Zero Dark Thirty

[Guest]

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever

Login with username, password and session length

[nikomas]

'It's okay because they do it too'. Oh wow, I totally hadn't thought about this. I suppose thinking like a 4-year old IS the right way to go about your international politics!

I was more thinking... 'It's okay because they do it too' = Any any and all sense of being more civilized than the other guy was lost this day 

[Mysthalin]

Your point on torture being valid because "they do it" would only apply if the long-term goal of the US foreign policy was complete and utter annihilation of the arab world. However, right now it happens to be trying to win hearts and minds enough so that stability in the region can be attained and you can recall the troops and start dealing with other pressing issues such as your debt problem.

Why is it not valid now? Well, think about the rage you would feel hearing a story of a US marine being, say, crucified in the hands of an Islamist militia group? You'd want utter destruction of the militia group, correct? Now try and imagine a similar situation from an Arabian Muslim's perspective. Their dad/uncle/brother joins Al Qaeda to fight the Americans in the name of god. The person might not agree with such action, as it's dangerous, and do not join their family member in this pursuit. Fast forward to the death of the militant family member. Now, which do you think is more likely to cause the person at hand to take up arms against the US armed forces?

Scenario 1: The militant is killed in a skirmish with US marines.
Scenario 2: The militant is captured and then raped to death with a cactus in an attempt to extract information.

[Unkn0wn]

That's a correct but ultimately utilitarian assessment of why torture is bad, I would hope more people see that torture is outright wrong from a moral perspective just as well. And no, not just because some convention says so, rather these conventions and human right laws are the embodiment of an inherent belief within our civilisation, a belief however that is clearly being corroded in American society today

[Mysthalin]

Morals are useless if they can not be derived from some sort of utilitarian framework. Having them just for the sake of having them... ehhh, kinda sucks.

[Sachaztan]

I added a new option.

I also thought what acker said was interesting:
"You could use the same logic about criminals and criminal organizations. The Mafia doesn't give a shit about due process when they order hits on US citizens. Why bother giving suspected Mafia members due process?

How about suspected serial killers, bandits, or rapists? Is it fine to torture them, too?"

[Jodomar]

You act like I care about being civil, I give no fucks. Just got to do what needs to be done, and I happen to be a big fan of the Roman way (useless emperors and civil wars aside).  Personally, I'm all for an eye for an eye. You stab someone we stab you back in the same exact way. You rape someone well guess what? You're now going to be raped too. It's just a great way of doing things, the ancient world had some aspects right!

[Unkn0wn]

How great society would be if we all thought like Jodomar. It's no surprise he votes for the Republican Party.

[Sachaztan]

You act like I care about being civil, I give no fucks. Just got to do what needs to be done, and I happen to be a big fan of the Roman way (useless emperors and civil wars aside).  Personally, I'm all for an eye for an eye. You stab someone we stab you back in the same exact way. You rape someone well guess what? You're now going to be raped too. It's just a great way of doing things, the ancient world had some aspects right!

Speaking of eye for an eye, why do you think there isn't a single modern country in the world that embraces that philosophy in their Judicial system?

[Mysthalin]

Just got to do what needs to be done, and I happen to be a big fan of the Roman way (useless emperors and civil wars aside)

Except torture achieves just about nothing... And what do you think caused many of the problems in the Roman empire in the first place? I can tell you it wasn't the fact the Roman empire was a cuddly teddy-bear sharing its love with people of all nations.

[Masacree]

If Muslim fundamentalists hate the U.S. because they see us as an evil country with no respect for human dignity, why would we take actions to confirm their opinion?

[Masacree]

Morals are useless if they can not be derived from some sort of utilitarian framework.

Why do you think this?

[8thRifleRegiment]

because a countries morals themselves are derived from a societies culture and as well its class system. and differ place to place for that reason.

[Mysthalin]

Why do you think this?

Let's take the "moral" of no sex before marriage, shall we? Perfectly understandable in 200 AD when things like contraception didn't exist... Not quite so much today.

More or less any non-controvertial (or at least, not significantly controvertial) moral today is perfectly explainable in utilitarian terms.

[Masacree]

Let's take the "moral" of no sex before marriage, shall we? Perfectly understandable in 200 AD when things like contraception didn't exist... Not quite so much today.

More or less any non-controvertial (or at least, not significantly controvertial) moral today is perfectly explainable in utilitarian terms.

Except when they're not.

Any sort of rights based, deontological, virtue, .... ethical theory is founded on a basis other than that of utility. You can say "Well, the only reason society tries to justify ethical acts through these ethical frameworks is because those ethical acts are beneficial to the society" as the mongoloid who posted above you did (and in some sense Nieztsche did much more persuasively), but you'd be wrong.

To take an easy example: American society, in addition to having laws which are passed explicitly with the justification that they provide the most utility, has a document known as the "Constitution" which explicitly lays out the rights that an American citizen has. This document is the sine qua non of the American legal system. They literally override any concern about utility, and even allow known criminals to be set free if certain basic rights are not met. Rights based ethical theories are not just a different method of justifying utilitarian policies, but actually oppose a strictly utilitarian approach in some circumstances and provide actual substantive differences in judgement.

[Mysthalin]

The rights guaranteed by the constitution are essentially utilitarian, or were utilitarian at the time of being passed...


I honestly can not think of a single moral that I do not find useless/outdated that can not be justified in a utilitarian framework. If it doesn't make sense, it doesn't - and abiding by the moral "just because it's right" becomes flat out stupid to me.

[Masacree]

The rights guaranteed by the constitution are essentially utilitarian, or were utilitarian at the time of being passed...

No, as I just explained, the Constitution is rights based. Rights are not utilitarian. They say that, no matter what the benefit to be had by society, certain aspects of a person are inviolable.

I honestly can not think of a single moral that I do not find useless/outdated that can not be justified in a utilitarian framework. If it doesn't make sense, it doesn't - and abiding by the moral "just because it's right" becomes flat out stupid to me.

Nobody justifies an ethical framework "because it's morally right." Philosophers derive their ethical systems from other considerations.

[DarkSoldierX]

You could use the same logic about criminals and criminal organizations. The Mafia doesn't give a shit about due process when they order hits on US citizens. Why bother giving suspected Mafia members due process?

How about suspected serial killers, bandits, or rapists? Is it fine to torture them, too?

Which is why we have ethics/morals that conflict with your actions. You know the part were you don't mess with anyone who doesn't have evidence against them. I'm sure you can think of at least 3 laws in your country that could possibly conflict with each other.

Torture is more than justified on convicted serial killers and rapist. Its just the matter if it will bring the victim any closure or not. And if its really worth the time.

[Mysthalin]

No, as I just explained, the Constitution is rights based. Rights are not utilitarian. They say that, no matter what the benefit to be had by society, certain aspects of a person are inviolable.

The fact that rights are not utilitarian by nature does not mean they can not be explained in a utilitarian framework. Just as an example - the right to free speech allows for a non-violent control mechanism of the government that to some degree prevents it from grossly abusing its constituency. Likewise, the right to property (and this right's defense) makes society a lot more productive through allowing the incentive of personal gain to work in a beneficial manner.

A similar line of thought can be extended for most, if not all rights guaranteed both by individual constitutions and the declaration of human rights. The main point of argument then becomes not whether the right can be justified under a utilitarian point of view, but whether a person chooses to accept them on the basis of this framework (e.g. does the utility of suspending the right of life for people sentenced to life imprisonment outweigh the long-term utility society gains from ensuring innocent people's judgements can be reversed).

Have in mind my definition of utilitarianism isn't so much the philosophical one as it is the microeconomics one.

Nobody justifies an ethical framework "because it's morally right." Philosophers derive their ethical systems from other considerations.

I'll agree with you there with a slight amendment. Philosophers do not justify ethical frameworks "because they are morally right". The case for the general populace (e.g. Fundamental Christians who oppose gay marriage) is quite different. And, before you go ahead and tell me they derive them from the sayings of a crummy old book - yes, I know that. But in their mind and by their definitions those sayings ARE moral guidelines to live by, and thus for ease of discussion and without getting into semantics this can be referred to as "morals".

[acker]

Which is why we have ethics/morals that conflict with your actions. You know the part were you don't mess with anyone who doesn't have evidence against them. I'm sure you can think of at least 3 laws in your country that could possibly conflict with each other.

There's actually no contradiction between my statement and yours. Being suspected of an action requires evidence. Otherwise, why would someone be suspected of an action in the first place?

The strength of the evidence against the suspect is another story altogether. So is the strength of the evidence for the suspect.

Torture is more than justified on convicted serial killers and rapist. Its just the matter if it will bring the victim any closure or not. And if its really worth the time.

Why draw the line there? Why not include convicted informants, robbers, arsonists; all those other dangerous criminals out there?

It really doesn't cost any money or time to torture a prisoner. Just deprive them of food and water for a week every month. Or house them in a room the size of a telephone box, ala California.

In fact, both of the above saves the government money in the long run.

[Sachaztan]

Yeah why not just execute every single criminal? Would save a lot of money you know. Murder? Execution. Rape? Execution. Shoplifting? Execution. Jaywalking? Execution. Wouldn't be any crime left amirite?

I watched Django unchained yesterday and it got me thinking about slavery and the death penalty. USA was the last western country to abolish slavery, with the exception of Nazi Germany that started using slaves again.
USA is currently the only western country where you can be sentenced to death. The only 4 countries that executes more prisoners than USA is China, Iran, Saudi Arabia and Iraq.
Finally, afaik USA is the only western country that officially (many nations prob use torture even if it's illegal according to their own laws) allowed the use of torture on detainees until recently when Obama outlawed it.

Am I seeing a pattern here?