This One's for Stan
-
John Carson wrote:
I don't think that was the message conveyed by the final two paragraphs of your first post.
Are you saying there is no moral ambiguity? or that I shouldn't even ask whether sometimes the President may need to break the law?
John Carson wrote:
I don't doubt that it is fairly easy for a person to think that torture is OK
I don't think that I ever suggested that it was easy. Perhaps from half a world a way, the fall of the towers was not all that extraordinary. I assure you that up close, it was. I will never clear my mind of the shot of a man falling headfirst from the 90-something floor because it was a better way to die that being burned by the fire behind him. Later on they stopped showing things like that and I wouldn't be surprised if they weren't edited out overseas.
John Carson wrote:
Equally, it is easy for members of a football team, after a night out drinking, to think that it may be OK to "pressure" a women for sex, i.e., rape her. That happens fairly often too (such a case is currently filling the Australian newpapers, the latest of many such).
The comparison is both ludicrous and thoughtless.
John Carson wrote:
US has by far the harshest, least forgiving, most incarceration-prone criminal justice system of any Western country (5% of the world's population; 25% of the world's known prison population).
In part that's because we serve as the main prison for most of central America. Much of the rest is the stupid reflexive response to marijuana so beloved by bible belt. Eliminate the Mexicans and the druggies and I doubt we put as many folks in jail as some other countries. If by some chance you think that only the US has a justice system that treats the rich and powerful with more deference than anyone else, I suggest you need to rethink the matter. Perhaps asking a few indigenes what they thought about Australia's system of justice might give you insights into the universality of the problem.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Both democrats and republicans are playing for the same team and it's not us. - Chris Austin
Oakman wrote:
Are you saying there is no moral ambiguity?
Yes, I am. Ticking bomb scenarios aside, the issue is completely straightforward. Torture is wrong and should not be practiced. See here, for example: http://www.denverpost.com/commented/ci_12309887?source=commented-opinion[^]
Oakman wrote:
Perhaps from half a world a way, the fall of the towers was not all that extraordinary. I assure you that up close, it was. I will never clear my mind of the shot of a man falling headfirst from the 90-something floor because it was a better way to die that being burned by the fire behind him. Later on they stopped showing things like that and I wouldn't be surprised if they weren't edited out overseas.
We saw them and I don't doubt the emotional power of the event. That is one reason why I said "I don't doubt that it is fairly easy for a person to think that torture is OK." But conflict situations pretty routinely produce very intense emotions.
Oakman wrote:
The comparison is both ludicrous and thoughtless.
Yes and no. The rape analogy lacks the mitigation that it was done with good intentions, but the fundamental similarity is that of losing one's moral bearings in the emotion of the moment --- though it turned out to be a very extended "moment" in the case of torture.
Oakman wrote:
If by some chance you think that only the US has a justice system that treats the rich and powerful with more deference than anyone else, I suggest you need to rethink the matter. Perhaps asking a few indigenes what they thought about Australia's system of justice might give you insights into the universality of the problem.
Every country treats the rich and powerful better. However, the hypocrisy is rarely as stark as we are seeing it now, with the people who are most militantly "tough on crime", wanting "zero tolerance", "no excuses" and hefty sentences turning around and offering every excuse they can think of for giving a favoured few a free pass on crime.
John Carson
modified on Thursday, May 14, 2009 7:19 AM
-
Oakman wrote:
But I am not quite as sure as you Aussies are that there can never come a point where the latter may be the best of a set of bad choices or the former might need to be true.
Us Aussies? all of us? you've come to this conclusion from talking with CG, John and me? okey dokes I realise you didn't go as far as saying that shooting the plane down would have been acceptable but my point was that by asking the question you did you also bring into question the value of international agreements made over things like torture.
Josh Gray wrote:
all of us?
Actually, I meant only you and John. I agree, my wording could have been more precise.
Josh Gray wrote:
but my point was that by asking the question you did you also bring into question the value of international agreements made over things like torture.
Okay, then perhaps I am doing that. I do, strongly, believe that contracts should be kept unless made under duress. But at the same time, I have to wonder if there aren't extraordinary circumstances that allow for breaking the rules. Does the President have to ask Congress to declare war if China drops a few atomics on us - or on our allies in the southeast pacific? In time of warfare, the rule about killing is suspended - and that the Geneva Convention was an attempt to establish rules around this breaking of rules. The agreement about gas warfare is another such attempt. It is, according to international law, okay to spray a guy with a jet of burning napalm or white phosphorous, but it's not okay to gas him. (Either way, it's a painful death.) It is, again according to international rules, okay to cut a guiy in half with a two second burst from an M60 - even if he has no idea you are aiming at him, but not okay to hit him with your fists, if he sticks his hands up in the air when he see you - even if you think he has or might have a concealed weapon. I don't believe that rules are made to be broken (the way I think Stan does) nor do I think rules are supposed to substitute for thinking and analysing (the way I think Stan does.) I do think that there's a gray area where someone on the spot makes the call - shoot the plane down; waterboard Sheik Khalid; blow the guy away before he realises he is being targetting - and then says I did it. I take responsibility for it and I made the best decision I could with the information that was available - knowing that a bunch of REMFs, political opponents, or foreigners will start weighing in with their opinions without ever asking themselves - would I have done it any differently? More and more I am realising that Obama understands this, even though many of his political allies don't. I don't like the calls he makes, quite often. But he's willing to make them and he doesn't hide behind "we," or "the nation," or "Jeffersonianism." He says, "I." JFK was like that; Johnson wasn't.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
-
Oakman wrote:
Are you saying there is no moral ambiguity?
Yes, I am. Ticking bomb scenarios aside, the issue is completely straightforward. Torture is wrong and should not be practiced. See here, for example: http://www.denverpost.com/commented/ci_12309887?source=commented-opinion[^]
Oakman wrote:
Perhaps from half a world a way, the fall of the towers was not all that extraordinary. I assure you that up close, it was. I will never clear my mind of the shot of a man falling headfirst from the 90-something floor because it was a better way to die that being burned by the fire behind him. Later on they stopped showing things like that and I wouldn't be surprised if they weren't edited out overseas.
We saw them and I don't doubt the emotional power of the event. That is one reason why I said "I don't doubt that it is fairly easy for a person to think that torture is OK." But conflict situations pretty routinely produce very intense emotions.
Oakman wrote:
The comparison is both ludicrous and thoughtless.
Yes and no. The rape analogy lacks the mitigation that it was done with good intentions, but the fundamental similarity is that of losing one's moral bearings in the emotion of the moment --- though it turned out to be a very extended "moment" in the case of torture.
Oakman wrote:
If by some chance you think that only the US has a justice system that treats the rich and powerful with more deference than anyone else, I suggest you need to rethink the matter. Perhaps asking a few indigenes what they thought about Australia's system of justice might give you insights into the universality of the problem.
Every country treats the rich and powerful better. However, the hypocrisy is rarely as stark as we are seeing it now, with the people who are most militantly "tough on crime", wanting "zero tolerance", "no excuses" and hefty sentences turning around and offering every excuse they can think of for giving a favoured few a free pass on crime.
John Carson
modified on Thursday, May 14, 2009 7:19 AM
John Carson wrote:
Torture is wrong and should not be practiced. See here, for example:
John, I am interested in what you think, not what the Denver Post thinks. I thank you for your answer. I pretty much expected it, but it's nice to have it confirmed. I on the other hand, have not visited Mount Sinai and have no engraved tablets to tell me exactly what is right or wrong.
John Carson wrote:
but the fundamental similarity is that of losing one's moral bearings in the emotion of the moment
I find myself thinking that you have led a very sheltered life. How is it possible to equate the drunken Neanderthalian behavior of some soccer players celebrating after a meaningless game, and the anger and fear that this nation felt after it was attacked?
John Carson wrote:
However, the hypocrisy is rarely as stark as we are seeing it now, with the people who are most militantly "tough on crime", wanting "zero tolerance", "no excuses" and hefty sentences turning around and offering every excuse they can think of for giving a favoured few a free pass on crime
I found myself thinking that many boondocks Christians may not react as strongly to torture as I do because they believe in a literal hell and unending torture at the hands of a Supreme Goodness. That said, in a post I just made to Josh, I talked about times when a crime is declared not a crime. I note that many, not all, of the people who are screaming, Red Queen-like "off with his head," also like to throw the word war-crime as the crew of the Enola Gay, Douglas MacArthur, and Harry Truman. Yet you might be speaking Japanese if it wasn't for such criminals.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Both democrats and republicans are playing for the same team and it's not us. - Chris Austin
-
John Carson wrote:
Torture is wrong and should not be practiced. See here, for example:
John, I am interested in what you think, not what the Denver Post thinks. I thank you for your answer. I pretty much expected it, but it's nice to have it confirmed. I on the other hand, have not visited Mount Sinai and have no engraved tablets to tell me exactly what is right or wrong.
John Carson wrote:
but the fundamental similarity is that of losing one's moral bearings in the emotion of the moment
I find myself thinking that you have led a very sheltered life. How is it possible to equate the drunken Neanderthalian behavior of some soccer players celebrating after a meaningless game, and the anger and fear that this nation felt after it was attacked?
John Carson wrote:
However, the hypocrisy is rarely as stark as we are seeing it now, with the people who are most militantly "tough on crime", wanting "zero tolerance", "no excuses" and hefty sentences turning around and offering every excuse they can think of for giving a favoured few a free pass on crime
I found myself thinking that many boondocks Christians may not react as strongly to torture as I do because they believe in a literal hell and unending torture at the hands of a Supreme Goodness. That said, in a post I just made to Josh, I talked about times when a crime is declared not a crime. I note that many, not all, of the people who are screaming, Red Queen-like "off with his head," also like to throw the word war-crime as the crew of the Enola Gay, Douglas MacArthur, and Harry Truman. Yet you might be speaking Japanese if it wasn't for such criminals.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Both democrats and republicans are playing for the same team and it's not us. - Chris Austin
Oakman wrote:
How is it possible to equate the drunken Neanderthalian behavior of some soccer players celebrating after a meaningless game, and the anger and fear that this nation felt after it was attacked?
These are elite athletes and it is rugby league, not soccer, but...I am not "equating" the behaviour. I am simply making the point that people commonly show weakness in allowing their moral standards to slip. I know that those defending or understanding or whatever those who practiced torture don't like to see the torture policies as simply a failure of morality, but that is how I see it. The other analogous thing about football teams is that people often exhibit greater extremes of bad behaviour in groups than they would as individuals. Group members incite each other to go one step further and people lose their individual morality in pursuit of group acceptance. I try to avoid being a fundamentalist on any issue. There is no legal or ethical principle that I wouldn't put aside if the cost of adhering to the principle was human suffering on a large enough scale (except for the principle I just stated). However, I don't see the practice of torture by the Bush Administration in those terms. The case for torture was always weak, and practicing it was just weakness.
John Carson
-
Josh Gray wrote:
all of us?
Actually, I meant only you and John. I agree, my wording could have been more precise.
Josh Gray wrote:
but my point was that by asking the question you did you also bring into question the value of international agreements made over things like torture.
Okay, then perhaps I am doing that. I do, strongly, believe that contracts should be kept unless made under duress. But at the same time, I have to wonder if there aren't extraordinary circumstances that allow for breaking the rules. Does the President have to ask Congress to declare war if China drops a few atomics on us - or on our allies in the southeast pacific? In time of warfare, the rule about killing is suspended - and that the Geneva Convention was an attempt to establish rules around this breaking of rules. The agreement about gas warfare is another such attempt. It is, according to international law, okay to spray a guy with a jet of burning napalm or white phosphorous, but it's not okay to gas him. (Either way, it's a painful death.) It is, again according to international rules, okay to cut a guiy in half with a two second burst from an M60 - even if he has no idea you are aiming at him, but not okay to hit him with your fists, if he sticks his hands up in the air when he see you - even if you think he has or might have a concealed weapon. I don't believe that rules are made to be broken (the way I think Stan does) nor do I think rules are supposed to substitute for thinking and analysing (the way I think Stan does.) I do think that there's a gray area where someone on the spot makes the call - shoot the plane down; waterboard Sheik Khalid; blow the guy away before he realises he is being targetting - and then says I did it. I take responsibility for it and I made the best decision I could with the information that was available - knowing that a bunch of REMFs, political opponents, or foreigners will start weighing in with their opinions without ever asking themselves - would I have done it any differently? More and more I am realising that Obama understands this, even though many of his political allies don't. I don't like the calls he makes, quite often. But he's willing to make them and he doesn't hide behind "we," or "the nation," or "Jeffersonianism." He says, "I." JFK was like that; Johnson wasn't.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
Oakman wrote:
I do think that there's a gray area where someone on the spot makes the call - shoot the plane down; waterboard Sheik Khalid; blow the guy away before he realises he is being targetting - and then says I did it. I take responsibility for it and I made the best decision I could with the information that was available - knowing that a bunch of REMFs, political opponents, or foreigners will start weighing in with their opinions without ever asking themselves - would I have done it any differently?
Suppose the answer is no. Is that sufficient justification? My answer is that we must sometimes punish people for doing wrong even when we may have done the same thing in the same circumstances. We can only punish actual crimes, not hypothetical ones, and, human weakness being what it is, we would soon have a breakdown of law and order if we let people off merely because we might have failed in the same way in the same circumstance. If 95% of people would have failed in the same way, then we should probably give a pass. But 50% --- probably not. Of course, all this depends on having a clear conviction after the fact that the behaviour was indeed a moral failure. I have that conviction in relation to the Bush torture policies. Others don't.
John Carson
-
Oakman wrote:
How is it possible to equate the drunken Neanderthalian behavior of some soccer players celebrating after a meaningless game, and the anger and fear that this nation felt after it was attacked?
These are elite athletes and it is rugby league, not soccer, but...I am not "equating" the behaviour. I am simply making the point that people commonly show weakness in allowing their moral standards to slip. I know that those defending or understanding or whatever those who practiced torture don't like to see the torture policies as simply a failure of morality, but that is how I see it. The other analogous thing about football teams is that people often exhibit greater extremes of bad behaviour in groups than they would as individuals. Group members incite each other to go one step further and people lose their individual morality in pursuit of group acceptance. I try to avoid being a fundamentalist on any issue. There is no legal or ethical principle that I wouldn't put aside if the cost of adhering to the principle was human suffering on a large enough scale (except for the principle I just stated). However, I don't see the practice of torture by the Bush Administration in those terms. The case for torture was always weak, and practicing it was just weakness.
John Carson
John Carson wrote:
These are elite athletes and it is rugby league, not soccer
I have found that elite in sports that require physical contact usually means more Neanderthalian, not less.
John Carson wrote:
Group members incite each other to go one step further and people lose their individual morality in pursuit of group acceptance
One thing I am fairly sure of: the president of the united States very seldom considers himself to be just a member of the group - even when that group is the G20 heads of state, certainly when the others present are members of his administration.
John Carson wrote:
There is no legal or ethical principle that I wouldn't put aside if the cost of adhering to the principle was human suffering on a large enough scale
Then you and Bush are in agreement in this, I believe. You simply disagree about whether or not human suffering was avoided - and that is a matter of opinion, not fact. I respect your opinion and while I do not agree with it, I would defend to your death, your right to hold it...I suppose all moral questions come down to matter of opinion. Some folks try to claim that God personally spoke to them - or to someone who claims a divine visitation - and thus they "know." But of course, that is simply their opinion. Much the way I can claim that what I say has extra validity because I read it in the Encyclopedia Galactica, Vol 97; pg 10,876. Or Troy does by citing some obscure website without even reading the article. ;)
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Both democrats and republicans are playing for the same team and it's not us. - Chris Austin
-
Oakman wrote:
I do think that there's a gray area where someone on the spot makes the call - shoot the plane down; waterboard Sheik Khalid; blow the guy away before he realises he is being targetting - and then says I did it. I take responsibility for it and I made the best decision I could with the information that was available - knowing that a bunch of REMFs, political opponents, or foreigners will start weighing in with their opinions without ever asking themselves - would I have done it any differently?
Suppose the answer is no. Is that sufficient justification? My answer is that we must sometimes punish people for doing wrong even when we may have done the same thing in the same circumstances. We can only punish actual crimes, not hypothetical ones, and, human weakness being what it is, we would soon have a breakdown of law and order if we let people off merely because we might have failed in the same way in the same circumstance. If 95% of people would have failed in the same way, then we should probably give a pass. But 50% --- probably not. Of course, all this depends on having a clear conviction after the fact that the behaviour was indeed a moral failure. I have that conviction in relation to the Bush torture policies. Others don't.
John Carson
John Carson wrote:
Is that sufficient justification
Not at all. But until we can say with dead certitude what we would have done, a rush to judgement seems inappropriate.
John Carson wrote:
My answer is that we must sometimes punish people for doing wrong even when we may have done the same thing in the same circumstances.
John Carson wrote:
If 95% of people would have failed in the same way, then we should probably give a pass. But 50% --- probably not
50% of who? 95% of which grouping? The idea of voting on morality fills me with repugnance. And is the exact opposite of taking individual responsibility. Morality for me ultimately is a method of survival, not necessarily my own, but of (in ascending order) my family, my friends, my state, my nation, my world and finally my species. Judgements like those cannot, I believe, be decided at a ballot box.
John Carson wrote:
Of course, all this depends on having a clear conviction after the fact that the behaviour was indeed a moral failure. I have that conviction in relation to the Bush torture policies. Others don't.
I tend to believe that the original decisions were made because they thought they were protecting America. But, as you almost said, certain kinds of behavior perpetuate themselves. Later, in the macho world of spooks and neocons, it may have been a sign of weakness to question waterboarding. It would appear that Nancy Pelosi is claiming she was afraid she'd be told she didn't have any balls if she protested. . .
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Both democrats and republicans are playing for the same team and it's not us. - Chris Austin
-
Oakman wrote:
Maybe, just maybe, in extraordinary circumstances, we expect and need the President to consider himself above the law?
I agree with the sentiment was I disagree with the wording. Under exceptional circumstances the President ought to be given some 'flexibility' in his actions. But consider himself above the law? Never. Had Bush ordered the torture of one or two individuals shortly after 9/11(in the heat of the moment, so to speak) and had admitted to it, there might be some 'moral abiguity with no easy answer'. Even in this circumstance, it should still be investigated. But that's not what happened here. Deliberately, and in secret, Bush made toture US policy for the first time in our history. He created a network of prisons (many secret) in which hundreds, if not thousands, were tortured and dozens murdered. A legal figleaf was created to justify it. This was done over a period of years. I don't think this fits into any 'extraordinary circumstances' exception. The answer here is easy - It should not have been done. [Edit]
Oakman wrote:
I've been against torture ...Equally, more than once I have expressed a contempt for the "If the President does it, it's not illegal," school of thought
You are "against" torture but don't believe those responsible for torture should be held accountable in any meaningful way. You have "contempt", yet you think illegal acts by the President should be ignored. Your statements ring completely hollow.
modified on Thursday, May 14, 2009 10:26 AM
oilFactotum wrote:
The answer here is easy
It would seem that the answer is always easy for you. I envy you. I am not, I guess, as much in touch with the Great Spirit as you are.
oilFactotum wrote:
You are "against" torture but don't believe those responsible for torture should be held accountable in any meaningful way. You have "contempt", yet you think illegal acts by the President should be ignored. Your statements ring completely hollow.
Yes, Troy and Stan are also often confused and frustrated by my inability to reduce everything to a simplistic set of rules. You three ought to get together. You have so much in common.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Both democrats and republicans are playing for the same team and it's not us. - Chris Austin
-
oilFactotum wrote:
The answer here is easy
It would seem that the answer is always easy for you. I envy you. I am not, I guess, as much in touch with the Great Spirit as you are.
oilFactotum wrote:
You are "against" torture but don't believe those responsible for torture should be held accountable in any meaningful way. You have "contempt", yet you think illegal acts by the President should be ignored. Your statements ring completely hollow.
Yes, Troy and Stan are also often confused and frustrated by my inability to reduce everything to a simplistic set of rules. You three ought to get together. You have so much in common.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Both democrats and republicans are playing for the same team and it's not us. - Chris Austin
Oakman wrote:
Great Spirit
:confused: Don't know what you are talking about. Perhaps you need an oracle to tell you what to think, I don't. There is nothing morally ambiguous about creating a huge torture machine that grinds up hundreds of human lives. It is very unambiguously immoral. It is very unambiguously illegal.
Oakman wrote:
es, Troy and Stan are also often confused and frustrated by my inability to reduce everything to a simplistic set of rules.
Perhaps they are. So what? Regardless of Stan and Troy's confusion, your claim that you are against torture is completely hollow.
-
Oakman wrote:
Great Spirit
:confused: Don't know what you are talking about. Perhaps you need an oracle to tell you what to think, I don't. There is nothing morally ambiguous about creating a huge torture machine that grinds up hundreds of human lives. It is very unambiguously immoral. It is very unambiguously illegal.
Oakman wrote:
es, Troy and Stan are also often confused and frustrated by my inability to reduce everything to a simplistic set of rules.
Perhaps they are. So what? Regardless of Stan and Troy's confusion, your claim that you are against torture is completely hollow.
oilFactotum wrote:
Perhaps they are. So what?
You can lead an horse to water, but you can't make him drink. . .Maybe I'm dealing with the wrong end of the horse?
oilFactotum wrote:
Perhaps you need an oracle to tell you what to think, I don't
No, of course not. I'm sure you were born know exactly what was right and what was wrong. Like I said, I envy you. Life must be so simple for you.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Both democrats and republicans are playing for the same team and it's not us. - Chris Austin
-
oilFactotum wrote:
Perhaps they are. So what?
You can lead an horse to water, but you can't make him drink. . .Maybe I'm dealing with the wrong end of the horse?
oilFactotum wrote:
Perhaps you need an oracle to tell you what to think, I don't
No, of course not. I'm sure you were born know exactly what was right and what was wrong. Like I said, I envy you. Life must be so simple for you.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Both democrats and republicans are playing for the same team and it's not us. - Chris Austin
Oakman wrote:
I envy you
If I were you, I would also envy me. Your lack of a moral center in appalling. Your inablity to grasp the concept of the rule of law is equally appalling. We're done. Good bye.
-
oilFactotum wrote:
The answer here is easy
It would seem that the answer is always easy for you. I envy you. I am not, I guess, as much in touch with the Great Spirit as you are.
oilFactotum wrote:
You are "against" torture but don't believe those responsible for torture should be held accountable in any meaningful way. You have "contempt", yet you think illegal acts by the President should be ignored. Your statements ring completely hollow.
Yes, Troy and Stan are also often confused and frustrated by my inability to reduce everything to a simplistic set of rules. You three ought to get together. You have so much in common.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Both democrats and republicans are playing for the same team and it's not us. - Chris Austin
Oakman wrote:
and frustrated by my inability to reduce everything to a simplistic set of rules
:rolleyes: Your rules are the most simplistic ones of all.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
-
Oakman wrote:
and frustrated by my inability to reduce everything to a simplistic set of rules
:rolleyes: Your rules are the most simplistic ones of all.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
-
John Carson wrote:
Is that sufficient justification
Not at all. But until we can say with dead certitude what we would have done, a rush to judgement seems inappropriate.
John Carson wrote:
My answer is that we must sometimes punish people for doing wrong even when we may have done the same thing in the same circumstances.
John Carson wrote:
If 95% of people would have failed in the same way, then we should probably give a pass. But 50% --- probably not
50% of who? 95% of which grouping? The idea of voting on morality fills me with repugnance. And is the exact opposite of taking individual responsibility. Morality for me ultimately is a method of survival, not necessarily my own, but of (in ascending order) my family, my friends, my state, my nation, my world and finally my species. Judgements like those cannot, I believe, be decided at a ballot box.
John Carson wrote:
Of course, all this depends on having a clear conviction after the fact that the behaviour was indeed a moral failure. I have that conviction in relation to the Bush torture policies. Others don't.
I tend to believe that the original decisions were made because they thought they were protecting America. But, as you almost said, certain kinds of behavior perpetuate themselves. Later, in the macho world of spooks and neocons, it may have been a sign of weakness to question waterboarding. It would appear that Nancy Pelosi is claiming she was afraid she'd be told she didn't have any balls if she protested. . .
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Both democrats and republicans are playing for the same team and it's not us. - Chris Austin
Oakman wrote:
50% of who? 95% of which grouping? The idea of voting on morality fills me with repugnance. And is the exact opposite of taking individual responsibility. Morality for me ultimately is a method of survival, not necessarily my own, but of (in ascending order) my family, my friends, my state, my nation, my world and finally my species. Judgements like those cannot, I believe, be decided at a ballot box.
As I remark at the end of my post, I am taking it as a given that the act was wrong --- a moral failure. I am not proposing voting on that or indeed voting at all in the strict sense. Given that the act is wrong, the question then becomes one of punishment/censure. In that regard, I think it is relevant to consider how many people would have failed in the same way in the same circumstances. We can probably agree that it is wrong to tell a killer where your child is hiding. But consider two alternatives: 1. The killer offers you $100 for the information. 2. The killer tears out one of your eyeballs and threatens to tear out the second. Very few people would succumb in the first case. One would need to be unusually depraved (or perhaps insane). So very strong condemnation is warranted. Rather more would fail in the second case. It is more "understandable". Milder condemnation is therefore called for. (And, yes, I am admitting that in certain defined circumstances torture can "work".) Human morality must be grounded in a realistic view of human nature. It is generally avoidable failings, not near universal ones, that morality should target.
Oakman wrote:
I tend to believe that the original decisions were made because they thought they were protecting America. But, as you almost said, certain kinds of behavior perpetuate themselves. Later, in the macho world of spooks and neocons, it may have been a sign of weakness to question waterboarding. It would appear that Nancy Pelosi is claiming she was afraid she'd be told she didn't have any balls if she protested. . .
I certainly think that an initial extreme reaction is much more understandable and forgiveable than an ongoing systematic policy.
John Carson
-
John Carson wrote:
These are elite athletes and it is rugby league, not soccer
I have found that elite in sports that require physical contact usually means more Neanderthalian, not less.
John Carson wrote:
Group members incite each other to go one step further and people lose their individual morality in pursuit of group acceptance
One thing I am fairly sure of: the president of the united States very seldom considers himself to be just a member of the group - even when that group is the G20 heads of state, certainly when the others present are members of his administration.
John Carson wrote:
There is no legal or ethical principle that I wouldn't put aside if the cost of adhering to the principle was human suffering on a large enough scale
Then you and Bush are in agreement in this, I believe. You simply disagree about whether or not human suffering was avoided - and that is a matter of opinion, not fact. I respect your opinion and while I do not agree with it, I would defend to your death, your right to hold it...I suppose all moral questions come down to matter of opinion. Some folks try to claim that God personally spoke to them - or to someone who claims a divine visitation - and thus they "know." But of course, that is simply their opinion. Much the way I can claim that what I say has extra validity because I read it in the Encyclopedia Galactica, Vol 97; pg 10,876. Or Troy does by citing some obscure website without even reading the article. ;)
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Both democrats and republicans are playing for the same team and it's not us. - Chris Austin
Oakman wrote:
John Carson wrote: There is no legal or ethical principle that I wouldn't put aside if the cost of adhering to the principle was human suffering on a large enough scale Then you and Bush are in agreement in this, I believe. You simply disagree about whether or not human suffering was avoided - and that is a matter of opinion, not fact.
My criteria wasn't avoiding human suffering. It was avoiding human suffering on a large enough scale. How large? Depends on the principle, but I think the "how large" question is another point on which Bush and I might disagree. Of course, much of the time it isn't a matter of avoiding suffering for certain. It is a matter of avoiding suffering with some probability (or, more generally, a probability distribution over various possible sufferings). The estimation of that probability would be the second area where Bush and I would disagree.
John Carson