for the murderer?
What kind of morality would sacrifice whole numbers of innocents for the sake of a savage?
We've sacrifice many thousands of innocent people to get "savages."
You're saying any collateral damage is unethical.
When we talk about the individual, in reality morality does not exist at the point of a gun. No one can tell anyone what they must do in order to escape death. The point of morality is to live life, not to be bound by a mystic duty to anyone else.
As far in a scenario where you're put in charge over the protection of a society, your job is to extract information.
Raping children is excessive and immoral when torture of the individual's own mind and body is enough to extract information.
It's funny that you have to set up an unrealistic scenario to evade the earlier question.
You think your scenario is realistic?
Where has it happened outside of fiction?
What if the torture isn't enough?
Morality can only be based on the present universe, not some holy context that is unproven.
War when waged against an existential threat is going to bring collateral damage. To win a war you must win end it as soon as possible to protect your own citizens, and you should go in mind that your existance is what is at stakes.
Sending one's neighbour to sacrifice his life altruistically for others is immoral. Our troops should only be tasked to first, protect their own life, protect our life with only those goals in mind.
To put the lives of the enemy above our own troops is immoral, and evil. That's why the only good thing to do in this situation is to try to not get into that situation.
So killing innocent people is OK.
lol thinking every war is for one's existence
You're the one presenting scenarios where raping innocent children is necessary for the survival of a country, don't tell me what fiction i'm writing.
Give me an example of your disguised attempt at evasion masked as an equally silly pathetic attempt of a situation.
Prove where i said every war is an existential threat...
In order for you to escape the question..
Why is torturing a terrorist in order to save lives unethical?
You had to present a contrived situation where one has to rape children to save individuals.
You're a clown.
Awnser my first question, or else i'm threw with arguing with your idiotic self.
I'm telling you you're writing fiction.
What are you going to do about it?
Sure, you've got a terra-ist on the Skype. You have his adult daughter in custody who has said you suck a couple of times. You want some intel from him fast. Use the scenario from your screenplay. Why not rape or torture or kill her to get him to talk?Give me an example of your disguised attempt at evasion masked as an equally silly pathetic attempt of a situation.
lol threw
You must be drunk.
You haven't even told us your screenplay scenario.
How do you know he's the murderer?
How do you know he has vital information?
What if he repeatedly gives you bull info?
What if there's no immediate treat, should you torture anyways?
Should any civilian be unlawfully detained and tortured on the presumption that they might have information that could allegedly save lives?
Who makes the determination on what is or isn't allegedly credible information that warrants torturing a civilian?
Should a civilian tortured by mistake have no recourse in a court of law?
So on and so forth...
There's another salient point... which is the legal one.
Nobody is above the law. And if there's a law criminalizing torture, then torture is a crime and must be punished as such. AFAIK, there's no caveats or exclusions on "saving lives".
Because the person might be innocent?
Again, subs ute "Harming a suspected terrorist's child" for "extracting intel" and see if you can make the connection.
But what about if it's not enough? Are you willing to let all those untold thousands of innocents die? It's only one child you'd have to torture, after all.
I'm pretty sure we'd see some form of jury nullification if torture did indeed save thousands of lives. But at least we'd have the check of a jury.
So the answer to my request is:
"I can't provide any quotes from any professional interrogator who says that torture is more effective than less extreme methods of interrogation."
I will assume you are not a professional interrogator, have no training, nor experience, as either is rather rare for the general population.
That leaves us with:
1) The professional in the OP joining with lots of other professionals in saying that torture is not as effective as conventional interrogation.
2) No dissenting professional opinions contradicting that.
Trained professional with years of experience vs. internet guy with neither training, nor experience.
Not a hard call to make from a simple efficacy perspective.
That is, of course, setting aside the ethics of torture.
"It might work, don't worry about the fact that it is almost universally viewed as immoral and illegal." is not a very convincing argument.
You might find it emotionally appealing, but you certainly can't try and credibly claim you are being logical about it.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
