Two questions that will make social conservatives think....

[_Ren]

I've just come back from seeing 'Rendition' tonight. So all this 'when is torture justified' stuff is fresh on my mind...

...my conclusion is this:

If we torture somebody (I'm gonna leave the 'of their own free will' idea to one side for a second - that's a little too abstract for my main point! ;) ) to save 1000 lives, what we've done is let 1000 people live longer in a world where torture is justified.

To me, that doesn't quite add up. I'd rather the bad guys were always the ones that did wrong. And that those that died at least lived in a world where right and wrong meant something...


Off topic: There was a joke in the film that I felt bad laughing at, but in my defense - the loudest laughs were coming from the women in the audience:
"Beat your woman every morning. If you don't know why, she does...".

[_asbestosman]

What about my personal disgust is trumped by something be moral or immoral?

I'm not sure if it's a question of superiority. Let's put it this way though. I'd be perfectly willing to eat a mayonaise sandwich to prevent terrorist attacks. I find that to be about the most disguisting thing imaginable. However, eating mayonaise is not seen as immoral to me despite my personal hatred of the stuff.

I think even for you though, what you view as immoral does Trump personal disguist. Hence your refusal to violate another's agency to prevent terrorist attacks.

So the root of the question is more like asking if you would be willing to incite God's wrath against you by doing something He considers vile and immoral in order to save lives?

I think it's deeper than that. I don't think Bond's refusal to violate another's agency is necessarily rooted in God's wrath. Even if it is in his case, I think there is something similar in many cases. I think even with myself it's not so much a fear of God as it is the great respect I hold for personal choice. If men are willing to die in order to preserve the freedom of their conscience. When I suddenly must violate my conscience, I feel like that very sacred right is violated not so much in myself, but in others as well, just by the fact that I'd be expected to make such a sacrifice. If God wants to send me to hell becuase I want to protect that right, then I probably wanted to go there anyhow. It's not the homosexual sex that's the issue so much as violating the basic human right of personal conscience.

[_barrelomonkeys]

I've just come back from seeing 'Rendition' tonight. So all this 'when is torture justified' stuff is fresh on my mind...

...my conclusion is this:

If we torture somebody (I'm gonna leave the 'of their own free will' idea to one side for a second - that's a little too abstract for my main point! ;) ) to save 1000 lives, all we've done is let 1000 people live longer in a world where torture is justified.

To me, that doesn't quite add up. I'd rather the bad guys were always the ones that did wrong. And that those that died at least lived in a world where right and wrong meant something...


Off topic: There was a joke in the film that I felt bad laughing at, but in my defense - the loudest laughs were coming from the women in the audience:
"Beat your woman every morning. If you don't know why, she does...".

Ren, I agree hypothetically.

Although........ if it was up to me and I knew that my family would be killed all philosophical right and wrong would fly out the window for me. It would. I'd have NO problem torturing someone to save my loved ones. Now, I HATE that I feel that way - and think that way. I recognize it as being driven purely out of emotion. I recognize it and it's disappointing. But I'm being honest. I'd do it.

[_Jason Bourne]

1) Would you abort the fetus of Osama bin Laden?

If we knew he would be Osama we might. But we do not know so the question is really specious.

2) Would you have homosexual sex in order to prevent a terrorist attacks?

Yes if it did not include anal sex, but yes, to save many lives I probably would.

[_asbestosman]

If we torture somebody (I'm gonna leave the 'of their own free will' idea to one side for a second - that's a little too abstract for my main point! ;) ) to save 1000 lives, what we've done is let 1000 people live longer in a world where torture is justified.

I'm with you on this one. However, I would say the same about a world where people are asked to violate their own conscience--at least so long that conscience isn't something like "I must kill all Jews" or whatnot.

[_asbestosman]

Although........ if it was up to me and I knew that my family would be killed all philosophical right and wrong would fly out the window for me. It would. I'd have NO problem torturing someone to save my loved ones. Now, I HATE that I feel that way - and think that way. I recognize it as being driven purely out of emotion. I recognize it and it's disappointing. But I'm being honest. I'd do it.

Monkeys, to be fair I don't really know how I'd actually act if it were my loved ones.

[_Bond...James Bond]

Ren, I agree hypothetically.

Although........ if it was up to me and I knew that my family would be killed all philosophical right and wrong would fly out the window for me. It would. I'd have NO problem torturing someone to save my loved ones. Now, I HATE that I feel that way - and think that way. I recognize it as being driven purely out of emotion. I recognize it and it's disappointing. But I'm being honest. I'd do it.

If I had to beat up a stranger to save my family....of course I'd do it. Of course it's not rational, but family is something that is real (and real in a way that is not as real as God IMHO) and tangible and has alot of connection to people. Although I have some love for my fellow man, I doubt that love is as concentrated as love for family is too most people. (Dang....it's like the Matrix Reloaded LOL)

So if I had to waterboard a terrorist (or get the red hot pokers after them, or kill them) to save my family's lives, I'd probably do it. I think most people's families are something that most people would go all out for in a way they wouldn't go all out for strangers. I mean sure it's wrong, but its human (in my case anyway).

[Guest]

Ren, I agree hypothetically.

Although........ if it was up to me and I knew that my family would be killed all philosophical right and wrong would fly out the window for me. It would. I'd have NO problem torturing someone to save my loved ones. Now, I HATE that I feel that way - and think that way. I recognize it as being driven purely out of emotion. I recognize it and it's disappointing. But I'm being honest. I'd do it.

Actually - so would I - I'm pretty sure. It's true...
I should clarify my comments. Specifically - in Rendition - the idea of torture is attempted to be justified on the grounds that SOMETIMES, you get good information out of it.
...forget all the times that sometimes, the poor guy you've been electrocuting, or pulling finger nails off of didn't actually know anything -and in the end told you any damn thing to get you to stop. Once in a blue moon, the guy you 'guess' might have information actually does turn out to.

That's how I was framing the situation in my head... :)

If there is sure knowledge that the person can stop an atrocity - and it involves high numbers of people (but how about even 1?), then it's probably all a different ball-game. At least I would consider it so. I agree...

But I'd place emphasis on the word 'hypothetical' here. I don't know how many situations end up that nice and neat...

[_Bond...James Bond]

Alright...time for a real head scratcher.

Would you rather......be 6 ft tall and really ugly, or 3 ft tall and really handsome/beautiful?

[Guest]

I'm with you on this one. However, I would say the same about a world where people are asked to violate their own conscience--at least so long that conscience isn't something like "I must kill all Jews" or whatnot.

Wow abs. We'd be living in a pretty damn restricted world. Some people's consciences are pretty easily upset...