Freethought & Rationalism Archive

winstonjen · 03-10-2003, 01:28 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Mageth

The old saying "Two wrongs don't make a right" comes to mind.

But we consider imprisoning people to be justice, right? Surely this can be an example of two wrongs, but sometimes there is no other practical choice.

Quote:

Correct, but a faulty analogy. The officer's speeding can hardly be compared to torturing another human being, can it?

Well, in both cases, the law must be broken in order to enforce it.

Mageth · 03-10-2003, 01:31 PM

Well, in both cases, the law must be broken in order to enforce it.

An officer exceeding the speed limit in performance of his duties is not breaking the law. Even if he was, it's a civil law, not a "moral" or ethical law, categorically different than torturing another being.

Valmorian · 03-10-2003, 01:31 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by winstonjen
Well, a police officer has to speed to catch a speeder, right? If the motives and expected result are good enough, I don't really see a problem with using torture to achieve the result.

The problem is that you usually don't know if you CAN ge the desired result through torture. What if the person in question really doesn't have the information you want?

To decide if a punishment is acceptable to me, I simply realize that since the justice system cannot be 100% accurate in determining guilt, what would I want to have happen to ME if I was falsely accused?

winstonjen · 03-10-2003, 01:34 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Mageth
An officer exceeding the speed limit in performance of his duties is not breaking the law. Even if he was, it's a civil law, not a "moral" or ethical law, categorically different than torturing another being.

The police officer is allowed to 'break' the law, because they are considered to be above the law during the course of their duties.

winstonjen · 03-10-2003, 01:36 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Valmorian
The problem is that you usually don't know if you CAN ge the desired result through torture. What if the person in question really doesn't have the information you want?

I suppose...so why don't they allow truth serums or lie detectors?

Mageth · 03-10-2003, 01:38 PM

But we consider imprisoning people to be justice, right?

Yes, but torture is no longer considered "justice", at least for the last couple of hundred years for most of humankind. Let's keep it that way. I don't want to go back to the dark ages, do you?

Surely this can be an example of two wrongs, but sometimes there is no other practical choice.

From my perspective (and from yours, I would assume), imprisoning a criminal for his or her crime is "right". In no case would I ever consider torturing another human being "right", regardless of the "practical" benefit.

winstonjen · 03-10-2003, 01:39 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Mageth

From my perspective (and from yours, I would assume), imprisoning a criminal for his or her crime is "right". In no case would I ever consider torturing another human being "right", regardless of the "practical" benefit.

Of course, but the criminal would probably see it as being "wronged", regardless of how much they deserved it.

Mageth · 03-10-2003, 01:41 PM

The police officer is allowed to 'break' the law, because they are considered to be above the law during the course of their duties.

That's a fancy way of saying the police officer is not breaking the law.

I suppose...so why don't they allow truth serums or lie detectors?

Both are allowed, in some circumstances, but both have problems and are not considered trustworthy, and thus the results are not generally allowed into evidence in court.

winstonjen · 03-10-2003, 01:42 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Mageth

That's a fancy way of saying the police officer is not breaking the law.

Right. Those that enforce the laws must be above the law, or else they would be just as guilty. It's one of the great ironies of society.

sweep · 03-10-2003, 01:48 PM

In my post, I was alluding to the government's funny, but sad, ad campaign that claimed "If you buy drugs, you support terrorism!" If you justify torture of the "beast" at the top of the chain to stop terrorism, what's to keep you from justifying the next "beast" down the chain to get to the "beast" at the top of the chain, and so on down to the man (or woman) at the bottom of the chain to stop terrorism?

a good point-

the benefits are far less, the farther down the chain we go. Torture should only be a last resort.

I don't have much of a problem if (IF) lives can be saved but, as I stated, terrorism is part of a much wider problem, which alludes to your view. That 'wider problem' has given us the socially constructed problem of 'them or us'.

In my opinion the problem lies more with group psychology. It is simply enough to be outside of a social circle, and look upon one outside of that circle as a 'beast', in order to carry out all kinds of cruel acts.

'people discern a moral circle that may not embrace all human beings but only the members of their clan, village, or tribe. Inside the circle, fellow humans are targets of sympathy; outside, they are treated like a rock or a river or a lump of food.

In the Wari dictionary food's defined as 'not a wari' Their dinners are alot of fun for all but the un-Wari one.'

'whether a violent mindset is called heroic or pathological often depends on whose ox has been gored. Freedom fighter or terrorist, Robin Hood or thief, Guardian Angel or vigilante, nobleman or warlord, martyr or kamikaze, general or gang leader- these are value judgements, not scientific classifications.'

so it is the value system that poses the problem, not the evaluation of cost to life. Perhaps this is where we both differ?

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

03-10-2003, 01:31 PM	#12
Mageth Contributor Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: Deep in the heart of mother-lovin' Texas Posts: 29,689	Well, in both cases, the law must be broken in order to enforce it. An officer exceeding the speed limit in performance of his duties is not breaking the law. Even if he was, it's a civil law, not a "moral" or ethical law, categorically different than torturing another being.

03-10-2003, 01:38 PM	#16
Mageth Contributor Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: Deep in the heart of mother-lovin' Texas Posts: 29,689	But we consider imprisoning people to be justice, right? Yes, but torture is no longer considered "justice", at least for the last couple of hundred years for most of humankind. Let's keep it that way. I don't want to go back to the dark ages, do you? Surely this can be an example of two wrongs, but sometimes there is no other practical choice. From my perspective (and from yours, I would assume), imprisoning a criminal for his or her crime is "right". In no case would I ever consider torturing another human being "right", regardless of the "practical" benefit.

03-10-2003, 01:41 PM	#18
Mageth Contributor Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: Deep in the heart of mother-lovin' Texas Posts: 29,689	The police officer is allowed to 'break' the law, because they are considered to be above the law during the course of their duties. That's a fancy way of saying the police officer is not breaking the law. I suppose...so why don't they allow truth serums or lie detectors? Both are allowed, in some circumstances, but both have problems and are not considered trustworthy, and thus the results are not generally allowed into evidence in court.

03-10-2003, 01:48 PM	#20
sweep Senior Member Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: sugar factory Posts: 873	In my post, I was alluding to the government's funny, but sad, ad campaign that claimed "If you buy drugs, you support terrorism!" If you justify torture of the "beast" at the top of the chain to stop terrorism, what's to keep you from justifying the next "beast" down the chain to get to the "beast" at the top of the chain, and so on down to the man (or woman) at the bottom of the chain to stop terrorism? a good point- the benefits are far less, the farther down the chain we go. Torture should only be a last resort. I don't have much of a problem if (IF) lives can be saved but, as I stated, terrorism is part of a much wider problem, which alludes to your view. That 'wider problem' has given us the socially constructed problem of 'them or us'. In my opinion the problem lies more with group psychology. It is simply enough to be outside of a social circle, and look upon one outside of that circle as a 'beast', in order to carry out all kinds of cruel acts. 'people discern a moral circle that may not embrace all human beings but only the members of their clan, village, or tribe. Inside the circle, fellow humans are targets of sympathy; outside, they are treated like a rock or a river or a lump of food. In the Wari dictionary food's defined as 'not a wari' Their dinners are alot of fun for all but the un-Wari one.' 'whether a violent mindset is called heroic or pathological often depends on whose ox has been gored. Freedom fighter or terrorist, Robin Hood or thief, Guardian Angel or vigilante, nobleman or warlord, martyr or kamikaze, general or gang leader- these are value judgements, not scientific classifications.' so it is the value system that poses the problem, not the evaluation of cost to life. Perhaps this is where we both differ?

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.