MSC

I was being sarcastic tbh. Different now yes, but once similar. The biggest differences I'm picking up on are cultural. No Scottish person would have missed my sarcasm. In all seriousness though; you have my sympathies for your current lot in life. I don't think it is that anyone was lied to, just given the truth at varying levels of complexity. If I had a dime for everytime I heard a teacher say "forgot what I said about that last year" because this year I was ready for a more detailed account of the subject... it's annoying but it's how education works. No need. You held your own respectfully. I owe you the apology for doing a little temperament testing. Good news; you're not as hot headed as I am 😆

I very much doubt that is a course of action which will allow for any sort of "winner". Nobody will win a nuclear war. We'll all lose. I agree to some extent; although worsening conditions and the presidential job having become much more difficult and complex within the last century definitely adds to the perception they have been getting worse. I kind of feel bad for Biden. He inherited governance over a very chaotic geopolitical landscape, domestically and on the international front. The one thing I really don't like about opinion polls, is a tendency to blame the executive branch for things largely beyond its control. If that tendency didn't exist, I think opinion polls would be a little bit kinder and fairer. Now, getting back to Russia and the Ukraine. I see some historical similarities in the Kremlins motivations in attacking Ukraine, to the Soviet unions attitudes toward west Berlin before the wall came down. In East Berlin you had rampant poverty and hardship for its citizens while the people of West Berlin seemed to be enjoying the fruits of democracy and capitalism. It's kind of difficult to convince your people that the grass is not greener on the otherside, when they can take a peak over a wall and see that it is not true. In my opinion, and just my opinion, Putins Oligarchy sees western democracy as a threat, not to Russia directly, but to the minds of the Russian people. It has been said before, Russia is a sleeping bear, slow to rouse but strong and ferocious when awake. This is why in the past, many rulers have done their best to keep an iron grip on their power and their illusion of power over the people of Russia. I think it can probably be said of most countries, that the biggest threat to their governments, comes from within the borders, not beyond them. Ukraine is on the brink of joining the EU, if it were to somehow defy the odds and force the Russians to give up their "special military operation" coughinvasioncough... it will attempt to either join or make treaties with NATO to secure promises of more direct help in the event of another Russian offensive. This is why, I believe, the war in the Ukraine has not even gotten close to an end yet, it may very well have some cold periods, but it could be months to years before the conflict is truly over. From Putins perspective, any border Russia shares with western democracy is a threat. Mostly for the reasons stated above, however in the case of conventional warfare, Putins Oligarchy wants as much distance as it can get, between Moscow and it's enemies to the West. Russias disruptive foreign policy, is born of its recognition of its geographical weaknesses in fending off a military invasion from its enemies. As it stands, a strong force setting off from the Scandinavian territories, could theoretically make to and take Moscow and the Kremlin, long before reinforcements are roused, readied, and sent from Eastern Russia. Putin is an extremely dangerous man. His advisors are too afraid to tell him the truth about how the conflict in the Ukraine is really going. Which he is now aware of and this makes him even more mistrustful. I don't really know what to make of his implicit nuclear threats, but I don't take them lightly. I think in a direct confrontation with NATO, if he felt his power was truly threatened and on the brink of being lost, I think he would genuinely fall back on the nuclear option, and release Armageddon. Ultimately, I think the people with the most power to stop Putin, while keeping the world away from midnight, are the people of Russia. Медведи, просыпайтесь и деритесь*

Depends on the joke. It's hard to find a good balance between no emojis and too much of them. The people of my generation use them far too much for my liking. If I wanted to learn how to read pictures, I'd take up ancient Egyptian. (A good example of a joke that requires no emojis.) Jokes born of a dark sense of humour require a lot.

Although as reasons go, being psychologically bound to do whatever your parental instincts tell you to do to protect your young, is a pretty good one and is bound to provoke the most sympathy from those that still can rationally decide/discuss the moral value of your actions.

Oh really? Is that what mind fuck means? Wow! Well, the more you know 🤣 Who is they? Trust me, we all have read what you have said. I may joke, but only to hide the amount of weeping for humanity this post has me doing. That I face palmed harder when I read the latter? Or about as much difference between oatmeal and porridge.

My mind remains thoroughly unpenetrated. False advertisement! I thought the big freeze was the current best estimation, based on the evidence, of how the universe will end?

Note to self: Never ask you to babysit my cat 🤣

Same! I think I had been studying philosophy for about 8 months before I just started to hate the phrase "I know..." Now I do just take it as a challenge, because it just sounds so arrogant to say to me now. "We know" is worse though I think. Hate it when people assume I know shit 😆

A reality we live in each and every day, whether we answer yes or no. Being alive risks becoming a victim of something. I could go out and be mugged and shot, my home could be invaded by criminals, an asteroid might kill us all tomorrow. While I don't think there is much room for maybe, and sitting on the fence, I'd not judge someone for saying they don't know what the best answer is.

Thank you for that btw! Although I do only see cons 😆 My list will be up tomorrow. For me it requires going back and rereading everything so far, in order to build a fairly comprehensive list and it is still a work in progress. Making a rough paper copy with notes first which I'll just copy here when I'm ready. To be clear, I won't think anything about how long it takes you to reply or post. We all have real lives and I don't want you to feel rushed my friend.

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!"

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?

Your value system of course. I don't think they have been exhausted and I don't think it hurts to explicitly lay it out in a clearly formatted pro's and cons list, to sum up what has been covered so far. I'm waiting until the weekend when I have the time to do my part. My daughter is a toddler now so I'm drowning in real life atm 😆

I think that our emotional sentiments influence our moral reasoning more than logic does. I also believe it is impossible to separate the two. Ultimately logic is a tool that we use for justification, no matter which view we are trying to justify. There is an emotional root that motivates us to logically justify our views. We are fortunate enough to be able to have this discussion from a place of emotional calm. For the people within these actual situations, emotions are going to play a strong part. There is no emotional state of pure reason and rationality we can go to, because we are emotional animals. Everything we say or do, is motivated by emotion. Ethics is my vocation, and I love it and worry about it. I am motivated to try my best to remain as objective as is humanly possible, because that is what it takes to do ethics well. I want to do ethics well, because I love it. This is why I mentioned David Hume before; https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/hume-moral/ You're asking how I would feel, about something which I do not know has happened. Well they say ignorance is bliss and my child is now out of danger so I'd probably just be feeling relieved and thankful. If I was then told that torture was used... probably would still just be feeling relief. What's done is done and it isn't my place to judge the person who performed the torture. Even if it was, like I was a judge or a jury member for this, I'd have to recuse my self because of my involvement with the case itself as one of the victims of the motivating crime that apparently required torture. There would be no doubt in my mind that the torturer is causally responsible for both the perps pain and suffering, and my relief and gratitude. Whether or not they are morally responsible, hard to say. In this situation I'd be biased toward answering no, they are not morally responsible. The perp is. if we were to argue that the perp knew he would invoke desperation by kidnapping and hiding away my child, then in some ways his actions were what brought on the torturing. He is morally responsible for enabling the torture, by doing something so heinous that torture crossed others minds. If the perp had any true regard for themselves and their security, they ought not to have engaged in the crime in the first place. in this way, I suppose I am still saying the torture is wrong, but that the moral blame for it happening, lies with the person being tortured. They are also the ones putting the torturer through the ordeal of having to hurt them in the first place. In most cases, the torturer will still have done something illegal, but depending on the circumstances they may not be morally responsible for it, even if they end up going to jail. As the father of the person they saved, I'd want to support them through whatever happens. I'd visit them in prison, help pay legal fees or find some pro-bono institution for them. Even if we say the person was morally responsible, that does not mean they cannot be forgiven. Choosing whether or not to forgive is also a moral decision I feel. The torturer is probably more deserving of forgiveness than the tortured, in this position. I feel empathy for the pain the tortured is in, mentally and physically, because we are both human and don't like pain. Kind of like how if you see someone get hit square in the balls, as a man, nomatter how you may feel about the person, you'll wince as a nearly automatic response. This is actually what we call deep empathy, which is where you feel the emotion of the person you're empathising with, vs cognitive empathy which is your conscious efforts to think about their position rather than feeling it. You have given me a lot to think about. Your comment inspired me to say a lot that I hadn't considered before and caused me to remember concepts from moral philosophy in general that I'd nearly forgotten about. 😅 What did you think of Vats mental only interrogation through drugs idea? That's just it, you cannot guarantee, even as an experienced torturer that you won't accidentally kill the perp. For example; the method I referenced earlier Involving nails, finger tips and a defibrillator, would likely kill a person very quickly if they have some kind of heart condition I don't know about. Ultimately my decision to not physically torture (in the improbable scenarios where I'm expected to do it) is that I don't believe it is an effective enough method with too much risk to the Intel. Pragmatic ethics dictates you do what is most likely to work based on the scientific literature/studies. As it currently stands, a mix of investigation, psychological profiling and humane interrogation techniques has the most efficacy. Even if we include torture into the mix, you can't win em all. There will always be situations where despite the best efforts of people, we will fail to save the innocent/innocents. It sucks, I wish there was an option which had a 100% success rate, but there is not. Physical torture to me just seems more reckless than it is worth. Maybe we should all start just listing the pros and cons of the choices here? Anyone else want to start?

True. I suppose it is up to the individual on which scars to bare. I don't think anyone can really come out of this sort of situation smelling like roses... The smell of roses is overrated anyway! Baaaa! 😆

I don't think so. Doing what you can live with is more about personal self awareness. We all need to be able to look at ourselves in the mirror without a mountain of shame and guilt. There is a shortage of consideration on how we treat ourselves in comparison to how much consideration we give to how we treat others. To me, both are relevant factors in most moral situations. Wow. That's a really good definition. I'd have used the word "agents" over "entities" but it makes little difference. +1

Probably. Beats nails in the fingertips and a defibrillator easy. LSD is another potential avenue. I'd definitely try drug cocktails over torture. The perp has valuable Intel. Physical torture; especially for the untrained, is a threat to that Intel, as you may accidentally kill the perp before they divulge anything.

Oh you know him. He'd just tell us he is wise for admitting he doesn't know whether or not the soul exists! 😆 I've been avoiding the problem of evil literature, but this comment about sums it up! Often written about, but impossible to find. But saying evil doesn't exist, in my experience, opens you up to all manner of strange and unfair accusations. It's a slog.

I dont really know if I believe in souls. It would certainly damage my mind and my self-image. If it is the parent scenario though, while I'd still say it were morally incorrect to torture, I think this is a situation where paternal instinct is so strong I'd probably have no real choice in the matter. I'd just be bound to do what most mammalian parents would do. Protect their young. In this hypothetical scenario, since I prefer my scenarios to have some realism, since we know I'd still be tried in court for torturing someone because my child was in danger, after the fact, I'd probably enter a temporary insanity plea.

Agreed, but we are still calling it an evil, even if it lesser of the two. When the only other option is inaction/apathy, and it's your own child in danger, you will probably choose to torture or condone it's use. I would not say this makes it morally correct, just the least morally incorrect. Even if successful at making safe my child, the memory and knowledge that I have tortured would be something that I'd feel shame about. I think it's because I'm a parent. Yes I can prioritize my own child in this situation, but I can't forget that the person I tortured was once also a child, someone's baby. A part of me will empathize with paternal heartbreak over seeing your child become a monster. I'd probably not judge any other parent that ever had or has to do this either. Mostly I am speaking for myself. This is why it is morally incorrect for at least me. Even as a necessary evil, I'll still feel evil afterward. Maybe I've just been reading too much Hume and put more stock in moral reasoning through emotional sentiment than I should?

Yup. I'm the Rincewind of debate (Discworld reference) 🤣 this new rule is hard. Still, I'm young, I'm allowed to make a few more mistakes. What's your excuse, auld yin?

He didn't even assume that. Strawman. He literally said "assuming it's a fair trial.." and you're now accusing him of having claimed the exact opposite? This comment borders on racist also. Needs to be said. You really ought to calm down a bit and stop knee jerk reacting to everything we say by going down the pointless route of trying to question the credibility of an entire field while attempting to actually poorly practice it. All the while the irony of that, is lost on you. You're not actually attacking our arguments, just philosophy, which is a thinly veiled attack on philosophers. Especially as you are still picking and choosing which philosophers are to be listened to and which ones are not and going so far as to misrepresent their views as if they are the same as yours. They aren't. Kant was a moral absolutist. I don't like or agree with everything every philosopher has to say. Some are total assholes to each other, some are not. You can't paint us all with the same brush. The sort of criticisms you are attempting to credit as strictly a problem of philosophy as a field of study, are criticisms that apply to any group of humans. You're not at odds with philosophers or philosophy, you're at odds with human behavior in general... in which case, welcome to the club that you've always been in 😆 Sorry, hadn't seen this before my last comment. I'm done now. Thank you for weighing in. I also feel the thread has run its course now.

Imaginable situations; does not mean realistic ones. I'm not a total moral absolutest either. I'm a context relativist. I could imagine a world where everyone feels that pain is pleasurable and that everyone wants to be tortured. There is a morally permissible context in that imaginary scenario. It's not real life though. It's just a what-if fantasy around the idea of it being okay to torture because someone likes torturing. This is the very thing you took issue with from philosophy in the first place. Fanciful thought experiments and scripted scenarios. Well the world isn't a movie or a game. It's reality. If the context is never going to call for torture being permissible in this world, then why argue for it until one of these imaginary scenarios actually calls for it?

And I disagree. Simple as that. I don't think yours is the morally correct position and you've not convinced me otherwise. Sorry. You aren't stating facts. You are stating your opinion and mislabeling them as facts.

Nope, I'm not demanding anything. I am requesting that you address points raised by myself and others equitably. Ignoring the majority of them does nothing to convince others reading this that you are correct. I'd rather not assume that innocents would condone torture to save their lives. I'd also rather not torture a terrorist when I don't know if doing so will result in another retributive attack just for doing so. Resulting in more deaths. In a way, torturing them just makes it easier for others to view them as martyrs and gives weight, due or undue, to their claims that they are fighting against tyrants. The war on terror is just that, a war. You can't win every battle and some defeats are strategic. This bit is unrelated; but a new rule I've set for myself is to leave it at agreeing to disagree, before things get heated. Which is what I'm going to do now. I've said everything I need to say, if you can convince me that my points are moot, I'll respond again. Until then however take care and remember that this is just a place of open discussion, not a battleground and I bet nearly all of us here have no influence to action any of our suggestions or view points. Just to be clear; Kant is a deontological ethicist. He personally believed in absolute rules. He once argued that it is always wrong to tell a lie. Even if someone gets hurt because of it. He would probably argue against torture too. Now, I actually agree with him and Wittgenstein on these critiques of metaphysics. Which are not critiques of philosophy. We also aren't discussing metaphysics here either. We are discussing ethics. Something which Kant very much believed in the importance of. Scientists aren't birds and have the capacity to learn philosophy of science... It's truly amazing how convinced some people can be, that they've actually shown that there is anything so wrong with philosophy, that the field can only be subject to ridicule. Talk about throwing out babies with the bathwater 😆 Here is an idea for an experiment: Go to the physics section and start trying to do the same with physics. My prediction is that they will be just as defensive of their field as I am of mine. Especially when historically speaking, philosophers and scientists are targeted with these same criticisms and far worse by dictators and other tyrannical regimes, when we are so devoted to the truth we continue speak out against them even when it becomes dangerous to do so, sometimes at the cost of our lives and livelihoods. Final point; this whole hard science vs soft science debate is a myth, perpetuated by science-fiction writers and people who end up more celebrity than scientist. Good scientists and good philosophers listen to each other and work together. Always have. Always will. We don't always agree but we don't stoop to trying to publicly make light of the others field. If a few individuals do, it means little to me. I'm very confident that the relationship between science and philosophy is symbiotic. Appealing to age means little when a man like Donald Trump is only a year or two older than you.