Torture: Still doesn't work

[Ignignokt]

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.

Why would they be slim? Why would a member of a cell not be privy to the actions of his cell? It's not as if they catch any enemy combatant in afghanistan and assume he knows the next plot in america. What happens when they catch Zarqawi's informant, courier, etc.. how are you going to disintegrate into silly skepticism.

Look, there are chances that we might throw the wrong man in jail, that doesn't mean you must abolish all laws and enforcement.

The issue is not about probability and percentages, the issue is whether One has the right to torture a member of a cell who is involved in a plot to bomb a city, i'm pretty sure that's not a fantasy and it occurs more often than not.

[Ignignokt]

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



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?



How do you know he has knowledge of an attack?

Those are procedural questions, that really none of us could answer.

A man breaks into your home with a machete, why shoud you have the moral right to kill him? How do you know that he just wanted to intimidate you and take your tv?

How silly is this going to get?

[Blake]

Why would they be slim? Why would a member of a cell not be privy to the actions of his cell? It's not as if they catch any enemy combatant in afghanistan and assume he knows the next plot in america. What happens when they catch Zarqawi's informant, courier, etc.. how are you going to disintegrate into silly skepticism.

Look, there are chances that we might throw the wrong man in jail, that doesn't mean you must abolish all laws and enforcement.

The issue is not about probability and percentages, the issue is whether One has the right to torture a member of a cell who is involved in a plot to bomb a city, i'm pretty sure that's not a fantasy and it occurs more often than not.

wrongly throwing someone in jail is a far cry from wrongly strapping someone down and delivering physical and/or mental beatdowns.

[Ignignokt]

wrongly throwing someone in jail is a far cry from wrongly strapping someone down and delivering physical and/or mental beatdowns.

People get thrown in jail and recieve beatdowns and physical abuse even rape. And it's not as if the judges and the prosecutors don't know the risk of that.

[Blake]

Those are procedural questions, that really none of us could answer.

A man breaks into your home with a machete, why shoud you have the moral right to kill him? How do you know that he just wanted to intimidate you and take your tv?

How silly is this going to get?

I can't imagine anyone that believes self defense is not really a moral right.

[Ignignokt]

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.

Those are not out of the possibility. If we get a hold of a second in command, he is going to be privy to details. Are you all of the sudden David Hume?

[Blake]

People get thrown in jail and recieve beatdowns and physical abuse even rape. And it's not as if the judges and the prosecutors don't know the risk of that.

I've never been to jail, but last I checked, beatdowns and rape in jail are not allowed.

[Ignignokt]

I've never been to jail, but last I checked, beatdowns and rape in jail are not allowed.

amongst who? the civil prisoners? lololol cuck

[ElNono]

Those are procedural questions, that really none of us could answer.

A man breaks into your home with a machete, why shoud you have the moral right to kill him? How do you know that he just wanted to intimidate you and take your tv?

Because you caught the person red-handed.

Should you kill a person if your neighbor tells you that person plans to break into your home with a machete?

How silly is this going to get?

[Ignignokt]

I can't imagine anyone that believes self defense is not really a moral right.

what is torture?

[Ignignokt]

Because you caught the person red-handed.

Should you kill a person if your neighbor tells you that person plans to break into your home with a machete?

How silly is this going to get?

Let me play devils advocate,

You didn't catch him in the act of killing you, you just caught him with a machete, maybe he just wanted to intimidate, not kill.

But that's the skeptical world you guys want to play with.

[ElNono]

what is torture?

A criminal way to extract information.

[ElNono]

Let me play devils advocate,

You didn't catch him in the act of killing you, you just caught him with a machete, maybe he just wanted to intimidate, not kill.

But that's the skeptical world you guys want to play with.

It's the real world. If you kill him, you'll face the consequences. You'll be charged with murder.

This isn't 24.

[Ignignokt]

A criminal way to extract information.

weed is criminal.

I'm not arguing law.

I'm arguing ethics.

Torture in self defense, what's wrong with that?

[Ignignokt]

It's the real world. If you kill him, you'll face the consequences. You'll be charged with murder.

This isn't 24.

No you don't he had a murder weapon. You just don't know whether he was intending to use it. Don't use skepticism only when it suits you.

[ElNono]

Torture in self defense, what's wrong with that?

Torture isn't self defense.

[ElNono]

No you don't he had a murder weapon. You just don't know whether he was intending to use it. Don't use skepticism only when it suits you.

If you kill him do you get charged with murder, yes or no?

Forget Law & Order. We're talking the real world here.

[Ignignokt]

Torture isn't self defense.

why is that? You're preventing an act of aggression, that's self defense.

[ElNono]

Plus your scenario has nothing to do with torture. The fact that you're trying to extract information means that you don't have said information, you only suspect the person has it.

[ElNono]

why is that? You're preventing an act of aggression, that's self defense.

How could you prevent anything, since you don't know there's any act of aggression?

[Ignignokt]

If you kill him do you get charged with murder, yes or no?

Forget Law & Order. We're talking the real world here.

I don't watch law and order. Laws are not themselves always based on correct moral premises. Jim Crow was a law. Ultimately the citizenry has to hold the law subject to morals based on the real world.

In this scenario, you ended a man's life who might not wanted to kill you.

[ElNono]

I don't watch law and order. Laws are not themselves always based on correct moral premises. Jim Crow was a law. Ultimately the citizenry has to hold the law subject to morals based on the real world.

In this scenario, you ended a man's life who might not wanted to kill you.

Jim Crow laws were eventually overturned. While they were up though, they were the law of the land, moral or not.

In this scenario, you wouldn't need any torture. The moment the guy showed up with a machete he provided all the information you needed.

Bad example.

[Ignignokt]

How could you prevent anything, since you don't know there's any act of aggression?

We're talking about a case where Intel officials have uncovered a plot, and have one of the cell agents in detainment. That's not out of the realm of reality. Does the govt not uncover plots of terrorism?

[Ignignokt]

Jim Crow laws were eventually overturned. While they were up though, they were the law of the land, moral or not.

In this scenario, you wouldn't need any torture. The moment the guy showed up with a machete he provided all the information you needed.

Bad example.

subs ute crowbar for machete.

Are you saying the castle doctrine is never going to get overturned? Are you a clairevoyant?

[ElNono]

We're talking about a case where Intel officials have uncovered a plot, and have one of the cell agents in detainment. That's not out of the realm of reality. Does the govt not uncover plots of terrorism?

It's still a su ion. That there's an alleged plot doesn't make it an act of aggression.

It's analogous to you suspecting somebody is plotting to kill you. Do you torture everyone you know because you're convinced they're out to kill you?