News:

Unnecessarily argumentative

Main Menu

Ethical basis for Veganism or Vegetarianism?

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

Previous topic - Next topic

Wilson

#300
Davin, I don't like to criticize a person of your obviously elevated moral stature, but just answer the damn question.  

You seem to think that torture never works.  I believe that it does sometimes.  Plenty of false information.  But we have 24 hours.  You can force the guy to give you a location.  Wouldn't take long to check, then if incorrect, torture resumes and continues until the correct location is given.  At some point, I suspect most of us would break under torture and tell the truth to stop the pain.  

Would you, given the scenario I proposed, just let the bomb go off?  Would you feel ethically justified in not trying to force information from someone who would prefer to remain silent, even at the cost of a million lives?  Even if there's only a 10% chance that you could save them?

It's a pretty simple question.

Davin

Quote from: "Wilson"Davin, I don't like to criticize a person of your obviously elevated moral stature, but just answer the damn question.  

Would you, given the scenario I proposed, just let the bomb go off?  Would you feel ethically justified in not trying to force information from someone who would prefer to remain silent, even at the cost of a million lives?

It's a pretty simple question.
Neither of your dichotomy, it's a false dichotomy. What I would do is try to figure out the most likely place the person would have placed the bomb, instead of wasting time by torturing the person for information that would very likely be false information. This is the third time I've answered your question.

Now answer my question that you've been avoiding.
Always question all authorities because the authority you don't question is the most dangerous... except me, never question me.

Wilson

Quote from: "Davin"Neither of your dichotomy, it's a false dichotomy. What I would do is try to figure out the most likely place the person would have placed the bomb, instead of wasting time by torturing the person for information that would very likely be false information. This is the third time I've answered your question.

Now answer my question that you've been avoiding.

So you wouldn't torture the man under those circumstances, because the information would VERY LIKELY (but not surely) be false information.  Congratulations!  You are responsible for the death of a million people.  But you'll sleep well all morally superior.

If, under those circumstances, you really wouldn't torture the man in hopes of saving New York City, you'd be - and I say this with respect - a fool.  But I suspect that placed in that situation, you'd do what you'd hate to do - that is, use common sense and do something distasteful and horrible and degrading that you hate to do but would for the greater good.  Else the man in charge would find somebody who would.

In the absence of God, morality is not absolute.  You can't go strictly by rules.  There are exceptions to most rules of behavior.  Thou shall not kill, except it's okay if someone is threatening the life of your family.  Thou shall not torture, except under exceptional circumstances when a lot of innocent lives are at stake.  Set common sense moral rules for yourself and follow them the majority of the time, but make room for a little nuance in your thinking if the situation requires it.  In my opinion, refusing to torture in the above scenario would be immoral.  

You asked, "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."  It wouldn't be okay with me, but they wouldn't ask me.  From their standpoint, if they could save a village by torturing a POW, they would, and they might be morally justified.  Of course it's unlikely that a POW would have any information of that kind.  It's more likely that the Iraqis would do it out of pure hatred.  

Perhaps you are saying that we can't claim the moral high ground and condemn Iraqi torture if we do the same.  That's true.  I'm sure, however, that an enemy army would do what they want to without making sure that we did it first.

As I think I said before, I don't think torture should be used under normal circumstances.  Of course the images are distasteful to the max and degrading to the human spirit.  But I acknowledge that a situation could conceivably come up where it might be the moral way to go.

Davin

Quote from: "Wilson"
Quote from: "Davin"Neither of your dichotomy, it's a false dichotomy. What I would do is try to figure out the most likely place the person would have placed the bomb, instead of wasting time by torturing the person for information that would very likely be false information. This is the third time I've answered your question.

Now answer my question that you've been avoiding.

So you wouldn't torture the man under those circumstances, because the information would VERY LIKELY (but not surely) be false information.  Congratulations!  You are responsible for the death of a million people.  But you'll sleep well all morally superior.
No, I wouldn't be responsible, the person that planted the bomb would be responsible. I never sleep well, so it's a moot point any way. Once again, it's not for moral superiority, it's making a decision based on what is more useful. On one hand I have something that you generously stated has a 10% success rate, for those that kind of accuracy I could call a "psychic". Or on the other hand I have U.S. intelligence agencies with a much higher success rate even when there is no interrogation of any kind.

It's more likely that choosing torture will result in letting the bomb go off than using far more reliable resources.

Would you rather rely on something with a 10% success rate (your torture scenario) over something with a much higher success rate (the U.S. intelligence agencies who've stopped way more terrorist operations than torture ever could) when a million lives are at stake?

Quote from: "Wilson"If, under those circumstances, you really wouldn't torture the man in hopes of saving New York City, you'd be - and I say this with respect - a fool.
I don't find that choosing not to rely on something unreliable as being a fool, I find that choosing to rely on something unreliable over something more reliable as being a fool.

Quote from: "Wilson"But I suspect that placed in that situation, you'd do what you'd hate to do - that is, use common sense and do something distasteful and horrible and degrading that you hate to do but would for the greater good.  Else the man in charge would find somebody who would.
No, I'd do what I always do and use things that have evidence for success over things like torture with evidence for not being successful.

Quote from: "Wilson"In the absence of God, morality is not absolute.  You can't go strictly by rules.  There are exceptions to most rules of behavior.  Thou shall not kill, except it's okay if someone is threatening the life of your family.  Thou shall not torture, except under exceptional circumstances when a lot of innocent lives are at stake.  Set common sense moral rules for yourself and follow them the majority of the time, but make room for a little nuance in your thinking if the situation requires it.  In my opinion, refusing to torture in the above scenario would be immoral.
Even with a god, morality is still subjective for us for all practical purposes. I'm not talking about morality here, I'm talking about utility. Torture has large amounts of evidence that shows that it's unreliable, the time is better spent doing something else. Of course I hold room for exceptions, however resorting to torture is irrational under any circumstance anyone has postulated due to the overwhelming evidence that it's extremely unreliable.

Quote from: "Wilson"You asked, "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."  It wouldn't be okay with me, but they wouldn't ask me.  From their standpoint, if they could save a village by torturing a POW, they would, and they might be morally justified.
I just wanted to know if your standard of judgment applies across the board, or if it's just a limited understanding of the way too simplistic view of us vs. them. If you say that it's OK for us to torture people given certain circumstances, you can't say it's bad when other people torture you under the same circumstances.

Quote from: "Wilson"Of course it's unlikely that a POW would have any information of that kind.  It's more likely that the Iraqis would do it out of pure hatred.
Like the half a million innocent Iraqi's we killed in just the first few years of the Iraqi war? Yeah, we killed way more innocents during the war than what happened on 9/11. Iraqis likely doing it out of pure hatred is an assumption, that holds equal weight on the U.S. doing it out of pure hatred, particularly when one already knows that torture is extremely unreliable.

Quote from: "Wilson"Perhaps you are saying that we can't claim the moral high ground and condemn Iraqi torture if we do the same.  That's true.  I'm sure, however, that an enemy army would do what they want to without making sure that we did it first.
When I say it's wrong to do something, I always hold it true for myself as well, it's not very useful to claim something is wrong then do it. I'm not considering what they will or won't do, just whether I can justify my actions as well as condemning the actions of others that I see as bad.

Quote from: "Wilson"As I think I said before, I don't think torture should be used under normal circumstances.  Of course the images are distasteful to the max and degrading to the human spirit.  But I acknowledge that a situation could conceivably come up where it might be the moral way to go.
Not even in your extremely unrealistic scenario is torture even useful, not considering the morality of it.

I've stated before that coming up with situations that will never happen in order to justify torture is the same as saying that torture is not justifiable.
Always question all authorities because the authority you don't question is the most dangerous... except me, never question me.

Ihateyoumike

So if I eat meat I'm gonna be tortured to find out where the bomb is? Or will I be the torturer? I'm confused how this all works and what the connection is.
Prayers that need no answer now, cause I'm tired of who I am
You were my greatest mistake, I fell in love with your sin
Your littlest sin.

LegendarySandwich

Quote from: "Ihateyoumike"So if I eat meat I'm gonna be tortured to find out where the bomb is? Or will I be the torturer? I'm confused how this all works and what the connection is.
I guess I could make a new thread on torture.

Edit: viewtopic.php?f=5&t=6281

Thumpalumpacus

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.

Personally, I don't like the idea of approving sticking a red-hot branding iron up a person's ass based on a hypothetical.  Perhaps you call it "punking out"; I call it "thinking", and I'm happy to submit my judgment to others for their input -- you included.

But since you asked, I'd send him to the city at the center of concern, and let him know that.  His reaction will tell the truth about things.
Illegitimi non carborundum.

Wilson

Quote from: "Thumpalumpacus"But since you asked, I'd send him to the city at the center of concern, and let him know that.  His reaction will tell the truth about things.

Now you're just being silly.  This is a guy of the suicide bomber type, and you think threatening him with death will make him reveal?  With paradise awaiting?

Regardless, you're willing to kill the man, but not torture him to save a city?  Where's the morality in that?  I get it.  You're just squeamish.

LegendarySandwich

Let's not resort to ad hominems, guys.

Thump and Davin's arguments have convinced me that torture is ineffective and thus almost never justified. Sorry Wilson, it looks like you're on your own.

Sophus

Did this thread get derailed into being about torture?
‎"Christian doesn't necessarily just mean good. It just means better." - John Oliver

LegendarySandwich

Quote from: "Sophus"Did this thread get derailed into being about torture?
Yes, which is why I created a separate thread on torture.

Wilson

Quote from: "LegendarySandwich"Let's not resort to ad hominems, guys.

Thump and Davin's arguments have convinced me that torture is ineffective and thus almost never justified. Sorry Wilson, it looks like you're on your own.
That's a shame.  I'd just lately set up a torture facility and hoped to get some referrals.

Thumpalumpacus

Quote from: "Wilson"
Quote from: "Thumpalumpacus"But since you asked, I'd send him to the city at the center of concern, and let him know that.  His reaction will tell the truth about things.

Now you're just being silly.  This is a guy of the suicide bomber type, and you think threatening him with death will make him reveal?  With paradise awaiting?

Regardless, you're willing to kill the man, but not torture him to save a city?  Where's the morality in that?  I get it.  You're just squeamish.

And here it is that you're willing to keep him alive to inflict as much pain as possible, but unwilling to put him out of his misery?

I get it.  You're just inhuman.

See, two can play at bullshit stereotyping.

Perhaps next time you'll pack your brain.  If you need me to spell out my thinking, I'll be happy to do so; you need but ask.
Illegitimi non carborundum.

DJAkuma

I guess I'm the opposite of a vegetarian. I can't bring myself to eat vegetables with a strong smell, I'm fine with potatos, beans, rice and that sort of thing but meat makes up the bulk of my diet, I can't get enough beef, pork, fish, chicken, venison, gator, turkey, duck, rabbit, elk, etc.

Whitney

I've found that as I'm getting older I like vegetables more and the texture of meat less (especially processed meats).

And my husband still hates most vegetables.

Coming up with a dinner we both want to eat has been a culinary challenge; with a silver lining of improving and expanding on my cooking skills.