Leaderboard

I does make you wonder, however, how some people on this forum can argue that the Supreme Court is not a political entity, and interprets laws acoording to the Constitution, and not political leaning. I would argue that your 'checks and balances' are severely screwed up if he doesn't, or isn't forced to, recluse himself

I seem to be the only one who presented a list for criticism. I didn't pretend it would be objective, any more than the decision itself could be disinterested; I didn't pretend that I had fewer unknown factors to start with than I would have in real life. Indeed, I was basing my list on a possible situation, rather than a scripted formula. I counted two ifs and no buts. But math isn't my strong suit.

Here here! It also seems to be short view utilitarianism too. For some, the notion of long-term, unseen and unpredictable negative consequences that can arise out of the act of torture doesn't seem to hold much weight, for me it does. Especially in the terrorist scenarios. A terrorist organizations rhetoric of fighting against an evil tyrannical force, holds more weight if you torture them. Which can erode public support and stir up more sympathy for them in the long-run. Recruitment would be easier and some of the public may even blame the next attack on the torturers, saying they provoked it by behaving as savagely as the terrorists claim they are. That doesn't make it right; terrorists are far more guilty of using tactics and strategies that damage any moral justification their original cause may or may not have had. It may be unfair for the public to develop more sympathy for terrorists because desperate people did a desperate thing in desperate circumstances, but it does not change the fact that this is a potential long-term consequence of the torture. I feel as if the whole "Try everything possible" argument implies that the ends always justifies the means. Which is not something I believe to be true. I mean, we could have this same discussion where the only difference is we all agree on the physical torture aspect but disagree on how far we should go. "Well, I did the finger stuff and smacked him around for awhile but it didn't work." "Did you try threatening his genitals or mutilating them? What about taking one of his eyes and starving him? You need to try everything possible or you will have completely failed the victims and I will hold you personally responsible for their deaths!"

Indeed +1. Just to add: A time pressure also comes with the chance that a well directed lie would both, run out the clock and save one from further pain; because they know that "we all agree" that torture after the fact is morally wrong. A strong motivation, to someone already radicalised, to kill two bird's with one stone...

I think that is fair to say, but a bit unrealistic. Earlier, I made the point; that if you have enough time to try everything else first, chances are the situation is not as time sensitive as we make out. There is one other factor here that we are not mentioning; Individual skill and competency. One individual may just not be skilled or experienced enough to get the information humanely,while another person is. In the scenarios involving law enforcement being the ones to decide on torture, chances are that if the current team or individual is not getting results with the humane methods in a timely enough manner, the task will be reassigned to someone else before anyone ever brings up torture. So when all else fails, do we think about moving onto torture first or move onto someone else trying everything else first? From interrogation, profiling and investigation there is a lot of different methods, strategies and tactics that are involved. How long roughly do you think it would take 2-3 different individuals or teams to go through trying all of it? Hours? Days? Weeks?

That’s working so well with abortion rights.

They’re making me sick. They’re making us all sick.

Meanwhile, wife of Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas was texting with Trumps White House Chief of Staff Mark Meadows at this time… she was pressing and directly advising them to overturn the 2020 election and reverse the results. https://www.nytimes.com/2022/03/24/us/politics/ginni-thomas-trump-mark-meadows.html

Oh, what the hell, I have some time to kill. Cons: 1. It's wrong. 2. It's abhorrent. 3. It's illegal. 4. Scripted fantasy notwithstanding, I cannot realistically be sure I have the right suspect. 5. There has not been time to do correct procedure or even begin. The avenues of investigation that can be exhausted in the time-frame are pathetically few and necessarily incomplete. That's where a conscientious officer would dirct his energies and resources. 6. High failure rate. If it doesn't work, I will have wasted valuable time. 7. I will feel like something less than worm-shit and might become ineffective. 8. I will lose the respect of good officers who might then also be less effective under my direction. 9. Odds are, I'll go up on charges and 9.a. possibly take other officers into trouble with me. 10. The evidence will almost certainly be inadmissible, and the perp - if guilty will go free. 11. If innocent, I will have scarred another person for life, and possibly turned him into a criminal. 12. The police force will be tainted, lose its good reputation and the trust of the populations we're meant to protect, and incidentally 12a. attract people of the wrong character as recruits and 12b. go slowly to hell in a black Maria. 12c. like the police forces of China, Turkey, Syria, et al. 13. Citizens will be too afraid to come forward with needed information. 13.a. Violent criminals will be more likely to shoot police, rather than risk arrest. 14. I may go to jail, with a lot of people I had earlier put there. 14a. I may become a prison bully; go all the way over to the dark side.

Depends on which constitution you are talking about. A state judge's ruling on the US constitutionality of a law has no bearing on anyone who is not in that state. Similarly, laws that run afoul of a state constitution but not of the US constitution will not be ruled on by Federal judges as they have no jurisdiction.

I agree with MSC that any system of normative ethics (i.e. having moral rules that govern a society) must flow from human feelings. We are not robotic beings without emotion that can be handled with a simple algorithm that optimizes some goal (say, making lots of paper clips). The Benthamites openly acknowledge the emotional basis of morality by setting pleasure and happiness (for the greatest number, in an impartial fashion) as the greatest good. JS Mill had similar views. Hume saw right actions as coming from moral sentiments. And so on. We have qualia, and feelings matter. The focus here, seems to me, has been on consequentialism - right actions are ones that we understand by their resulting in certain consequences. We are somewhat less concerned with being virtuous beings than with having results that are deemed the best for everyone. So some of the thought experiments here have been directed towards a utilitarian view. This value system seems implicit in some posts here. Better to hook jumper cables to one demonstrably horrible person than have great harm come to many other innocent persons. As I hinted earlier with my truth serum suggestion, a commitment to pragmatism might lead us to assert that mental violation is better than physical torture, and would lead to a better outcome for both interrogator, and criminal, and others involved. I have no crystal ball on this matter. But consequentialist approaches depend on good guesses as to outcomes. I can guess, say, that young boys in other countries are less likely to become terrorists if Americans are known for scopolamine cocktails rather than waterboarding or drilling holes in fingers. This might be the sort of guessing where a crack team of social scientists and intelligence operatives would be very handy! 😀

..but it is very easy to solve.. simply all people on the entire planet must stop using money (in any form).. Apart from physical limits, availability of money prevents scientists, engineers, workers, anybody from doing something.. NASA engineers after shutdown of Apollo program did not "forget" how to build rockets. The US government cut them from money, and dismissed high-level knowledgeable and sent them home, have to go to work in the private sector, below their abilities. If you have "economy" without money, you can build solar panels at any quantity, limited just by speed of getting rare chemical elements from mines required to build them. In a "classic", i.e. today's economy, if people won't buy e.g. solar panels by themselves, they won't have them (there is need one of on each building or so).. Some Western countries governments are trying to speed this up by giving refunds (fixed amount, 25%, 50%, 100%) for buying devices producing renewable energy, but it's a huge bureaucracy, and method of stealing money before it gets to the average Joe Doe, and the refund is given after the device is already on the building, so people still have to have that money up front)... So basically, if someone isn't rich, someone isn't eco-friendly, they'll just skip the crap offer from the government.. Governments should "own" the solar panel manufacturers, installation companies, etc., otherwise when demand for the product increases, the private sector will simply raise the price for the product and installation costs (basically sucking up all the tax money).

Yes. And if, like an earthworm, it does not have very elastic skin, it will go pop eventually. But apparently (I did not know this) ragworms have elastic skin and can stretch without being damaged. Also it seems they can tolerate quite a significant dilution of their body fluids and still function. Does that explanation fit the data you have been given?

Every time missiles are sent to Kiev, Mariupol, Odessa, etc., one missile should be sent to Moscow, St.Parkersburg etc... God approves this message... temporarily... (temporary adherence to the Old Testament until the mass murderer Antichrist Putin dies)....

If there's enough time, probably cybermen. Though that's not strictly an evolutionary process so much as an upgrade. The good news is, there probably isn't enough time left.

Mr Spock was an example, albeit fictitious one to show how in general, the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, as any westernised democratic society would understand. What's the last time? I asked you two original philosophical questions, and expected reasonable answers....."Why is that good news? Why do you believe we don't have enough time?" I don't believe either were answered with any sincerity.