This One's for Stan
-
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