Waterboarding Rocks!

[A'isha]

... depending on the morality of the act you prevent by doing it. If you want to label that "circumstances", fine, but that is not what "circumstances" means in the definition of "moral relativism".

No, that's exactly what it means.

"Act X is always immoral and should never be done" is the statement of someone who is not a moral relativist. "Act X is always immoral and should never be done, unless..." is the statement of a moral relativist.

 

[A'isha]

We should prosecute those flawed, feeling, humans.

No, we should prosecute those who followed the dictates of cold logic as though it were the inexorable justification they pretended it to be.

 

[leftysergeant]

... depending on the morality of the act you prevent by doing it.

You are assuming that the known immoral act will prevent the possible immoral act. The Freench experience in Algeria makes this positon look plain stupid. All the thumbscrews in Algeria did not, as far as I can tell, in any way interfere with the Algerian insurrgency.

 

[applecorped]

No, we should prosecute those who followed the dictates of cold logic as though it were the inexorable justification they pretended it to be.

Logic sucks sometimes.

 

[A'isha]

Logic sucks sometimes.

To quote Spock again, "Indeed."

 

[BeAChooser]

deleted

 

[BeAChooser]

Originally Posted by BeAChooser
... depending on the morality of the act you prevent by doing it. If you want to label that "circumstances", fine, but that is not what "circumstances" means in the definition of "moral relativism".

No, that's exactly what it means.

Let's back up for purposes of clarity.

Upchurch originally claimed (effectively) that my expression

"A is immoral, B is more immoral, the act (call it C) of using A to prevent B is moral"

is an expression of moral relativism.

Do you agree with that or not?

As I told Upchurch, I believe Act A is still immoral regardless of the circumstances (a moral relativist wouldn't believe that true). I believe Act B is still immoral regardless of the circumstances (a moral relativist wouldn't believe that true). And I also believe (because I'm not a moral equivalist) that Act B can be more immoral than Act A, and that if Act A is then used to prevent Act B, the act of doing so (call it Act C) has inherent morality which is on the net positive side (by the same universal standard of morality) because as a result of it, the universe would have less overall immorality than had one just let Act B take place because one valued Act A the same as Act B (being a moral equivalist) or worse than Act B (being a moral relativist).

Do you agree or disagree with of that?

 

[A'isha]

Upchurch is correct.

There is no "Act C" as you define it, because it's effectively just the same thing as Act A. If Act A is immoral, then doing it at all is immoral. The instant you try to say "Well, if you do Act A as part of some odd thing that I count as Act C, then it's moral", you're engaging in moral relativism, because that statement still comes down to "Act A is moral as long as you do it in the right circumstances."

 

[BeAChooser]

You are assuming that the known immoral act will prevent the possible immoral act.

No, I'm acting probabilistically based on the best available information at the time according to the scenario I've outlined repeatedly during this discussion.

The Freench experience in Algeria makes this positon look plain stupid.

But perhaps the CIA experience described in Post #903 makes the opposite view look stupid. They are, afterall, quite different situations with quite different definitions of torture and degrees of ruthlessness on the part of the interrogators. Perhaps the French experience had more to do with French authorities simply turning a blind eye to the most heinous acts (and there, we really are talking about torturing people to death) by those committing torture on their behalf. I don't think that's true in our case. Perhaps the French experience has more to do with the fact that those acts of torture were often followed by summary execution of the tortured individual, without trial or any other judicial procedure. And that certainly isn't true in our case, either. Only the most uninformed person wouldn't know this. Are you uninformed, lefty?

 

[BeAChooser]

There is no "Act C" as you define it, because it's effectively just the same thing as Act A.

Wrong. Act A (causing some pain and discomfort to a person) has the same morality whether a question is asked of the person or not. There is a universal measure of "morality" associated with hurting a person. It has an inherent badness that has nothing to do with anything else. But the act of using Act A to elicit information can have a positive morality if it prevents an even more immoral Act B (say the murder of 1000 people). Therefore it is a seperate act, with a separate measure of morality.

 

[A'isha]

Wrong. Act A (causing some pain and discomfort to a person) has the same morality whether a question is asked of the person or not. There is a universal measure of "morality" associated with hurting a person. It has an inherent badness that has nothing to do with anything else. But the act of using Act A to elicit information can have a positive morality if it prevents an even more immoral Act B (say the murder of 1000 people). Therefore it is a seperate act, with a separate measure of morality.

It's not a separate act, because Act C requires the committing of Act A, and you've already declared that committing Act A is always immoral, no matter the circumstance. If you say that doing Act A is all right when it's part of Act C because Act C is all right, then you're a moral relativist, because you're saying that there are circumstances in which Act A is all right despite saying earlier that no such circumstance exists.

I've highlighted the relevant portions of your post for you. If you say that Act A has the same (bad) morality even if you ask someone a question, then you cannot then say the act of using Act A to ask someone a question is moral if X will then result. What X is doesn't matter, because as soon as you add that "if" it becomes morally relativist.

The whole point of non-relativism is that there is no if!

 

[Upchurch]

But the act of using Act A to elicit information can have a positive morality if it prevents an even more immoral Act B (say the murder of 1000 people). Therefore it is a seperate act, with a separate measure of morality.

No one is arguing that stopping B is not a moral act. But you seem to agree that A is an immoral act regardless, correct? If, as you say, these are two separate acts, there is no justifying A simply due to the prevention of B.

Thus, there is no justification for torture.

 

[tsig]

We should prosecute those flawed, feeling, humans.

We should indeed.

 

[Upchurch]

Wrong. Act A (causing some pain and discomfort to a person) has the same morality whether a question is asked of the person or not. There is a universal measure of "morality" associated with hurting a person. It has an inherent badness that has nothing to do with anything else. But the act of using Act A to elicit information can have a positive morality if it prevents an even more immoral Act B (say the murder of 1000 people). Therefore it is a seperate act, with a separate measure of morality.

Okay, I've had some time to reconsider this problem. This is still moral relativism. You've simply shifted one of the relative elements.

From my earlier post:

A: Intentionally hurting another is immoral.
B: Murdering is immoral.

Your new scenario:

A: Intentionally hurting another is immoral.
C: Not preventing murder is immoral.
C_corr: Preventing murder is moral.

Your actual statement was along the lines of C_corr, but C_corr and C are logically equivalent. You posit that C is more immoral than A, therefore if A can prevent C, then A is moral (or, if you prefer, justified).

In other words, intentionally hurting another is the right (i.e. moral) thing to do because it prevents murder. Thus, the purpose to which intentionally hurting another is put determines its morality.

This, very simply, is moral relativism. (The moral equivalency aspect is related to this argument, but more complex.)

 

[Praktik]

Seems to me BAC is making a sincere case for a torture policy.

That's all well and good - I suggest then that the appropriate course of action is to demand repeal of domestic laws that prohibit torture, and withdrawal from international treaties that prohibit it.

Its the logically consistent and honest thing to do.

Some torture advocates escape this dilemma (expressly advocating the legalization of torture) by succumbing to the smokescreen of chatter out there downplaying the fact that the techniques in concert, and some of them considered even on their own, are torture and recognized as such both by domestic precedent and internationally as well.

I disagree fairly strongly with the pro-torture position - but I can at least respect a torture advocate who can makes a case for the benefits of torture and then demand that the legal framework be changed to permit torture.

An important long-term issue is the larger question of precedent - if we can recognize that the law must be changed to authorize all actions, even those in the name of national security, then we won't have the dangerous precedent of any future President invoking national security to flout any law deemed inconvenient.

This is surely something both sides should agree on - for no one side is going to be at the wheels of the White House forever.

 

[leftysergeant]

No, I'm acting probabilistically based on the best available information at the time according to the scenario I've outlined repeatedly during this discussion.



But perhaps the CIA experience described in Post #903 makes the opposite view look stupid. They are, afterall, quite different situations with quite different definitions of torture and degrees of ruthlessness on the part of the interrogators. Perhaps the French experience had more to do with French authorities simply turning a blind eye to the most heinous acts (and there, we really are talking about torturing people to death) by those committing torture on their behalf.

If they got an adequate return of actionable intel by torture, they should have been able to round up and liquidate the insurrgents. They didn't. They lost.

Torture does not work.

Are you uninformed, lefty?

Are you willing to take the word of a war criminal that he got his actionable intel from tortured suspects when he might have actually gotten it from another source, such as tapping every phone line in America, also in violation of laws?

I do not for an instant believe any report of actionable intel having been gained by torture. There is too strong a motivation for the intel agency making such claim to lie when he sees the peasant bundling torches and sharpening their pitch forks.

 

[Nova Land]

Nova Land, I'm not going to respond to most of what you wrote in your latest posts (#1181 - #1188) since my last set of responses (#1143 - #1155) pretty much address the substance of what you wrote. I'll instead wait until you get to my last set of responses and you respond to them specifically. Otherwise, this conversation will get too confusing, too repetitive and we'll just keep arguing in circles.

Thank you. I think that's a good idea.

My apologies for the length of time it is taking me to catch up with the rest of you. Last night I fell asleep instead of writing and posting. I will be staying up most or all of the night tonight, and will try to get some posting done during that time.

The good news is there are relatively few posts I feel a need to reply to between pages 17 and 27 (and not all of those are yours) so it should not take as many posts to cover that ground as it has on previous pages. I will also try to edit my posts a little better to keep the wordiness down a bit.

 

[Cicero]

No, we should prosecute those who followed the dictates of cold logic as though it were the inexorable justification they pretended it to be.

Who is going to prosecute the Bush Administration when the DOJ gave its official Okey Dokey to the methods used on detainees, the CIA endoresed it, the NSA endorsed it, the DoD endorsed it, and Congress was aware of it?

Bruce Fine, the former Reagan Administration Justice Department official, wants Obama to give Bush and Cheney a pardon so their guilt would be on the record. However, President Obama is decidedly not interested in pursuing the matter at all.

 

[leftysergeant]

Who is going to prosecute the Bush Administration when the DOJ gave its official Okey Dokey to the methods used on detainees, the CIA endoresed it, the NSA endorsed it, the DoD endorsed it...

The professionals at those agencies did not approve the methods. The Shrub's appointees, to a drooling moron of them, did. The slimeball Yoo is hardly representative of the professionals in the DoJ.

As for trhe DoD, bear in mind that the Sec Def at the time, the worst excuse for a Sec Def ever and a failed human being, made a lot of real military people very angry by approving (some say reverse-engineering from SERE) the torture methods. Don't equate a pile of slop like Rummy with military people or experts in military policy.

... and Congress was aware of it?

To what degree?

Bruce Fine, the former Reagan Administration Justice Department official, wants Obama to give Bush and Cheney a pardon so their guilt would be on the record.

This is a good idea only if the pardon were conditioned upon their admitting the crimes and giving full account on trhe public record and testifying against those who refused to accept the pardon.

Either way, it would flush the Shrub's legacy down the toilet, which would be a great benefit to the world.

 

[BeAChooser]

It's not a separate act

Sure it is, because asking a question is a separate act. It requires a separate response on the part of the person asked the question. How can you think otherwise?

And asking the question is not immoral if much good can result from it. I can't help but notice that you've simply ignored logic about the overall change in the immorality of the universe by committing or threatening to commit Act A, then committing Act C (asking the question), and thereby preventing Act B, because the person questioned wants to avoid Act A or a repeat of Act A. Act C can positively impact the overall morality of the universe and thus can be moral. The facts claimed in post #903, which you continue to just ignore, would seem to prove several such cases.

you're saying that there are circumstances in which Act A is all right despite saying earlier that no such circumstance exists.

Again, I point out that a reading of various definitions of moral relativism leads me to believe that the term "circumstance" as used in those definitions is not what is meant by your use of "circumstance" in the example here.

A moral relativist believes that Act A can be moral in one culture but immoral in a different culture. I'm not suggesting that. Are you? I think hurting a person is a bad thing regardless of culture. That seems to be what you've been claiming. That it bad in a universal sense, just as our founding fathers held there were universal truths. I think mass murder is similarly a bad thing regardless of culture. Don't you? A moral relativist would argue that's not always true. THAT is the definition of moral relativism. Here:

http://www.moral-relativism.com/ "Moral relativism is the view that ethical standards, morality, and positions of right or wrong are culturally based and therefore subject to a person's individual choice."

http://blogcritics.org/culture/article/moral-relativism/ "The very definition of moral relativism — a view in which moral standards are not absolute or universal, instead emerging from varied social customs, laws, religious beliefs, etc ..."

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/moral-relativism/ "The term ‘moral relativism’ is understood in a variety of ways. Most often it is associated with an empirical thesis that there are deep and widespread moral disagreements and a metaethical thesis that the truth or justification of moral judgments is not absolute, but relative to some group of persons."

http://www.essortment.com/all/philosophicalis_rcga.htm "In a rural village 50 miles east of Calcutta, a mother kills her newborn baby girl without threat of scorn, punishment, or criticism of her morality from her community. Indeed, the practice of infanticide is commonplace in poverty-stricken regions of India, China, and other nations. Many outside observers of this culture would label this act murder and condemn the woman as an immoral person deserving penalization. The theory of moral relativism, however, holds that the mother has committed no violation because she was acting in accord with the societal standards of her culture."