Peterkin

No. Every living thing values its own life above all others, with the occasional exception of parents who put their offspring first. AFAIK, only humans value ideals above human life, but they generally value human life above all other species, and some species, not at all.

I recommend eyedrops and new prescription lenses.

I don't smoke anymore. I know you said that. And that was fine. Then you said that wrong turns to right when you say it does. Some people agree with you. I don't think wrong ever stops being wrong, even when some other thing is even more wrong. We are not in positions to absolve each other.

I honestly restricted my response to what was relevant to the topic. Your political views are not. Your views on religion are not. Your tolerances and intolerances are not. What's relevant is the basis of your definition of right and wrong. You base the definition of right and wrong on your reasons for doing something. He bases the definition of right and wrong on his reasons for doing something. You have that in common - even if nothing else.

Of course you are. Of course you don't - and he doesn't care about yours. That's what the two of you have in common.

It's not an analogy. It's a simple statement of what determines the ethical category of 'torture' (or any other human activity.) You say that whether an act is right or wrong depends on the motives of the person who performs the act. If you do it for a noble reason, it's good; if you do it for an ignoble reason, it's bad. That makes the classification of good and evil acts subjective and situational. I classify human activities on scale of right or wrong, before anyone is called upon to carry them out. And each kind of activity remains in place on that scale, no matter who performs it or why. (On that scale, torture is is just below the black end of the spectrum, surmounted only by bondage-torture-murder. Most of which, btw, is carried out legally by agents of a duly constituted government.) That doesn't matter. He has his set of values; you have yours, and you're both equally convinced that you're doing the right thing, because you are doing it for a noble reason. All that means is that you disagree with somebody else's values - and that you believe that disagreement gives you carte blanche to do with him as you will, should he come under your power. Too bad he is equally convinced of the truth and validity of his values, and wouldn't hesitate to do likewise, should you come under his power. The claim to represent Science is an imaginary shield.

ran out of time

So, you say the motivation of the actor determines the rightness or wrongness of the act. Your god approves of your torturing the terrorist; the jihadist's god approves of his blowing up infidels. I say the rightness or wrongness of the act is constant: the jihadist is committing a wrong act in order to save his people; you're committing another wrong act to save your people.

Which is what I've been saying all along. One may deem it necessary to commit a wrong to prevent a greater wrong. That might make it acceptable in an isolated situation. That might make it justifiable to the society whose collective ethics have been violated. That might make it forgivable. Nothing could make it right.

Is that a yes to my question? Does the motivation of the actor determine the morality of the act?

So, what's your objection to my believing it all the time, not just most of the time? Yes. Is not. The "word-game" is flipping the definition of wrong for your own reasons.

Maybe so; this being a philosophical venue 'an all, I assumed thinking about the philosophical aspects was appropriate. I didn't. This wasn't me: This was mistermack, applauded by two other posters. His conclusion was inaccurate, but you were happy with it: "Outweigh. Not wipe out." There was no playing; I simply refused to abandon my original stand on the wrongess of torture. I said the same thing over and over, as many times as I was asked : Sometimes I do wrong for what I consider a compelling reason, but I refuse to pretend that my compelling reason makes it right. So, I ask again: Does motivation change the nature of the act? If so, by what philosophical mechanism?

Strange coincidence: we have been watching The West Wing on DVD, and just passed the episode where they had to decide about an air-strike on an apartment building where the terrorist leaders lived. The military calculation was straightforward: if they did it right away, that night, civilian casualties were estimated between 35 and 50. If they waited until the children went to school and some adults went to work, they would only kill only 15-20 civilians. However, by morning, some or all of the terrorists might also be gone. This kind of casualty trade-off calculation is standard for military strategists; has a quite different effect on politicians and policy-makers; and different again on the uninvolved spectator. There is a significant difference, too, in numbers and persons. 15 civilians is the price of an important move against a dangerous enemy; collateral damage. A little girl selling bread has a face and an identity: killing her is a murder. And I'm still holding out for a difference between pushing a button to blow somebody up from a distance, suddenly without warning, and the protracted, deliberate, direct infliction of pain while looking into another person's eyes.

No, no, of course I must have misunderstood. You were all very nice gentlemen about my calling torture unequivocally wrong and my lack of certainty in whether I could or would ever employ it in a scripted situation that gives me no other options. I'm sure your disgust was a sincere as my attempts at explanation, all of which you deemed 'improper'. The question remains: If you admit having done something you consider wrong, why should I not admit the same? It's the WHY part I'm interested in, not the specifics of expression. Why is it important that I change my assessment of torture in the made-up situation? Why does the intent of the act change the nature of the act? Is it the motivation that makes something right or wrong? Take a minute to think of the implications.

So has everyone else. All I did was admit that I did this very dark grey one for a better reason than I had done previous transgressions of a lighter shade. Why beat up on me for that?

And have you never done anything in your life that you consider to be wrong?

All I'm saying is that killing and torture do not come under the same heading or into the same discussion. Killing is a different issue and any question about it needs to be framed separately.

I can think of reasons they would want to be anonymous, and I'm sure their physicians protect their identities. You could look on social media or special-audience blogs, if any of the patients discuss their experience, but I wouldn't know how to start. China is not, AFAIK, progressive in this area. That's what I said early on. Assuming that reproduction is not at issue. Though, someday..... who knows?

I realize that all of this has been covered, by several different posters, in lucid terms. I would just like to summarize before leaving the thread: I think we're answering different questions. The fundamental one is: Is your principle of right and wrong constant or situational? Whether your adherence to either principle is constant or situational is the secondary question. Any consideration of consequences proceeding from each application of each principle is tertiary. My principle is constant - which means my classification of good and bad is not really open to debate. My adherence to the principle is situational (if's, but's, maybe's, arguments and excuses). Sometimes I do wrong, for some reason I consider worth doing wrong for. My problem with the sliding morality is that its advocates appear to demand preemptive amnesty; insist that a compelling motive flips bad to good. This attitude suggests to me a quite steep slippery slide both for individuals and for societies. No, they're not.

Don't wait up! I trust nobody's international openings. I embrace nobody I haven't frisked for weapons. And I go noplace on an airplane.

I didn't know it was a game of chance, or choosing up sides. I answered the questions about what I believe, what I would do and why as truthfully as I could. I strongly disapproved of your bringing a civilian into a police procedure and explained why. I do not question your politics, your morality, your allegiances, your sincerity or your intentions - even though I don't share them, and will [99.9% probably] never share them.

We have known that for some time; I never expected it to be otherwise. To me, the more interesting aspect of this "debate" is why it's so important - why it's worth the name-calling and large bold font and umpteen repetitions of the same question - that I should agree with your position.

The problem with my argument seems to be not in the uncertainty of the prisoner's guilt, which was dealt-with in an "it's in the script" assertion, nor the uncertainty of the efficacy of torture, which was dealt-with by "we have to try anyway", and not even my uncertainty regarding my own capability and response to a circumstance I have not experienced. The main objection seems to be to my refusal to agree that a shade of grey turns white if you put it next to black. It may look white, but it isn't.

I'm 99.9% sure of the same thing. Why would you want my forgiveness? It's your own conscience you have to deal with. However, to that extent that it's within my purview, I would most willingly forgive you, even if you failed. The only thing I refused to do here is lie under peer pressure. I don't understand why you want me to change my position, about which i was honest in the first post and have remained truthful throughout. I certainly never expected any of you to change your positions.

What's so difficult about words like right wrong greater and lesser? There is a slight problem with "admitted" as a reference to a simple open statement. I've said what I said, as clearly as I could, and repeated it as many times as I was asked to. As a game, this quite tedious. This a simple statement of personal belief. Not everyone has the comfort of 100% certainty about everything, but at least I'm 99.9% convinced of what I consider right and wrong. If being unsure of my own capacity for evil is a disgusting hard-line position, I suppose it's one I'll have to live with until those limits are tested in real life.