Is torture acceptable? (12 Viewers)

[swag]

Correlation is not causation, and yet it's a barrel of laughs.

Not to be a stick in the mud, but I fail to see the humor. It's more ego-stroking than anything. Which ultimately makes it more sad and pathetic. Worthy of the psychoanalyst's chair.

 

Buy on AliExpress.com

[Martin]

That's what I've been trying to tell you the whole time goddamnit! I figured that "under all circumstances" was added for an important reason.

I meant it in the spirit that I wrote it. Ie. all circumstances likely to occur in our world. Not "hypothetical event in parallel universe where time ends once the choice is made".

 

[rounder]

Not exactly. It comes down to weighing the possible benefits of a confession under torture (which I consider minimal) against the harm to the victim and the expected repercussions I've mentioned (major). But that really is just a matter of choice. There are no facts (objectivity is based on facts I remind you) that determine which choice a person makes.

What if the benefits of a confession were outrageously beneficial for the human race, would torture then be justified?

 

[Martin]

Not to be a stick in the mud, but I fail to see the humor. It's more ego-stroking than anything. Which ultimately makes it more sad and pathetic. Worthy of the psychoanalyst's chair.

The chair or the couch? I enjoy both!

I fail to see how it's even ego stroking. Is there an objective standard that says those who voted for torture are losers?

 

[Martin]

What if the benefits of a confession were outrageously beneficial for the human race, would torture then be justified?

You're not getting it, are you? The very fact that you're asking the question means that the answer is a matter of choice, opinion.

You cannot prove that everyone values a child over a product, therefore you cannot prove that child labor is objectively immoral. And since we don't all have the same values, there is no objective standard.

 

[Dinsdale]

I meant it in the spirit that I wrote it. Ie. all circumstances likely to occur in our world. Not "hypothetical event in parallel universe where time ends once the choice is made".

Now you're making a caricature out of it. I just explained to you how you could vote "torture can be acceptable" and not disagree with the things you've mentioned. And I think it applies to a lot of people who voted.

 

[rounder]

You're not getting it, are you? The very fact that you're asking the question means that the answer is a matter of choice, opinion.

You cannot prove that everyone values a child over a product, therefore you cannot prove that child labor is objectively immoral. And since we don't all have the same values, there is no objective standard.

No, no, I don't think you are quite getting it. We do not decide what the moral objective standard is, that does not stop it from existing. Obviously, if we decided the objective moral standard, then it wouldn't be objective. I am suggesting that a tanscendent being has put forth these objective moral laws.

 

[Martin]

No, no, I don't think you are quite getting it. We do not decide what the moral objective standard is, that does not stop it from existing. Obviously, if we decided the objective moral standard, then it wouldn't be objective. I am suggesting that a tanscendent being has put forth these objective moral laws.

Would you for once stick to the conclusions that have been reached.

Did we or did we not decide that in some cases it's impossible to discover what the objectively moral choice is? Is that's the case, how the hell is it objective??

 

[swag]

The chair or the couch? I enjoy both!

I fail to see how it's even ego stroking. Is there an objective standard that says those who voted for torture are losers?

How is it not ego-stroking? Repeatedly poking sticks in the eyes of others because they don't have the same superior belief systems as you, that they don't have the same superior value systems as you, that they don't think in as superior a fashion as you do, etc., has got to be one of the most narcissistic behaviors possible.

It makes something like this:
http://tweetingtoohard.com/
seem amateurish on the narcissism scale by comparison.

Maybe it's fine for two gay men in the privacy of their bedroom to do what they want, right? But if someone dares think or believe in things that someone doesn't agree with -- regardless of whether or not they make those beliefs openly public all the time -- they're fair game for snide insults and superiority posturing? I don't think so.

 

[Martin]

How is it not ego-stroking? Repeatedly poking sticks in the eyes of others because they don't have the same superior belief systems as you, that they don't have the same superior value systems as you, that they don't think in as superior a fashion as you do, etc., has got to be one of the most narcissistic behaviors possible.

It makes something like this:
http://tweetingtoohard.com/
seem amateurish on the narcissism scale by comparison.

How is it ego stroking to ask people about their stance on some issue? Are you claiming I knew what they would say and I'm doing it all to amuse myself? I didn't, I was curious. Maybe the religion angle is baseless (which I totally disagree with) but is the torture question itself not valid?

I seriously do not recognize myself in your accusations.

 

[swag]

Perhaps in this case there's genuine curiosity. But I swear at least half the religious threads here are preconceived with an agenda in mind. You must admit that.

 

[rounder]

Would you for once stick to the conclusions that have been reached.

Did we or did we not decide that in some cases it's impossible to discover what the objectively moral choice is? Is that's the case, how the hell is it objective??

Yes, in some cases we may not be able to understand what is objectively moral, at least not yet. Remember that we are still evolving and while burning a child alive because it turned out to be a girl may seem absolutely wrong to us now but wasn't so a long time ago.

Here's my theory, I believe an objective morality exists and throughout humanity we have evolved well enough to be able to discover some of these objective truths, thus it is very likely that a thousand years from now even more objective truths may seem very apparent, it would be arrogant and even ignorant to claim this isn't the case.

The reason I reached this conclusion is simple. Since we have reached absolute truths that will not change throughout the progression of time, such as torturing a newborn baby for pleasure, it is fair to conclude that other truths will in time be revealed. This standard we are achieving throught the evolution of our species and the progression of time is what I like to call the 'objective moral standard'. It is the standard we are gradually appraching and unknowingly striving for.

 

[Martin]

Perhaps in this case there's genuine curiosity. But I swear at least half the religious threads here are preconceived with an agenda in mind. You must admit that.

Who doesn't have an agenda? This forum began when Tom started that thread where there was a lecture and he had a bunch of questions. I thought that was pure curiosity. But most threads here are either trying to score a point side on one side or the other. I didn't know we had a problem with that.

 

[Raz]

The reason I reached this conclusion is simple. Since we have reached absolute truths that will not change throughout the progression of time, such as torturing a newborn baby for pleasure, it is fair to conclude that other truths will in time be revealed. This standard we are achieving throught the evolution of our species and the progression of time is what I like to call the 'objective moral standard'. It is the standard we are gradually appraching and unknowingly striving for.

Isnt torture supposedly used for getting information, so what inforamtion one would want to get from a baby? No one would torture baby not because its immoral, but because its impractical.

 

[Martin]

I have to echo Seven's diagnosis. You really want there to an objective reality. You think that everyone should agree that killing a baby is wrong.

But just because you want something doesn't make it true.

 

[rounder]

I have to echo Seven's diagnosis. You really want there to an objective reality. You think that everyone should agree that killing a baby is wrong.

But just because you want something doesn't make it true.

On the flip side this can easily apply to you, even more so than myself. You want subjective morality to exist, in fact, you would go so far as to say nothing in the history of humanity is actually wrong, it's just a matter of opinion. I don't think you truly believe this, I think you are required to believe this.

You don't believe in God, thus you cannot believe in an objective morality even if it does make sense because that would pose a big question mark on your belief system.

To put it more simply, atheism fails if I am right, theism does not fail if you are right. Who do you think wants to be right?

Objective morality is not logically flawed while subjective morality is. I am talking from a very fair point of view here, I honestly think that objective morality makes more sense not because I want to but because it is more logical.

 

[Raz]

You don't believe in God, thus you cannot believe in an objective morality even if it does make sense because that would pose a big question mark on your belief system.

To put it more simply, atheism fails if I am right, theism does not fail if you are right. Who do you think wants to be right?

So you believe in god, and wanna think that god knows best whats right and wrong.

Theism cannot fail while there are people who believe in fantasies, and those people were not, are not and will not be in any shortage anytime soon.

 

[Martin]

On the flip side this can easily apply to you, even more so than myself. You want subjective morality to exist, in fact, you would go so far as to say nothing in the history of humanity is actually wrong, it's just a matter of opinion.

Look at the torture poll. Is torture right or wrong? People disagree. Take any event in history and you find people on both sides.

You don't believe in God, thus you cannot believe in an objective morality even if it does make sense because that would pose a big question mark on your belief system.

Wrong. My beliefs concerning morality have never been connected to god. I used to think more like you, that there should be an objective morality. But the more I thought about it the more I realized there isn't one.

To put it more simply, atheism fails if I am right, theism does not fail if you are right. Who do you think wants to be right?

That's not my conclusion at all. It's yours.

I honestly think that objective morality makes more sense not because I want to but because it is more logical.

I know you do. But because it seems more logical doesn't make it true.

 

[rounder]

Look at the torture poll. Is torture right or wrong? People disagree. Take any event in history and you find people on both sides.

Indeed, but asking whether torture is right or wrong is rather vague, don't you think. A little rephrasing would have produced a completely different outcome. If you had asked instead, 'Is torturing someone because you are jealous of him right or wrong?' I believe all the answers would be a unanimous 'wrong'.

Wrong. My beliefs concerning morality have never been connected to god. I used to think more like you, that there should be an objective morality. But the more I thought about it the more I realized there isn't one.

Perhaps you should think even more, you might change your mind.

 

[Seven]

I still don't see your logic, Andries. Belief in God is not a determinant, nor is it necessary and sufficient. Why not belief in vegetarianism instead?

People favor or object to things like torture on different personal grounds. Religious belief is only one and a myriad of possibilities. By throwing God in the mix, you're cluttering it up. "Tainting the data", as we'd say in the scientific statistical analysis biz.

If this thread is yet another boorish axe for you to grind against religious beliefs, I suppose this logic makes sense. But in which case haven't we seen this ridiculous thread a hundred times before already?

No, you got me all wrong, swag. I don't think it's a determinant. To me it would make little sense. But there happens to be this study which claims that people who are believers seem to condone torture faster. I don't think religion is the determinant at all, but I do think there's something else which might cause this.

Let's say poverty makes people condone torture for example and let's say poverty makes them religious as well. Then you get the same result the study had, but the determinant is poverty.

Martin had a good idea here: let's say that in countries that have a certain religious regime people are more bound to believe whatever the regime tells them, because that's what they're used to. Now the regime tells them torture is acceptable.

Religion is not the important factor, the regime is.