US petition

[Busyman]

I find it shameful that you glibly stand by and watch us all perish.

Sorry, that's the way morals work and it is far from being glib. In fact to do so could not be further from glibness.

Would you shoot stab a gentlemen that is about to kill your children?

[hobbes]

I find it shameful that you glibly stand by and watch us all perish.

Sorry, that's the way morals work and it is far from being glib. In fact to do so could not be further from glibness.

I agree entirely. My morals just came to a different conclusion, and with equal disinglibness.

In a difficult situation, what do you actually do and how do you justify to yourself.

The thing I enjoyed about philosophy class was the exercise in taking a principle to it's limit, as I have done here and seeing if it holds up.

For example:

Telling the truth is the right thing to do.

If jpol is hiding behind my counter and a madman with a gun walks in and asks if you are behind the counter, should I tell the truth?

What is the right thing to do?

My obligation to tell him that you are indeed behind the counter is a prima facia (at first appearance) obligation, but my greater obligation is to protect your life, so I lie and say that you have left the building.

By lying I have done the right thing.

I have therefore invalidated the statement that one should always tell the truth.

Just as I have attempted to explain, that in very specific situations, (as the one above, in which, telling the truth is the wrong thing to do) the dictum that the ends don't justify the means can take a similar fall. At first glance I should not violate the rights of my captive, but in reality I am ignoring the rights of those he is going to kill.

I take my morals as seriously as you take yours.

[j2k4]

I'll have to go with Hobbes on this one, JayPee.

Morals are wonderful things, and, in the abstract and a certain short distance, situational ethics suck, but in the midst of the action and the heat of the moment, the blood runs a bit hotter, and instincts must prevail.

One can only hope to have honed neural influences finely enough to not preclude a degree of post-action rationalization and justification; the alternative is to be guilt-ridden over wrongful action.

I suppose, too, that the predilection for self-defense and defense of loved-ones plays it's role; we've been through that discussion in other places and at other times.

In any case, however, if one could hold to a non-combative posture in the face of mortal peril, such represents an utter divergence from the instinctual (and hopefully capable) defensive one.

These cannot be reconciled.

[Everose]

Why are drugs like thiopental sodium not used to obtain information, as an alternative to torture?

Too unpredictable or not enough people trained to use it properly where needed?

[Gripper]

May I ask who in this thread has seen a friend killed in battle,or had to take a life.
The answer to that may support your moral highground.
It is easy to debate subjects,not quite so easy to keep thinking clearly while a friend bleeds to death as you try to hold him together.

[Mr JP Fugley]

I'll have to go with Hobbes on this one, JayPee.

Morals are wonderful things, and, in the abstract and a certain short distance, situational ethics suck, but in the midst of the action and the heat of the moment, the blood runs a bit hotter, and instincts must prevail.

One can only hope to have honed neural influences finely enough to not preclude a degree of post-action rationalization and justification; the alternative is to be guilt-ridden over wrongful action.

I suppose, too, that the predilection for self-defense and defense of loved-ones plays it's role; we've been through that discussion in other places and at other times.

In any case, however, if one could hold to a non-combative posture in the face of mortal peril, such represents an utter divergence from the instinctual (and hopefully capable) defensive one.

These cannot be reconciled.

" ....but in the midst of the action and the heat of the moment, the blood runs a bit hotter, and instincts must prevail." How often is torture carried out under such circumstances. I had presumed we were dealing with the extraction of intelligence from prisoners. Which would by definition be premeditated and not in "the heat of the moment".

[j2k4]

It is easy to debate subjects,not quite so easy to keep thinking clearly while a friend bleeds to death as you try to hold him together.

True enough.

I am well aware, though, of people who have done this.

Their testimonies still fall to both sides of the issue.

I don't think one has to have been a soldier/combatant to have a valid debate, gripper; do you?

[Mr JP Fugley]

Sorry, that's the way morals work and it is far from being glib. In fact to do so could not be further from glibness.

I agree entirely. My morals just came to a different conclusion, and with equal disinglibness.

In a difficult situation, what do you actually do and how do you justify to yourself.

The thing I enjoyed about philosophy class was the exercise in taking a principle to it's limit, as I have done here and seeing if it holds up.

For example:

Telling the truth is the right thing to do.

If jpol is hiding behind my counter and a madman with a gun walks in and asks if you are behind the counter, should I tell the truth?

What is the right thing to do?

My obligation to tell him that you are indeed behind the counter is a prima facia (at first appearance) obligation, but my greater obligation is to protect your life, so I lie and say that you have left the building.

By lying I have done the right thing.

I have therefore invalidated the statement that one should always tell the truth.

Just as I have attempted to explain, that in very specific situations, (as the one above, in which, telling the truth is the wrong thing to do) the dictum that the ends don't justify the means can take a similar fall. At first glance I should not violate the rights of my captive, but in reality I am ignoring the rights of those he is going to kill.

I take my morals as seriously as you take yours.

I am absolutely certain you do.

In the EU we have the ECHR (European Convention on Human Rights), I have mentioned this before. This gives people certain rights, however they are not all treated the same way. There is for example the right to privacy and everyone can expect that. However, under certain conditions and with the proper authority, that can be breached. An example would be the investigation of serious crimes.

Some rights are inviolable, these include the right not to be tortured. No matter the justification. This is a position with which I agree, I think that torture is wrong and that the fact that the State decides there are reasons which justify it makes no difference.

As quoted earlier

There can be no exception to the prohibition of torture and inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, as set out in article 15.2 of the European Convention on Human Rights, (ECHR) which allows no derogation, even in the case of a state of emergency or to maintain law and order. Article 4 of the Charter adheres to both the meaning and the scope of this universal prohibition.

As a slight aside to this, if you decide that your State can choose to torture, in certain circumstances, then surely you must allow other States to do the same. How can you argue that torture is wrong, except when we decide it's OK for us to do it.

Was it OK for our captured military to be tortured for information. That is the logical conclusion to your argument.

[j2k4]

" ....but in the midst of the action and the heat of the moment, the blood runs a bit hotter, and instincts must prevail." How often is torture carried out under such circumstances. I had presumed we were dealing with the extraction of intelligence from prisoners. Which would by definition be premeditated and not in "the heat of the moment".

Quite right; I went a bit off track making my point.

Allow me to attribute the drawing out of the "heated moment" phraseology to Hobbes' 'JP is hiding, and I won't give him up' and 'I can save these people by extracting a number from this guy' scenarios.

Do I support premeditated torture?

No-I'd rather "medicate" to get such info.

In short-time circumstances (in the field), that policy could change, but one would assume a prison (Abu Ghraib, in this case) to be reasonably well-equipped for interrogative purposes.

There is a relevant story about the American General Black Jack Pershing I'm going to look for...

[j2k4]

Some rights are inviolable, these include the right not to be tortured. No matter the justification. This is a position with which I agree, I think that torture is wrong and that the fact that the State decides there are reasons which justify it makes no difference.

As quoted earlier

There can be no exception to the prohibition of torture and inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, as set out in article 15.2 of the European Convention on Human Rights, (ECHR) which allows no derogation, even in the case of a state of emergency or to maintain law and order. Article 4 of the Charter adheres to both the meaning and the scope of this universal prohibition.

As a slight aside to this, if you decide that your State can choose to torture, in certain circumstances, then surely you must allow other States to do the same. How can you argue that torture is wrong, except when we decide it's OK for us to do it.

Was it OK for our captured military to be tortured for information. That is the logical conclusion to your argument.

The difficulty would seem to be that Al Qaeda is not a state, doesn't recognize such prohibitions, and warring parties strive for operational/tactical equality/superiority.

One side is to be hamstrung from "stooping", as it were, while the opposition is free not to "rise" to a higher standard.

This is the locus, is it not?