Effectiveness of Torture

[Towlie]

I'm curious, Joe. If you don't believe in God, how can you believe in absolute morality? Or do you? It seems to me that if there is no higher power, then there is no right or wrong beyond personal preference. With that in mind, I can understand why you might believe in moral equivalency.

This from the torture apologist? Unbelievable!

A more appropriate question might be: If you don't believe in God, how can you advocate torture? Answer: You can't. It takes religion to pervert our instinctive morality and enable us to argue in favor of what we know deep inside is wrong.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

And yet, if you leave definitions of right and wrong, moral and immoral, solely up to people, then circumstances arise where people, justifiably thinking they are doing right, murder. Steal. Perhaps even rape. Who are you to judge them?

First, all moral and legal definitions are in fact made by people. Some of the people just attempt to justify their definitions by invoking a deity.

Second, here you're using the term "people" ambiguously. You're sometimes using it to refer to humans (as opposed to God or whatever) and sometimes using it to refer to an individual. As I've shown above, individuals really can't establish moral convention single handedly. So we (collectively) are able to judge when an individual has violated moral conventions.

Interesting to note that I'm using the term "convention" to point out that language and morals are basically what they are by general consensus or agreement, and one of the key legal documents we've been discussing with regard to torture is the U.N. Convention Against Torture.

I wonder if your position on torture would be different if one of the prescriptions handed down from Judeo-Christian scriptures was "Thou shalt not commit torture".

 

[BeAChooser]

First, all moral and legal definitions are in fact made by people. Some of the people just attempt to justify their definitions by invoking a deity.

Fine. By your own admission, your definition of torture is no better than mine. Your definition of morality is no better than mine. Your definition of right is no better than mine. Your definition of wrong is no better than mine. It's ultimately a personal matter. That's the logical consequence of your thinking. You are simply trying to impose your definitions on me and others. You are simply trying to act like ... well ... a "god".

 

[Praktik]

Fine. By your own admission, your definition of torture is no better than mine. Your definition of morality is no better than mine. Your definition of right is no better than mine. Your definition of wrong is no better than mine. It's ultimately a personal matter. That's the logical consequence of your thinking. You are simply trying to impose your definitions on me and others. You are simply trying to act like ... well ... a "god".

And you are attempting to act "god-like" in that you fantasize that your morality is the prescribed morality of an invisible super hero who lives in outer space. Why else would you claim that morality must have a divine underpinning if you don't have the conceit that your morality is god's morality?

 

[BeAChooser]

Why else would you claim that morality must have a divine underpinning

Maybe I just believe in the Declaration of Independence. Don't you?

Remember where it says ...

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

I suspect our Founding Fathers believed that morality had a divine underpinning. That the notions of "good" and "evil", and "right" and "wrong", transcend mere humans. I join them in that belief and certainly don't think they were trying to "act 'god-like'".

 

[Towlie]

What does the metaphor of "God-given rights" have to do with morality?

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Fine. By your own admission, your definition of torture is no better than mine. Your definition of morality is no better than mine. Your definition of right is no better than mine. Your definition of wrong is no better than mine. It's ultimately a personal matter. That's the logical consequence of your thinking. You are simply trying to impose your definitions on me and others. You are simply trying to act like ... well ... a "god".

Not at all. First of all, the definition I've been citing in all these torturous torture threads is the one given in the C.A.T. and the U.S. Code. They are not "my" definitions, which fits in precisely with my approach to morality--that an individual cannot make something a convention.

I've never claimed it was "ultimately a personal matter". In fact, I reject that notion outright. I also reject your accusation that I am trying to impose my definition on others. That's a false statement.

The ban on torture is the convention we have. Also, I've provided logical arguments (a part of that mental capacity for morality) to support the idea that an outright ban in all situations is the best standard, even if you think torture can in rare circumstances be justified.

B.A.C. I think maybe you don't actually read my posts. You accuse me of holding positions that are exactly contrary to my expressed position.

 

[thaiboxerken]

I suspect our Founding Fathers believed that morality had a divine underpinning.

They also thought slavery was ok.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

He does? I didn't know BAC was particularly theistic, let alone Christian.

How else do you interpret: "If you don't believe in God, how can you believe in absolute morality?"

And it would appear from some of the other replies they interpreted the statement in a similar way. I don't have everyone's degree of theism memorized. My reply was based on that post and the fact we have dispelled the 'morals come from god beliefs' in this forum ad nauseum.