beecee

Again, even in a gun toting society that probability is pretty low. Any guess work so far is in your hands. And of course as you have been told many times, all possible information and efforts, ( speaking of the kdnapper and preferably the mad bomber) have been made. Quick Peterkin, there are thousands of lives at stake, while you pontificate. I'm pretty sure if what I did lead to the rescue of a child, or saved thousands of lives from a mad bomber, I would sleep very well, and also that those actions would be condoned and forgiven by a normalised society. I say a normal society will do what is and condone what is best . On that I rest my case. And qualities such as morality and pragmatism, extend far further then what otherwise absolute strangers can claim on any forum. Or it just may work. But really, who has so far denied that it may not work? In the meantime you plaster your own contrived imaginary scenarios, without recognising the outcome most would hope for. Why? Not if it works! 😉 But hey, wait a minute! Didn't you yourself say you might be prepared to undertake that lesser wrong? The lesser wrong in this case being extracting info from a mad bomber or kidnapper by whatever means, rather then risking the life of a child or that of thousands, maybe millions of people. +1 Yes, plenty of scenarios have been given, all extraordinary and all with the proviso of positive guilt in the contrived situations. Outside those scenarios, all agree torture should be against the law. Torture is wrong, as is slavery. I'm sure you would, if all other avenues had been exhausted, and thousands of lives (or that of a little child) rested on your actions.

Adding to the nautical theme, my door knocker/bell No one else with any prized possessions?

But you fail to consider the prospect of a real live intruder and the probable assault of an old Lady. Why is that? What is the crime/intruder rate where she lived? Yes tragic mistakes happen, but that probabilty is low. Again, since you also fail to offer any sympathies, all the best for the recovery of the Grandson, and a reasonable assessment by the Law, of the tragic accident by Granny. Ignoring your usual rant, the only "right" in the mad bomber situation is getting the info, by hook or by crook. (remember Peterkin, there are thousands of people depending on you) Seems you have failed them. Yes. Yes, Of course there is. When thousands of lives maybe at stake, most law enforcement officers would do what they can, and obviously have the support of the majority of the people in that city, and the country. Let's hope such a scenario will never happen. You failed to address that Peterkin.

I answered that much earlier. What if the child's hair/DNA was found on his person? or worse still, under his finger nails? Of course we can be bloody well sure he was involved in the kidnapping. No, as I agreed with you. I chose the lesser wrong, whether myself or the Father, as long as all other means had failed. We are talking, (1) about certain of his guilt as I have explained, and (2) all other means and processes having been undertaken. OK, I misunderstood. I was thinking along the lines of the grandson being shot instead of the intruder. You are saying they were one and the same. Yep a tragic set of circumstances and a one off. See, its really not that hard to admit error is it? I feel for the Granny and hope her Grandson pulls through, and she is treated with utmost compassion by the authorities, as she is also a vicitm of the high probable crime rate within her area. Off course we are talking about a society that is literally mad with the thought/s of gun ownership rights also. That doesn't exist in my country. You don't know the details? Start reading the posts then...plus I gave the relative details, the mad bomber who has hidden a nuclear or other large explosive device in the middle of a city,...... But havn't we got a duty to try eveything possible including outside those guidelines, whether emotionally contrived or otherwise?. Thousands of people are waiting on your decision! (first raised by TheVat) Quick Peterkin, thousands of people are waiting on your ethical decision! On the situations being discussed, I would have no problems asking someone else ( who more then likely feels the same way as I do, and has his/her number one concern with the child that was kidnapped, or the thousands of people in danger of being blown out of existence) to try and get that relative information, rather then myself. Reason? I hate the sight of blood and am likley to faint! 🤭 (and yet I have donated 76 pints of blood at the Sydney Red Cross centre) Long as I don't see it, they can do whatever they like to me...even don't watch when I have a jab or vaccination.

Stop trying to get out from under. Your claim was, that we can never know if anyone was 100% guilty. You have just given a reason why your claim is false...caught red-handed. Thank you. You are doing it again. You know, trying to get out from under. You have yourself agreed that the lesser wrong is one you may chose and implement. *sheesh* There you go for the third time. We are talking about if everything else has failed, and which you have yourself admitted you may also do. Sad for the old Granny. I would make sure though that the intruder face the manslaughter charges and every consequence possible, without mercy. The old bloke I spoke of, got off scott free, as he deserved. As sad and as distastful as that is, it is also true. Let's make things more interesting. Let's look at TheVat's scenario of the mad bomber who has hidden a nuclear or other large explosive device in the middle of a city, where your whole family resides, as well as thousands of others. Are we going to consider the mad bomber's rights? Are we going to treat him to the letter of the law? Obviously the probabilty will always exist that no matter what we do, within or outside the strict guidelines of the law, it all may fail. But havn't we got a duty to try eveything possible including outside those guidelines, whether emotionally contrived or otherwise?. Thousands of people are waiting on your decision! I would say that it would be rather rare to find anyone that is not emotionally involved in the above scenario. The only obvious "long term consequences"are the death of thousands. And of course you have already admitted you may do what you see as the lesser of two evils. Although in the above case, I see one evil consequence (the killing of thousands) and one duty morally bound decision.( doing whatever it takes to find where the bomb is hidden)

Assume what you like, it's a "thought experiment" Make the Father a little light built bloke if you like, but then give him an Iron bar, or tie the kidnapper to a chair. As usual, ( for effect of your silly claims) you make many untrue assumptions yourself, one obviously being that one could never know with 100% certainty the guilt of a person. I showed that to be the nonsense it is in the justice/punishment thread. Have you forgotten that already? Yet strangely enough beecee has agreed with you, for actual practical reasons though, rather then your philosophically bent narrative. The first priority is the safety of the child, the second the father...the kidnappers/pedaphiles I really don't give too much of a stuff about. If there is any chance of obtaining the information before any harm befells the child, whether a lesser wrong is worth doing. (which again you agreed with) and the answer you receive..... 🤣 And yet you appear to want to ignore the consequences, no matter how severe, as long as it aligns with your life philosophy. Again, if it means stepping outside the letter of the law, to ensure the safety of the child, it's worthwhile, and most societies would support that. ( as you essentially have) If it was me as the Father, I would want any action that was necessary, short of murder, to ensure the safety of my kid, and would worry about the legal consequences, (which you pretentiously raise) later on. I would also be pretty confident that in a just society, any so called sentence would reflect the circumstances involved. (which you failed to mention)and receive a lenient sentence, if any at all. A few years ago in Sydney an old man awoke to see an intruder in his house who then assaulted him. He stabbed and killed the intruder, then had to suffer the indignity of going to trial for manslaughter and using uneccessary force. He was found not guilty and the perpetrator of the assault and attempted robbery forgotten about. That's justice, that's reasonabilty in the face of criminality and toruture/bashing.

Well certainly no flaying and pulling teeth for me in that situation. I have a morbid fear/dislike for the sight of blood. Given 76 pints of blood in my days, ( and it is voluntary in Australia and no payments) and never yet once watched them taking it out. Remember taking my 5 year old Son to hospital re a splt chin that needed stitches. I had to hold him while the doc administered the pain killing injection and stitches. When he had finished, I was collapsed in a chair! If you are saying that in the context of the current thought experiment, that the Father should never be allowed to be in the cell after all other considerations have failed, then yes, we do probably differ somewhat. But as I also offered an opinion on, TheVax scenario is probably more relative for this discussion/debate.

The argument about 100% surity re guilty was with another that made that claim. Yes, I agreed that it is wrong, and the evidence is such that he is obviously guilty. But sometimes if all else has failed, then the lesser wrong maybe desirable. Yes, a pretty reasonable assumption to make I suggest. No, I'm assuming that trying all avenues open, (even wrong ones) sometimes may need consideration, and at the same time, the pleading option, and the beating the shit out of him option, still may not work. But is worth considering whe all other legal reasonable means have failed. If the Father is successful in obtaining a confession and the safe return of his child, society in general I suggest will justifiy the means. eg: A few years ago in Sydney an old man awoke to see an intruder in his house who then assaulted him. He stabbed and killed the intruder, then had to suffer the indignity of going to trial for manslaughter and using uneccessary force. He was found not guilty. I reject your claim of macho bullshit, and suggest as already mentioned, that sometimes, (very very rarely) stepping outside the strict guidelines of the law maybe the lesser of two evils. I know you understand the priority of the child's safety, and isn't it reasonable to consider that the longer the captured kidnapper witholds his information, the more danger the child is put into? If I am emotional about this, it is simply because we have had a recent case of a little three year old girl, snatched from a tent during the night at a campsite in WA, and not found for 18 days, thankfully unharmed, and obviously by a somewhat unhinged male, as he had his house filled with dolls that he dressed up etc. https://edition.cnn.com/2021/11/04/world/cleo-smith-man-charged-intl-hnk/index.html

Agreed, and there will also exist the necessity of prisons for those that thumb their noses at the society rules. There have been royal commisions into that sad fact, but as yet, sadly, no real action taken. TheVat made an excellent post, with some excellent points that raise the rare times that sometimes it maybe justified to step outside the laws of the land and definitions of torture.

The science justifies all methods that can help to reduce the spread, from social distancing, wearing masks, and lockdowns where necessary. No one, (as far as I know is held down and been forcibly jabbed), by the same token, mandatory rules about fully vaccinations are most certainly desirable in some industries, such as health workers, store assistants and other areas of concern. Thankfully these mandatory rules do apply in many parts of Australia, and just as thankfully the noisy minority of anti vaxxer nuts is getting less and less and being gradually drowned out.

Oh 100% no argument from me on that score, but I'm sure you would get some claim of mental torture from people that are incarcerated and/or in solitary confinement. Particularly where it is justified that they be locked up and the key thrown away. Indigenous Australians for example have a relativly large percentage that commit suicide in prison, which some attribute to cultural concerns. Yes, a position I took in the justice/punishment thread, and a position that I believe the vast majority of law abiding citizens would see as fair and reasonable.

I agree, but I don't need to shout it from the rooftops. I implement reputable supporting links. Newtonian gravity and GR are tested everyday, within their zones of applicability. You confuse faith with trust. I'm 100% sure, (well 99.9999999999% sure 😉) that the Sun will rise in the East tomorrow morning. Well of course! Science has shown us which are beneficial and which are not. Just as science will show us the reasonable probability of a sterile planet.

Agreed. Still, if all else has failed, and authorities were concerned about the child's safety in the hands of the other kidnapper, is there really a choice? Perhaps the Father may simply appeal to the kidnapper's decency? Yeah I know that's a long shot as somehow I see pedaphilia as lacking all decency. To deny that we could ever know if a person is 100% guilty is just plain wrong, as was shown in at least one "real live case" in the justice/punishment thread. How about in the situation as raised by TheVat thus.....? But there is also another important question has not been answered. What do we classify as torture? Locked in a jail cell and confinement of liberty? Being put in solitary confinement? Can some confuse deserved punishment with torture? Laws give us a general guideline of what a particular society will or will not tolerate. In 99.9% of cases such guidelines are strictly adhered to. Sometimes though, "anomalies" or unusual situations may arise.

As do I. So we agree again. This is where you ignore the facts, and worse still, manufacture your own unlikely scenarios. No one is making the Father interrogate in whatever way he choses, the kidnapper of his daughter, that has refused all other efforts for the information leading to the recovery of his daughter. He would be doing it of his own accord, or possibly as a suggestion from others. You know the most obvious scenario? Why would any law enforcement officer, force any Father to do what you strangely suggest. You have contradicted yourself and are in recovery mode. Our biggest problem here Peterkin, is that I'm arguing this as I did in the punsihment/justice thread, from a practical realistic point of view, not from some pretentious philsophical argument point of view. 😉Ahh, yes remember it well!!! Agreed. Agreed. Agreed. For those that came in late and somehow think I have some weird view on tortutre, the above are three questions asked by Peterkin and my total agreement with them. No wonder some notable scientist have let loose lately on their views of philosophers and there short comings.😏 Yes most assuredly, and as stipulated in the OP.....

🤣And yet you say and... I'm sure you'll try and explain your way out of thise dilemma. If the police can't get him to talk, let Daddy have a go.

All I see is rhetoric about what if's and what isn't scenarios etc. Getting somewhere at last. In other words, no better or no worse then I, since I have essentially agreed with you, despie your continued consternations. It's all an effort to obtain necessary information. Whether it does, or does not, it's still making an effort to obtain that info, albeit by so called wrong means. If the police can't get him to talk, let Daddy have a go. Now again, the question without any consternations, Do you, or would you let the Father at least try to get that info if all else failed? My answer is yes, certainly. Your answer? No it isn't. If your wrongs fail, then someone else deserves that chance. Who knows, the great big hulking emotional and somewhat angry Father, may even pull on the heartstrings of the kidnapper, ( a long shot certainly with a good for nothing pedaphile) and break down with the info. Either way it deserves a chance. There you go again. Making more statements attributed to me which are false and porky pies. No one said anything about killing the child with absolute certainty. I said as follows, All the Father knows in the circumstances, is his child has been kidnapped and maybe in danger with the other kidnapping pedaphile, and he needs to extract that info, by hook or by crook, as you have agreed, not withstanding your usual pedant about who is doing the extraction and fault or blame. Yes, a naturally rather emotional Father, that is probably angry, and after all else has failed, needs to try his own methods. If that method includes broken teeth or other physical damage, and is successful and the child is recovered unharmed, then that "wrong" is worthwhile, correct, valid and good. (psst! That's another philosophical issue for you to be contrary on🤭)

Funny how apt you are at asking questions, but reluctant to answer them, why?. My answer, if I was the Father yes, another person perhaps a copper, yes probably also emotional as we have evidence that he is 100% guilty. You agree in extreme circumstances that you would also consider this "wrong"? Your philosophy is getting quite confusing and irrational. ?? Who is shoving what onto what? I'm simply examining and offering scenarios, re another thought experiment that another made. Again, why are being contrary when all I have done is agree with you? Wrong. There ARE circumstances where it is obvious a person is 100% guilty. To deny that is flying in the face of logic. What moral responsiblity is that? I have essentially agreed with you. Perhaps you need to step back and read what has been said, instead of adding phrases to suit your own contrary version of this scenario. Who said the Father was cool headed? Please stop telling me what I have said when it is false!

Who said he was out of his mind? Perhaps slightly emotional, angry yes? so? What did I expect to happen? I expected some broken teeth, maybe a bone or two, aching genitalia...you know, hurt him, hurt him more until he reveals the where abouts of the other kidnapper. (He would also obviously be under the passive watchful prison guards just in case he did try and kill him) What's your answer? He doesn't need to be caught in the act. He could be caught with irrefutable evidence, like perhaps a hair of the child and DNA, or as I suggested, perhaps he has confessed when caught with that or other irrefutable evidence. Don't, repeat don't stand/sit there and try and bully me into accepting that we could never truly know his guilt. That argument does not hold water, and there are probably another 100 scenarios I could dream up also. And I agreed with you for Christ sake! Agreed. Agreed. Agreed. :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: Whay are you being so contrary? *shrug* Is this simply an exersise for you to practise your imagined life philosophy on? (I had another try that also) :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: A recent case in WA....... https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-12-06/terence-kelly-faces-court-over-alleged-cleo-smith-abduction/100670654 The bloke arrested,( and I would most probably say guilty as charged) according to the evidence available is an idigenous person. It could very well be construed that locking him up is torture, as there is plenty of evidence and accounts of the locking up of indigenous people often ends in suicide. evidence that he did it: (1) footprint outside the tent where Cleo was grabbed. (2) The accused buying nappies and such at the local stores. (3) The little girl found alone in his house. (4) probable DNA in his car ( that as yet has not been released but forensic have given it full coverage with a fine tooth comb) In fact so far the only real doubt seems to be whether he was acting alone. He was arrested 18 days after the kidnapping.

No one mentioned anything about killing. Why are you avoiding a proper answer, like, My actions re the Father being locked in with the kidnapper who is remaining silent, stands. And as you yourself agreed on... Yep you did. Again why are you now denying what you said and not giving a straight answer? I have. Are you now playing philosophical politics? It is an extreme situation, as any situation regarding a kidnapped child is.

In the most relevant case I gave, he was caught in the actual act of raping a little girl and stabbed one of the rescuers. 100% guilty by normal everyday logical standards. In the example given, it was mentioned certainty I believe, but I will add confession also to achieve what I am proceeding on...that is !00% certainty. My actions re the Father being locked in with the kidnapper who is remaining silent, stands. And as you yourself agreed on... I imagine there are situations where someone has to choose between evils - but that doesn't make the lesser evil good. *shrug* 🥱

I respectfully disagree with your revised assumptions and align with the links I have given supporting this morally correct mission, and of course the science of probabilty over possibility. (I have already killed an uncountable number of microbes this morning) We certainly are 100% obliged to spread life to scientifically determined sterile planets, in a universe, where so far the only life we are aware of, is on this fart arse little blue orb we call Earth.

The selected planet has been deemed sterile according to the data at that time. If, IF any microbes did exist undetected 5 kms down, they would probably have found their evolutionary niche and would likely be unaffected. All we can do is exersise scientific probabilty over possibilities. I see nothing immoral in that, considering as previously mentioned, we kill millions of microbes everyday on Earth.

All we can do is exersise scientific probabilty over possibilities. I see nothing immoral in that, considering as previously mentioned, we kill millions of microbes everyday on Earth.

I gave examples of 100% certainty of guilt in a couple of crimes in the justice/punsihment thread. Of course we can be reasonable certain of the probability of guilt, and also 100% certain of guilt. Did you? My answer is if the jailed kidnapper refuses to reveal the whereabouts of his mate, and there is good reason to believe the child is in danger, then yep, put the Father in with the jailed kidnapper which you already have agreed as a valid scenario in your imagined situation and chosing between two evils.

We are talking of certainty of guilt as per the example given previously. Question again, Would sticking the big hulking brute Father in with the kidnapper be torture for the kidnapper?