News:

If you have any trouble logging in, please contact admins via email. tankathaf *at* gmail.com or
recusantathaf *at* gmail.com

Main Menu

Ethical basis for Veganism or Vegetarianism?

Started by bitter_sweet_symphony, November 17, 2007, 10:26:09 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

LegendarySandwich

Quote from: "Thumpalumpacus"
Quote from: "LegendarySandwich"I don't disagree with you that torture should not be a common practice and that it doesn't work. However, to say that it's always immoral seems a bit too simplistic for me.

What, then, is your dividing line?  How do you know, a priori, that this round of torture is justified, but this round isn't?  Also, I haven't said that it is always immoral, although I think that's close enough to the truth to eschew the method altogether.
By logically looking at the situation and weighing the outcome of all of your options.

Thumpalumpacus

Quote from: "LegendarySandwich"
Quote from: "Thumpalumpacus"
Quote from: "LegendarySandwich"I don't disagree with you that torture should not be a common practice and that it doesn't work. However, to say that it's always immoral seems a bit too simplistic for me.

What, then, is your dividing line?  How do you know, a priori, that this round of torture is justified, but this round isn't?  Also, I haven't said that it is always immoral, although I think that's close enough to the truth to eschew the method altogether.
By logically looking at the situation and weighing the outcome of all of your options.

In other words, you do not know that your torture is justified until after you've tortured someone.  In other words, you will inevitably commit some unjustified torture somewhere down the line.

I personally find this unacceptable.  There is no guarantee against unexpected death in this country, from whatever reason, and I certainly would not advocate selling what little bit of our honor left to us trying to ensure such an unattainable goal. I'm unconvinced.
Illegitimi non carborundum.

LegendarySandwich

Quote from: "Thumpalumpacus"In other words, you do not know that your torture is justified until after you've tortured someone.  In other words, you will inevitably commit some unjustified torture somewhere down the line.

I personally find this unacceptable.  There is no guarantee against unexpected death in this country, from whatever reason, and I certainly would not advocate selling what little bit of our honor left to us trying to ensure such an unattainable goal. I'm unconvinced.
Again, I'm not saying we should just go out and torture criminals. I'm just saying I wouldn't completely close off the possibility of it in certain select situations.

Thumpalumpacus

Quote from: "LegendarySandwich"
Quote from: "Thumpalumpacus"In other words, you do not know that your torture is justified until after you've tortured someone.  In other words, you will inevitably commit some unjustified torture somewhere down the line.

I personally find this unacceptable.  There is no guarantee against unexpected death in this country, from whatever reason, and I certainly would not advocate selling what little bit of our honor left to us trying to ensure such an unattainable goal. I'm unconvinced.
Again, I'm not saying we should just go out and torture criminals. I'm just saying I wouldn't completely close off the possibility of it in certain select situations.

I understand.  I'm just saying that you cannot perforce know which situations justify it until after you've done it, by which time it is too late.

Under those circumstances, I find it unacceptable.
Illegitimi non carborundum.

Davin

Quote from: "LegendarySandwich"Again, I'm not saying we should just go out and torture criminals. I'm just saying I wouldn't completely close off the possibility of it in certain select situations.
Are you saying that it would be alright for someone to torture you, if they were really, really sure that you had information?

When you agree that other people can be tortured, you're also allowing the possibility that it will happen to yourself. There won't be absolute knowledge that one does have the information needed, which means that some people that actually don't have the information will eventually be tortured. Which is why I'm against torture, because if the practice is allowed, innocent people will be tortured, and I don't think anything justifies torturing a single innocent person.
Always question all authorities because the authority you don't question is the most dangerous... except me, never question me.

LegendarySandwich

Quote from: "Davin"
Quote from: "LegendarySandwich"Again, I'm not saying we should just go out and torture criminals. I'm just saying I wouldn't completely close off the possibility of it in certain select situations.
Are you saying that it would be alright for someone to torture you, if they were really, really sure that you had information?

When you agree that other people can be tortured, you're also allowing the possibility that it will happen to yourself. There won't be absolute knowledge that one does have the information needed, which means that some people that actually don't have the information will eventually be tortured. Which is why I'm against torture, because if the practice is allowed, innocent people will be tortured, and I don't think anything justifies torturing a single innocent person.
So are you against prisons, and the whole justice system in general? If you are, what do you have in mind to replace it?

Davin

Quote from: "LegendarySandwich"
Quote from: "Davin"
Quote from: "LegendarySandwich"Again, I'm not saying we should just go out and torture criminals. I'm just saying I wouldn't completely close off the possibility of it in certain select situations.
Are you saying that it would be alright for someone to torture you, if they were really, really sure that you had information?

When you agree that other people can be tortured, you're also allowing the possibility that it will happen to yourself. There won't be absolute knowledge that one does have the information needed, which means that some people that actually don't have the information will eventually be tortured. Which is why I'm against torture, because if the practice is allowed, innocent people will be tortured, and I don't think anything justifies torturing a single innocent person.
So are you against prisons, and the whole justice system in general? If you are, what do you have in mind to replace it?
Wow, a very subtle deflection.[/sarcasm] I'll answer anyway.

Prison is in itself a very unpleasant place to live no matter how many "luxuries" prisoners are allowed, however no one is taking prisoners and putting them through torture for answers that they may not have. I'm not happy with the prison system in my country, but I find it mostly acceptable, even if some innocent people get incarcerated.

I see a very big difference between imprisoning an innocent person and torturing an innocent person. One does do some damage, while the other does an immense amount of damage. So while I'm willing to be innocently imprisoned in order to maintain safety and to punish the majority of those that are actually guilty, I'm not willing to allow myself to be innocently subject to torture.

The point you bring up is a good one. We already put innocent people behind bars, do you want to torture innocent people as well?

Quid pro quo.
Always question all authorities because the authority you don't question is the most dangerous... except me, never question me.

Wilson

My moral system is something like that which benefits people is good, that which hurts them is bad.  I think that's kind of the natural form of human morality.  Making the calculations is often hard.

So .. eating meat.  Since I see animals as having human qualities, they figure into my moral calculation, too.  Cruelty to animals is almost as bad as cruelty to humans, so I hate a lot of the commercial operations that raise chickens and other animals in abysmal conditions for food production.  If raised under compassionate conditions, I have no moral objection to killing animals humanely for food.  

Of course at the supermarket we have no idea under what conditions the steaks and lamb chops and chicken breasts lived and were killed.  So I guess the moral thing is to go ahead and make your selection on the basis of what will taste good (since your purchase will have zero effect on the farming practices), but if you have the opportunity to do something to stop animal cruelty, do so.

legs laney

Quote from: "LegendarySandwich"I don't disagree with you that torture should not be a common practice and that it doesn't work. However, to say that it's always immoral seems a bit too simplistic for me.

i can make it even more simplistic.  the "torturer" and the "hero"  can be interchanged between the view point of the subject.  using the same scenario; the "good guy" and the "bad guy" can also be interchanged.  the person being tortured obviously sees himself as the good guy and the torturer as the bad guy, not the hero of the day trying to save innocents from a ticking bomb...

so using this logic, it most definitely is "always immoral" in some sense.  ...wait a minute though; i thought we've been taught that when you use the word "always" or "never" you're probably wrong.  oh,yeah, that's right; probably wrong.
"In religion and politics people's beliefs and convictions are in almost every case gotten at second-hand, and without examination, from authorities who have not themselves examined the questions at issue but have taken them at second-hand from other non-examiners, whose opinions about them were not worth a brass farthing."
- Autobio

Thumpalumpacus

You can always shop at places like Trader Joe's which expend corporate resources to verify that they are seeling humanely-raised meats.
Illegitimi non carborundum.

Wilson

Regarding torture, we can certainly come up with scenarios in which you'd have to be stupid to say torture would not be justified.  Whether these situations would ever occur is another matter.

The usual is a good one.  Postulate that you know that a prisoner has information about a planted nuclear device that would, if obtained, allow you to disarm it and save thousands of lives.  Would anyone say, "No, to be faithful to a moral code, we shouldn't waterboard the guy"?  Please.

Of course such situations are highly unlikely.  The usual case is where a prisoner might or might not have information about a terrorist attack.  The problem with a policy condoning torture is that the decisions may not be in the hands of people of great judgment and psychological insight.  The decision maker may be a gung-ho military officer, a paranoid vice president, or someone who enjoys hurting others just a little too much.  Or he may be a smart, savvy guy with common sense who has the country's best interests as his only motivation.  The last guy would probably use torture infrequently and I might trust his judgment.  The others might well overdo it.  The best way to ensure that torture would be used appropriately would be to require approval by a panel of smart, competent people who would balance the slippery moral slope against the importance of the information in a particular case.  And everyone should always remember that information obtained by torture is far from reliable.

Thumpalumpacus

QuotePostulate that you know that a prisoner has information about a planted nuclear device that would, if obtained, allow you to disarm it and save thousands of lives.

How would you know that information? Hearsay from other terrorists who were themselves being tortured?  How could you be sure they didn't just implicate someone -- say, perhaps, a former member who is disillusioned -- to stop the simulated drowning?  

Worse yet, how could you be sure it wasn't disinformation designed to lead the investigative apparatus astray?  I know if I were a terrorist, I'd certainly want to muddy the waters as long as possible up to the moment of detonation.  It wouldn't be enough to cover my trail; I'd want to supply an entirely false trail leading cleanly away from me, so as to buy time to carry out the operation.  How would you winnow the wheat from the chaff in a manner timely enough to prevent the "scenario" you've outlined from coming to the worst?

Given that several falsely-accused people have been interned in Gitmo, and given that at least two internees (and likely quite a few more) have died under our torture, how would you propose to right the inevitable injustices which will occur?
Illegitimi non carborundum.

Davin

Quote from: "Wilson"The usual is a good one.  Postulate that you know that a prisoner has information about a planted nuclear device that would, if obtained, allow you to disarm it and save thousands of lives.  Would anyone say, "No, to be faithful to a moral code, we shouldn't waterboard the guy"?  Please.
Not just to preserve a moral code, as you stated later, "[...]everyone should always remember that information obtained by torture is far from reliable." Even if one knew with absolute certainty that the person they were going to torture had the information they needed, there is no guarantee that they will give the correct information. Making the torture useless, but still extremely horrible for the person.

Would you say that it would be OK for Iraqi soldiers to torture U.S. POWs to prevent the loss of innocent civilians? Because it seems that you're saying that it is.
Always question all authorities because the authority you don't question is the most dangerous... except me, never question me.

Wilson

You boys are missing the point.  I know about the unreliability of torture.  But this is a thought experiment.  As I said, let's postulate that we have reliable information, say from a mole within the terrorist organization.  And let's postulate that we have reliable information, from the same trusted source, that a nuclear device will be exploded in downtown New York City in 24 hours, and millions of people may be killed.  And the mole asures us that the prisoner, and only the prisoner, knows the location of the bomb.

Granted, this is unlikely.  But play along.  Given this particular scenario, you are the director in charge of interrogation.  The prisoner isn't responding to questions.  Do you okay sending in Jack Bauer?  Or do you say to yourself, it's God's will, and let nature take its course?

No punking out, now.

Davin

Quote from: "Wilson"You boys are missing the point.  I know about the unreliability of torture.  But this is a thought experiment.  As I said, let's postulate that we have reliable information, say from a mole within the terrorist organization.  And let's postulate that we have reliable information, from the same trusted source, that a nuclear device will be exploded in downtown New York City in 24 hours, and millions of people may be killed.  And the mole asures us that the prisoner, and only the prisoner, knows the location of the bomb.

Granted, this is unlikely.  But play along.  Given this particular scenario, you are the director in charge of interrogation.  The prisoner isn't responding to questions.  Do you okay sending in Jack Bauer?  Or do you say to yourself, it's God's will, and let nature take its course?

No punking out, now.
Neither of your dichotomy, torturing under this case would be a waste of time because one could not trust the information acquired from the torture. It would be the same as just blindly guessing where the bomb was, except blindly guessing the location of the bomb would be more useful because it would take less time. Like I said earlier, even if one knew with absolute certainty that the one about to be tortured had the information (already using your scenario), there is no amount of certainty that the person would give the correct information. It's far more likely the person being tortured would just give a false location, especially if they were the only person who knew where the bomb was. Making the torture a useless waste of time.
Always question all authorities because the authority you don't question is the most dangerous... except me, never question me.