A what if question ?

You know, RosaL, I gave you a simple clear answer to your question. I honestly don't understand your answer to mine.

You say,

quote:

---

IF it were true that a nuclear catastrophe could be averted by some measure of torture, then I think it might well be justified, depending on the torture.

---

"If"? How can you know? You have to decide based on the available information.

In your villager story, no one knew [b]for sure[/b] whether the collaborator would talk if push came to shove. They didn't wait to find out. They killed him.

What more information do you need to answer my question?

And then you say, "depending on the torture"? You mean, if you knew with certainty that a nuclear catastrophe were at stake, you would use some forms of torture but not others???

You apparently don't like the answer I gave to this problem. Why not?

quote:

---

Originally posted by unionist:
[b]You know, RosaL, I gave you a simple clear answer to your question. I honestly don't understand your answer to mine.

You say,

"If"? How can you know? You have to decide based on the available information.

In your villager story, no one knew [b]for sure[/b] whether the collaborator would talk if push came to shove. They didn't wait to find out. They killed him.

What more information do you need to answer my question?

And then you say, "depending on the torture"? You mean, if you knew with certainty that a nuclear catastrophe were at stake, you would use some forms of torture but not others???

You apparently don't like the answer I gave to this problem. Why not?[/b]

---

My point about the "if": You didn't understand me. Or I failed to explain myself. Or both. It's a crucial point. But I can't keep talking about this. I'm tired. I need to get some work done. My dog wants to go out. And really no one cares what I'm saying. If I can find a webpage that explains it, I'll post it. But I was an idiot to try to make a point like that in a forum like this.

I do and I don't like your answer. On the one hand, it addresses what is assuredly the hidden agenda in this case. On the other, it refuses to discuss a very real moral question, which can be posed without that hidden agenda and, indeed, by someone with a very different agenda.

You believe that a) killing is sometimes justified but b) torture is never justified. Is that your point? Why is killing sometimes justified but never arm-twisting?

And I am some kind of moral monster and imperialist lackey because I say a) but not b)? Anyone who says that torture in some degree might in some case be justified is in favour of torturing Iraquis and Afghanis to further the interests of the American empire - is that it? Can I not be in favour of killing Hitler but not Castro? of torturing Pinochet but not Mandela? Of leaving the lights on but not tearing limbs off?

[ 24 March 2008: Message edited by: RosaL ]

Clearly not. [img]tongue.gif" border="0[/img]

quote:

---

Originally posted by unionist:
[b]

Please review my posts and ask yourself why you attributed this view to me.

And stop saying I'm accusing you of something. Please review my posts and tell me where I accused you of anything.

My view is that this gameplaying is ahistorical and false. To even pose the "Afghan" scenario the way I did is to buy into the entire Islamophobic and imperialist-aggressive onslaught of the U.S. and its allies. That's the correct answer, and I stand by it.

Hint for my first sentence: I never said I oppose torture.[/b]

---

I didn't thnk you did. I just wanted you to address that issue. (I admit that I'm exceedingly frustrated at this point.)

I suspect we agree for the most part - at least on the essential moral and political issues. I also agree that the Afghan scenario is ahistorical and false. (You were right: you didn't understand what I said about this. That may very well be my fault. But I stand by that, too.) I think we might have some disagreements about the nature of moral argument. But perhaps not. In any case, I need to stop for today [img]frown.gif" border="0[/img]

[ 24 March 2008: Message edited by: RosaL ]

Shoppin threads
Cooking threads
Weather threads

Those are the three at the top of my list.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Webgear:
[b]Cueball

I was just about to start a what if threat on “Weather related incidents while you were out shopping for cooking supplies and recipes.”

[img]tongue.gif" border="0[/img] [/b]

---

Is that an orange level[b] threat[/b]?

Oh it's beautiful.

Did you hear what happened in Meaford???

We can't use a numerical threat system as it doesn't assist with literacy levels.

You could go with a feline system.

Kitten > cat > lynx > jaguar > tiger > lion (not the cowardly kind) > sphinx

It's on the east side, around the grain elevators.

I think it's like along 1st Ave East to the waters edge.

Is that because I live on the west side???

The Chi-Cheemaun is on the west side......

are you being "side'ist"?

When I moved from the First Nation to Wiarton it took me forever to sleep soundly, so much noise in town.

But with the kids as young adults now, I like being in the city and I can now ignore the traffic and neighbours etc. I can walk to all the summer activities etc.

I use to be that way, but not having to drive the kids everywhere and encouraging thier independance is great. My daugther was 14 before she used mass transit for the first time. A life skill we all need.

----------

So did this thread accomplish the discussion you were looking for?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Webgear:
[b]I believe the thread accomplishment my goal to a certain degree. If I was to re-write the opening post I would change the scenario slightly.

My goal was to debate ethics/personal moral issues about saving an innocent life over a corrupted life. [/b]

---

Cool! I hope you weren't offended with my initial response, I wasn't trying to be flip.

I had a 2 year old fall out of a 3rd story window and land beside my parked truck in 2006 [she was fine] and my perception of the event was so altered due to human crisis response, so to me making judgement calls just don't have time to happen, you just don't think that way in those types of situations.

In some way your morality/ethical question plagues all of society. The judgement of the 'deserving poor' vs those that smoke and drink and fornicate.

I found it interesting, but it never occurred to me to look at the question for appropriateness and implications in the asking of the question.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Webgear:
[b]Cueball

I was just about to start a what if threat on “Weather related incidents while you were out shopping for cooking supplies and recipes.”

[img]tongue.gif" border="0[/img] [/b]

---

This sounds like Psyopps on the grand scale.

I disagree with the above objections about the nature of this thread. These types of questions are intended to make us think about whether or not there is a consistent set of rules by which we can distinguish moral from immoral actions.

Unionist's objection about the use of such questions to justify certain political policies is fair, but there exists a decent counterpoint to the Afghan torture problem:

[i]Suppose you accept that the torture of the Afghan is necessary, and do so, but he proves stoic and still refuses to reveal the information. You have access to the Afghan's family, though, and think he might talk if you threaten to kill his three young children.

Is it justifiable to start shooting his innocent children, one at a time, until he talks, in order to save a million people at home?[/i]

The torture scenario is about using an end to justify a means. This is the same as the Trolley problem linked to by RosaL. The use of the torture vs nuclear catastrophe question is disingenuous because it so heavily stacks the harm/benefit ratio of the action as to lead to an emotion-based answer, while glossing over the philosophical problems. Asking the same question as infanticide vs nuclear catastrophe is more fairly illustrative (as is the Trolley problem).

[ 30 March 2008: Message edited by: Proaxiom ]

Look, any questions like these are disingenuous. They compel the listener to make a moral judgement and in doing so provoke a tacit affirmation of the moral and ethical matrix implicit in the question, usually with tyrannical results.

Consider the question in the OP. It assumes that you should have a say whether anyone lives or dies. It assumes that the child is wholly innocent and the pedophile wholly guilty. It does this while posing an entirely unlikely situation that even if an individual, against all likelihood, found herself in it, would not warrant enough time to make a detailed, considered response, all the while masquerading as a strategy for setting ethical lines for society.

The assumptions implicit to such questions are even more evident in unionist's revision. Such a question assumes 1) it is my right to decide whether or not to torture another human being, 2) it assumes that I know this individual is a 'terrorist', and that a 'terrorist' is an easily definable being and 3) that torture is an effective way to get information out of someone who would prefer to withhold it. I question all three of these tenets.

They are dishonest tricks that apply specific, human, emotional (and impossible) situations to abstract universals like ethics and justice. Is this how people draft laws and human rights charters? By asking what would happen if Jack Bauer had Saddam Hussein in the middle of Los Angeles ten minutes before ten nuclear bombs were about to go off across America?

I would save the pedophile and murder the child, because I hate to see kids suffer. And Mack Pederast is an old high school drinking buddy of mine.

quote:

---

Originally posted by rural - Francesca:
[QB]

I had a 2 year old fall out of a 3rd story window and land beside my parked truck in 2006 [she was fine] and my perception of the event was so altered due to human crisis response, so to me making judgement calls just don't have time to happen, you just don't think that way in those types of situations.

---

I have to agree with you here. While these types of thought questions are interesting, in reality at least in my experience you don't think about the moral implications.

Without getting into specific details, I was actually involved in a situation where someone deliberately set a fire in a house with several other people in it. You just don't think, something else kicks in. People ran in to get them ALL out. Including me. It was only afterwards, ALL safe by the way, when the adrenalin was over and at the hospital where several people were treated for smoke inhalation, both victims and rescuers, that I even considered any of the moral questions about well what would have happened if we had to make a choice between the fire setter and the others, or even about my own personal safety. Meaning "a WTF was I thinking I ran INTO a burning building!' Which I did a lot. It was a total shock to me that I would do that. Even now I still couldn't say for sure that yes I would do that again.
I just reacted and it was simple as that.

One time well driving home we came upon a car on a rural road that was totally burning. There was another car on the other side of the road but initially as we drove by I only saw one person. Well in my mind I freaked because I didn't think I could handle it if there was actually a person in that car. What would I do? My husband was with me and when he stopped I'll admit I was totally happy when he said stay in the car I'll look after it.
The person did get out before it burned which was a relief but I kicked myself for being so relieved that I didn't have to deal with it if it was. I wasn't so 'brave' in that situation.
Again that was a reaction.
Would the situation have been different if it had just been me in the car and I couldn't default to someone else? Likely but there is no way I can know %100 for sure.