Torture: Still doesn't work

[Ignignokt]

lol nature of the universe

Did the nature of the universe write a book?

Is he on twitter?

That combatant is potentially innocent as well, and the family member might not be for all you know. I am talking about torturing innocent family members to save thousands of lives. You would rather let thousands of confirmed innocents die than give one who may or may not be innocent some temporary pain.

Because there is not one set of ethics in the world. That is clearly evident here as you are willing to let thousands of innocents die if the conditions are right.

We're discussing torturing adults who are high level combatants. Intentionally targeting innocent ppl for torture is wrong. I'm not defending that.

[ChumpDumper]

We're discussing torturing adults who are high level combatants. Intentionally targeting innocent ppl for torture is wrong. I'm not defending that.

Right, you made it clear that thousands of innocent people should die.

[Ignignokt]

Right, you made it clear that thousands of innocent people should die.

I'm not making a utlitarian argument where raping children to save lives is good.

That's your argument.

[ChumpDumper]

I'm not making a utlitarian argument where raping children to save lives is good.

That's your argument.

You're making an argument that thousands of innocent Americans should die because you don't want to torture someone who may be innocent.

[Ignignokt]

You're making an argument that thousands of innocent Americans should die because you don't want to torture someone who may be innocent.

there's an if.

Like i said, if it turns out that he was innocent, the interrogator should be fired, penalized, and if showed negligence he should go to jail.

The onus is on the interrogator to be dilligent.

You still haven't addressed whether torturing an enemy combatant/terrorist who has knowledge of an attack is ethically wrong, and why based on your reasoning.

You missed that oppurtunity, you don't have the capability to do so anyway, Lngrr picked up the slack for you.

[ChumpDumper]

there's an if.

Like i said, if it turns out that he was innocent, the interrogator should be fired, penalized, and if showed negligence he should go to jail.

The onus is on the interrogator to be dilligent.

You still haven't addressed whether torturing an enemy combatant/terrorist who has knowledge of an attack is ethically wrong, and why based on your reasoning.

You missed that oppurtunity, you don't have the capability to do so anyway, Lngrr picked up the slack for you.

I already answered it.

You didn't like the answer.

Sorry.

lol onus

lol penalized

[Ignignokt]

I already answered it.

You didn't like the answer.

Sorry.

lol onus

lol penalized

I don't see an answer here, or a reasoning to my question. Do you hate answering questions and explaining your reasoning?

[ChumpDumper]

I don't see an answer here, or a reasoning to my question.

That's because it's in a different post, genius.

When someone says he has already done something, it was done before the time he says it was already done.

Do you understand that?

Answer that question. I want to be sure you understand.

[Ignignokt]

That's because it's in a different post, genius.

When someone says he has already done something, it was done before the time he says it was already done.

Do you understand that?

Answer that question. I want to be sure you understand.

I don't see an answer here, or a reasoning to my question. Do you hate answering questions and explaining your reasoning?

[ChumpDumper]

I don't see an answer here, or a reasoning to my question. Do you hate answering questions and explaining your reasoning?

That's because it's in a different post, genius.

When someone says he has already done something, it was done before the time he says it was already done.

Do you understand that?

Answer that question. I want to be sure you understand.

[Ignignokt]

I don't see an answer here, or a reasoning to my question. Do you hate answering questions and explaining your reasoning?

[ChumpDumper]

I don't see an answer here, or a reasoning to my question. Do you hate answering questions and explaining your reasoning?

That's because it's in a different post, genius.

When someone says he has already done something, it was done before the time he says it was already done.

Do you understand that?

Answer that question. I want to be sure you understand.

[Ignignokt]

That's because it's in a different post, genius.

When someone says he has already done something, it was done before the time he says it was already done.

Do you understand that?

Answer that question. I want to be sure you understand.

I don't see an answer here, or a reasoning to my question. Do you hate answering questions and explaining your reasoning?

[ChumpDumper]

I don't see an answer here, or a reasoning to my question. Do you hate answering questions and explaining your reasoning?

I'm sure you don't see it, but it has been given along with the reasoning. You have proved yourself incapable of understanding.

lol drama

[Ignignokt]

I'm sure you don't see it, but it has been given along with the reasoning. You have proved yourself incapable of understanding.

lol drama

I don't see an answer here, or a reasoning to my question. Do you hate answering questions and explaining your reasoning?

[ChumpDumper]

I don't see an answer here, or a reasoning to my question. Do you hate answering questions and explaining your reasoning?

On the contrary, I answered your question and gave very succinct reasoning. That you can't see it is your own personal tragedy. I'm sorry you haven't reached even a basic level of understanding, but it would be unethical for me to assist you further.

Keep trying though!

[Ignignokt]

On the contrary, I answered your question and gave very succinct reasoning. That you can't see it is your own personal tragedy. I'm sorry you haven't reached even a basic level of understanding, but it would be unethical for me to assist you further.

Keep trying though!

I don't see an answer here, or a reasoning to my question. Do you hate answering questions and explaining your reasoning?

[ChumpDumper]

I don't see an answer here, or a reasoning to my question. Do you hate answering questions and explaining your reasoning?

lol drama

[Ignignokt]

lol drama

I don't see an answer here, or a reasoning to my question. Do you hate answering questions and explaining your reasoning?

[ChumpDumper]

I don't see an answer here, or a reasoning to my question. Do you hate answering questions and explaining your reasoning?

You're too busy with your copy-and-paste drama to go back and read.

I predict you'll just copy and paste again.

You love yourself some drama.

[Ignignokt]

You're too busy with your copy-and-paste drama to go back and read.

I predict you'll just copy and paste again.

You love yourself some drama.

I don't see an answer here, or a reasoning to my question. Do you hate answering questions and explaining your reasoning?

[ChumpDumper]

I don't see an answer here, or a reasoning to my question. Do you hate answering questions and explaining your reasoning?

Yep, I was right.

lol drama

[LnGrrrR]

This is an invalid question. Becuase the purpose of the question is to undermine a moral action by introducing another moral action (sacrificing an innocent victim) in order to go through with said moral action. This is indeed a lifeboat question. You don't base your ethics on lifeboat questions, you base your ethics on the real metaphysical world, man does not live in lifeboat.

You've already posited that there exists a man who DEFINITELY has information, and that torture will DEFINITELY provide this information. I think the definite knowledge of both of these things is pretty hypothetical itself.

You are guilty of the same thing. You propose that torture is a moral action because you are A) torturing those who 'deserve' it, and B) because others are assured to die if the information is not recovered as soon as possible.

The chances of an interrogator knowing that the person deserves it and knows the information are quite slim. Is there a small chance that a person knows both of these things? Let's posit that the interrogator does have absolute knowledge. In this case, one could argue that if it's not "moral" it's at least a "lifeboat" question as you mentioned above, where the man is doomed to commit a moral failing whichever action he takes; thereby, he should take the most utilitarian action.

[LnGrrrR]

Our mission should be to remove dictatorships who are an actual existential threat and then get out.

I mostly agree with this statement, with the knowledge that another, possibly worse dictator might take his/her place.

[LnGrrrR]

Like i said, if it turns out that he was innocent, the interrogator should be fired, penalized, and if showed negligence he should go to jail.

I'm sure that will make up for the torture that is inflicted upon potential innocents.

The onus is on the interrogator to be dilligent.

And who will hold these interrogators' feet to the fire? Heck, they can't even discuss these things in normal trials... you really don't think it'd just get buried over?

You still haven't addressed whether torturing an enemy combatant/terrorist who has knowledge of an attack is ethically wrong, and why based on your reasoning.

How do you know he has knowledge of an attack?