Is Torture Ever Right ?

[Peterkin]

2 hours ago, beecee said:

your so called pretentious absolutes re torture with criminals, paedophies and terrorists,

Are you aware that it's so called only by you?

 

2 hours ago, beecee said:

No I am not part of the problem and am not mistaken. The problem is this blanket absolute

Exactly!

On 3/14/2022 at 3:57 AM, Intoscience said:

person/s who are actually likely to be faced with the moral justification of such an horrendous act accept that there could be  a situation where torture is the right thing to do. 

That's a pretty big crowd of aristocrats, jurists and prelates throughout the history of civilization. However, it remains the opinion of persons with some stake in the practice, rather than of disinterested arbiters of ethical behaviour.  

2 hours ago, beecee said:

There is no statement so absurd that no philosopher will make it.

Or judge, or archbishop or spymaster. 

12 hours ago, Intoscience said:

If the child was Hitler and was destined to commit the atrocities, then I would kill the child. Killing the child in this instance would prevent the death and suffering of far more people than that caused by the paedophile. 

But this exactly highlights my point throughout this thread. Sometimes in certain circumstances moral judgement may have to be back benched by logic, to gain the preferred outcome. 

Just as Herod imagined: if you kill all the baby boys, none of them can grow into the monster you fear.

Edited March 16, 2022 by Peterkin

[beecee]

1 hour ago, Peterkin said:

Are you aware that it's so called only by you?

Exactly!

No its not only called by me, wrong again. Go back and check out the links I gave. The opinion of never ever ever using torture, irrespective of the time/scenario is a pretentious and morally degrading absolute.

There are without doubt, very special rare occurences where it is the morally correct option, after all else has failed.

1 hour ago, Peterkin said:

That's a pretty big crowd of aristocrats, jurists and prelates throughout the history of civilization. However, it remains the opinion of persons with some stake in the practice, rather than of disinterested arbiters of ethical behaviour. 

No its a moral fact, a fcat that would be I suggest, supported by the vast majority in any democratic westernised society, and funnily enough, something even you would consider. 

1 hour ago, Peterkin said:

 Or judge, or archbishop or spymaster. 

Don't like that quote? Doesn't fit your life philosophy? Try this one for size...

Philosophy consists very largely of one philosopher arguing that all others are jackasses. He usually proves it, and I should add that he also usually proves that he is one himself.

Henry Louis Mencken. (1880-1956). Minority Report, H. L. Mencken's Notebooks. Knopf, 1956.

1 hour ago, Peterkin said:

Just as Herod imagined: if you kill all the baby boys, none of them can grow into the monster you fear.

Do you really need to drag quotes and such from the worlds greatest book of myth and lies in every thread?

No amount of philsophical jargon and disguised pretense of shock and horror, will change the morally correct stance  that sympathies, and any decent moral code lay with the victims of crime or terrorism, rather then the perpetrators of those crimes and terrorism activities, who have set their own moral code bar at sewer level. That is the correct moral stance in the examples given, is to exhaust all means and avenues possible to save those innocent lives, whether 100% certain of guilt (as per the thought experiments) or guilt beyond any reasonable doubt.  

 

Edited March 16, 2022 by beecee

[Peterkin]

1 hour ago, beecee said:

No amount of philsophical jargon and disguised pretense of shock and horror, will change the morally correct stance  that sympathies, and any decent moral code lay with the victims of crime or terrorism, rather then the perpetrators of those crimes and terrorism activities, who have set their own moral code bar at sewer level. That is the correct moral stance in the examples given, is to exhaust all means and avenues possible to save those innocent lives, whether 100% certain of guilt (as per the thought experiments) or guilt beyond any reasonable doubt.  

Of course not. Those who have believed that in the past tortured people. Those who believe that in the present torture people. Reasonable doubt was, is, and will be subjective. So, people will go on torturing other people as long as they think it will get them the results they consider important. Ethics simply don't come into this. 

[beecee]

4 minutes ago, Peterkin said:

Of course not. Those who have believed that in the past tortured people. Those who believe that in the present torture people. Reasonable doubt was, is, and will be subjective. So, people will go on torturing other people as long as they think it will get them the results they consider important. Ethics simply don't come into this. 

Please stop misrepresenting me and others. I'm all for the UN ban on torture and our own country. But like many other,s I'm realistic enough, and morally attuned enough, to understand that at rare times, after all else has failed, it is an option, that can be used, with may I add, the blessing of any reasonable democratic western society.

You admit you would do it, your only difference is that you would still recognise it as wrong. While that makes little sense to me, I can live with you brow beating yourself over making a morally correct defcision, that you determine to be wrong.

[Peterkin]

11 minutes ago, beecee said:

I'm all for the UN ban on torture and our own country.

So am I.

12 minutes ago, beecee said:

I can live with you brow beating yourself over making a morally correct defcision, that you determine to be wrong.

Thanks, that means a lot.

[Intoscience]

10 hours ago, Area54 said:

I realise I must be explaining my postion with a gross level of incompetence. You are considering only the desired outcome for the immediate situation. I am arguing that we must consider the consequences of that action for future situations. Torturing alleged terrorists generates more terrorists who cause further pain in suffering. You are arguing it is OK to cause future pain and suffering in order to prevent present pain and suffering. You are arguing for continuing the cycle of violence. I understand this is not a conscious argument on your part, but it is the essential outcome.

No not at all, I completely understand your position (my bold). I just don't agree that the inevitable outcome of a particular act of torture would generate future terrorists. 

In some circumstance I'm sure it may result in further terrorism. This, in those circumstance should be consider as part of the strategy. But again for the purpose of the OP - When all else has failed, all considerations are made, there could be a situation where torture as a last resort is the right thing to do.  

6 hours ago, Peterkin said:

Just as Herod imagined: if you kill all the baby boys, none of them can grow into the monster you fear.

Exactly and this argument can be flipped on its head. If he never attempted to kill them then he was guaranteed the monster. He tried but failed, had he succeeded then maybe the outcome would be different. 

But sticking to this premise, as you imagine: don't torture anyone and the monster you fear will not emerge.  

[dimreepr]

4 hours ago, Intoscience said:

No not at all, I completely understand your position (my bold). I just don't agree that the inevitable outcome of a particular act of torture would generate future terrorists. 

In some circumstance I'm sure it may result in further terrorism. This, in those circumstance should be consider as part of the strategy. But again for the purpose of the OP - When all else has failed, all considerations are made, there could be a situation where torture as a last resort is the right thing to do.  

Exactly and this argument can be flipped on its head. If he never attempted to kill them then he was guaranteed the monster. He tried but failed, had he succeeded then maybe the outcome would be different. 

But sticking to this premise, as you imagine: don't torture anyone and the monster you fear will not emerge.  

How do you know when all else has failed? What metric are you using and what's the threshold?

"One often meets his destiny on the road he chose to avoid it" - Jean de La Fontaine.

Quote

 

The Story of Oedipus

The oracle tells Oedipus’ father Laius, the King of Thebes, that his son will kill him. When Oedipus is born, Laius ties his hands and feet and leaves him on a mountainside to die. A shepherd rescues Oedipus and brings him to the king of Corinth, who raises Oedipus. After reaching manhood, Oedipus sets out on a journey. He meets an old man at a crossroads who is attended by five servants. He gets into an argument with the old man, and kills him along with four of his servants. The old man, however, is his father Laius, but Oedipus does not learn this for many years.

Oedipus wanders to Thebes, where he meets the Sphinx, a terrible creature who guards the gates of the city. The Sphinx devours all those who pass by and cannot answer the riddle: What walks on four legs in the morning, two legs at noon, and three legs at night? Oedipus gives the correct answer—a human being, who crawls on all fours when young, then walks upright as a youth, then in old age uses a cane. The Sphinx is so distraught and angry when Oedipus answers the riddle that she kills herself. The Thebans, not knowing it is Oedipus who has killed Laius their king, reward him with an offer of marriage to Jocasta the Queen. Oedipus, unaware that Jocasta is his mother, marries her, and they have four children. After many years, a plague strikes the city, and the oracle proclaims that it will last until the murderer of Laius is discovered. Oedipus diligently begins the search. He finds that not only has he killed Laius, but also that he has married his mother. Jocasta kills herself when she learns these truths, and Oedipus puts his eyes out. (Source - University of Washington)

 

Some people go through life, thinking they will never need a cain, so their happy to kick the cain away; when they do need one, they'll find mrs Karma flipping the bird... 😉 

Edited March 16, 2022 by dimreepr

[Peterkin]

5 hours ago, Intoscience said:

Exactly and this argument can be flipped on its head. If he never attempted to kill them then he was guaranteed the monster. He tried but failed, had he succeeded then maybe the outcome would be different. 

But sticking to this premise, as you imagine: don't torture anyone and the monster you fear will not emerge.  

Exactly the doctrine of all evil dictator: the more people you kill, torture, imprison and terrorize, the better your odds of staying in power - until one of the thousands of monsters those methods inevitably create sneaks up behind you and takes over. 

My notion is to organize society in such a way as to minimize the monsterizing of the population and then deal with the rare monsters as they emerge, one at a time, as seems appropriate at that time.

I realize that's an unworkable philosophy, but so long as Beecee can live with it, I am at peace.

[dimreepr]

1 minute ago, Peterkin said:

My notion is to organize society in such a way as to minimize the monsterizing of the population and then deal with the rare monsters as they emerge, one at a time, as seems appropriate at that time.

I realize that's an unworkable philosophy, but so long as Beecee can live with it, I am at peace.

Sounds like justice to me...

But Beecee want's revenge, so he'll never be at peace. 😉

[Peterkin]

28 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

he'll never be at peace

Tend to your own soul and don't worry: he'll be fine. The righteous and self-certain are always fine. It is only those who question and consider unplanned consequences whose sleep is disturbed by too much thinking.

Edited March 16, 2022 by Peterkin

[dimreepr]

3 minutes ago, Peterkin said:

Tend to your own soul and don't worry: he'll be fine.

I tend to my own soul, by trying to teach other's what it's like to need a cain...

8 minutes ago, Peterkin said:

The righteous and self-certain are always fine.

No, they're always scared...

10 minutes ago, Peterkin said:

It is on those who question and consider unplanned consequences whose sleep is disturbed.

Why would my sleep be disturbed? I can't know the answer...

[Peterkin]

1 hour ago, dimreepr said:

Why would my sleep be disturbed? I can't know the answer...

You're the only one who can find out your answer, or even ask your question. I'm not asking you to answer mine.

[beecee]

8 hours ago, dimreepr said:

How do you know when all else has failed? What metric are you using and what's the threshold?

That may sound philosophically smart to you, but it sounds down right practically dumb to me, and your usual obtuseness path in avoiding the answers when those answers conflict with your pretentious life philsophy.

7 hours ago, Peterkin said:

My notion is to organize society in such a way as to minimize the monsterizing of the population and then deal with the rare monsters as they emerge, one at a time, as seems appropriate at that time.

I realize that's an unworkable philosophy, but so long as Beecee can live with it, I am at peace.

We simply deal with the thankfully rare monsters to the best of our ability, and use any and all means that are appropriate at the time. eg: jail etc. Just to reaffirm, yes I can live with you using all means possible in the situations under debate, including torture, as you have openly admitted, but I do have sympathy that you would mentally beat yourself up and cause you so much anguish and discomfort, by doing the morally correct thing. This is due to your adhering to stubbornly maintaining that absolute factor for torture being absolute evil,, and being blinded to the fact that it is simply that rare morally acceptable exception to the rule of the general evil nature of torture. In that respect you have a tiny bit more intestinal fortitude then dimmy has, by admitting that you are in fact an emotional human, who  will, when the chips are down, do the morally correct thing. Or as that old judge put it......

Richard Posner, a judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, wrote:

"If torture is the only means of obtaining the information necessary to prevent the detonation of a nuclear bomb in Times Square, torture should be used – and will be used –  to obtain the information. ... no one who doubts that this is the case should be in a position of responsibility.

7 hours ago, dimreepr said:

But Beecee want's revenge, so he'll never be at peace. 😉

Nup old friend, justice is what I want, but I must admit being a regular human being, I have in the past sought out limited revenge. I also suspect that if you were more honest with yourself and the forum, and showed an inkling of intestinal fortitute like your other compatriot ideological philsopher has, you would consider torture yourself when all else has failed, and particularly if it involved a loved one of yours, like a Mother, Father, Wife, Son, Daughter. Then we may see the real dimmy emerge from this fanciful, feel good pretentious life philsophy you are so fanatically adhered to.

6 hours ago, dimreepr said:

I tend to my own soul, by trying to teach other's what it's like to need a cain...

6 hours ago, Peterkin said:

The righteous and self-certain are always fine.

Ahh, aint that beautiful!!!! 😆

Edited March 16, 2022 by beecee

[Peterkin]

1 hour ago, beecee said:

I do have sympathy that you would mentally beat yourself up and cause you so much anguish and discomfort, by doing the morally correct thing.

Go back to sleep - I'm fine, too.

[beecee]

What a conversation between two adherents to a "feel good" unworkable idealistic philsophy sounds like.........................

8 hours ago, Peterkin said:

My notion is to organize society in such a way as to minimize the monsterizing of the population and then deal with the rare monsters as they emerge, one at a time, as seems appropriate at that time.

I realize that's an unworkable philosophy, but so long as Beecee can live with it, I am at peace.

8 hours ago, dimreepr said:

Sounds like justice to me...

But Beecee want's revenge, so he'll never be at peace. 😉

8 hours ago, Peterkin said:

Tend to your own soul and don't worry: he'll be fine. The righteous and self-certain are always fine. It is only those who question and consider unplanned consequences whose sleep is disturbed by too much thinking.

8 hours ago, dimreepr said:

I tend to my own soul, by trying to teach other's what it's like to need a cain...

No, they're always scared...

Why would my sleep be disturbed? I can't know the answer...

6 hours ago, Peterkin said:

You're the only one who can find out your answer, or even ask your question. I'm not asking you to answer mine.

😄🤭 Real airy fairy stuff and appropriatly summed up by 

There is no statement so absurd that no philosopher will make it.

Cicero, Marcus Tullius (106-43 BCE) Roman statesman. De Divinatione

 

9 minutes ago, Peterkin said:

Go back to sleep - I'm fine, too.

I'm an early riser, always around 0500hrs, now 0845hrs 

 

Edited March 16, 2022 by beecee

[Intoscience]

18 hours ago, dimreepr said:

How do you know when all else has failed? What metric are you using and what's the threshold?

"One often meets his destiny on the road he chose to avoid it" - Jean de La Fontaine.

Some people go through life, thinking they will never need a cain, so their happy to kick the cain away; when they do need one, they'll find mrs Karma flipping the bird... 😉 

Some people go through life accepting that one day they may need a cane, but for now they manage without, until all else has failed.

You can continue with your ideology all day long, we all would like the fairy tale ending, unfortunately life seldom has one. 

 

Edited March 17, 2022 by Intoscience

[Peterkin]

5 hours ago, Intoscience said:

You can continue with your ideology all day long,

There wouldn't be much point in an ideology that one abandons whenever it's inconvenient.

It's true that ethical systems don't last long in the "real world" - a world ruled by fear. But there is no point in calling situational pragmatism ethical... except as a fairy tale to persuade oneself that only the scum who deserve no better are ever on the receiving end of situational pragmatism. 

[dimreepr]

6 hours ago, Intoscience said:

Some people go through life accepting that one day they may need a cane, but for now they manage without, until all else has failed.

You can continue with your ideology all day long, we all would like the fairy tale ending, unfortunately life seldom has one. 

 

I know you and @beecee, think I'm some sort of snowflake and not man enough to take a stand or make hard decisions; I just hope I'm the same sort of snowflake as my gramps, enlisted aged 14 for the 1st world war, fought for 2 year's and then became a conscientious objector in the full knowledge of the consequences.

It's easy to follow the crowd, when someone shouts witch.

Now please explain, how you know when "all else has failed"?

18 hours ago, beecee said:

On 3/16/2022 at 12:27 PM, dimreepr said:

How do you know when all else has failed? What metric are you using and what's the threshold?

That may sound philosophically smart to you, but it sounds down right practically dumb to me, and your usual obtuseness path in avoiding the answers when those answers conflict with your pretentious life philsophy.

Sound's like a question to me, the question marks are a clue; hope that's not too cryptic for you... 😉

[beecee]

5 hours ago, dimreepr said:

I know you and @beecee, think I'm some sort of snowflake and not man enough to take a stand or make hard decisions; I just hope I'm the same sort of snowflake as my gramps, enlisted aged 14 for the 1st world war, fought for 2 year's and then became a conscientious objector in the full knowledge of the consequences.

Not from where I sit. From here I see you as rather pretentious with a "holier then thou" persona. Snowflake where I come from is a term used (sometimes insultingly) for a gay person. I simply see you as a philsophical fanatic. You need to be more like your Gramps.

5 hours ago, dimreepr said:

It's easy to follow the crowd, when someone shouts witch.

Yes it is, and sometimes the crowd is wrong, but mostly right. A shame you cannot admit that.

5 hours ago, dimreepr said:

Now please explain, how you know when "all else has failed"?

Again that may sound like a "smart" question to you...to me it sounds weird and dumb and is self explanatory to any reasonable, normal folk. 

ps: I'll even include your tea and biscuits approach. 😅

5 hours ago, dimreepr said:

Sound's like a question to me, the question marks are a clue; hope that's not too cryptic for you... 😉

See previous reply. Question to you...Do you have any sympathy at all for the actual real victims, both in the thought experiments given, and the real life situations I gave in the justice/punishment thread? Any at all? I mean do they even fit into your justice equation? 

 

6 hours ago, Peterkin said:

There wouldn't be much point in an ideology that one abandons whenever it's inconvenient.

Just as you have admitted to abandoning, not because it is inconvenient, but because in those very rare situations when the chips are down, it is found to be morally incorrect and dispicable to adhere to.

6 hours ago, Peterkin said:

It's true that ethical systems don't last long in the "real world" - a world ruled by fear. But there is no point in calling situational pragmatism ethical... except as a fairy tale to persuade oneself that only the scum who deserve no better are ever on the receiving end of situational pragmatism. 

The needs of the many (and the innocents) outweigh the needs of the few...or the one. Spock:

Edited March 17, 2022 by beecee

[Peterkin]

1 hour ago, beecee said:

Just as you have admitted to abandoning, not because it is inconvenient, but because in those very rare situations when the chips are down, it is found to be morally incorrect and dispicable to adhere to.

No, I have not, regardless how many times you repeat this misrepresentation.  I have admitted to considering the commission of what I know is a wrong act, if I felt compelled by circumstances that I believed to be even worse, but I have  never acceded to calling that wrong right.

 

1 hour ago, beecee said:

The needs of the many (and the innocents) outweigh the needs of the few...or the one. Spock:

I consider Spock only slightly more credible as an arbiter of morality than Judge Posner. 

(PS. I don't believe Spock pronounced on the guilt and innocence of individuals in question, nor what specific needs the many may have that requires torturing a few, or how that specific need manifests in a decision between actions. Also, I'm not all sure he would be convinced by the 100% guilty/no other option scenario.)  

Edited March 17, 2022 by Peterkin

[beecee]

1 hour ago, Peterkin said:

No, I have not, regardless how many times you repeat this misrepresentation.  I have admitted to considering the commission of what I know is a wrong act, if I felt compelled by circumstances that I believed to be even worse, but I have  never acceded to calling that wrong right.

Whether you consider you have done the wrong thing or not, is neither here nor there. And I see it as rather pretentious to say the least. The moral rights of the victims and of the potential victims, over rides absolutely the gutter dwelling moral rights of the kidnapper, criminal, and terrorist.

1 hour ago, Peterkin said:

I consider Spock only slightly more credible as an arbiter of morality than Judge Posner. 

And I consider Judge Posner to be many amplitudes of credible over one or two pretend philosphers. 

1 hour ago, Peterkin said:

(PS. I don't believe Spock pronounced on the guilt and innocence of individuals in question, nor what specific needs the many may have that requires torturing a few, or how that specific need manifests in a decision between actions. Also, I'm not all sure he would be convinced by the 100% guilty/no other option scenario.)  

The analogy for your information, was the needs of the many (or the innocents) outweigh that of the few or the one.  And your hypocrisy is amazing after just "correcting" me of misrepresentation, and the you misrepresent me. Not sure how many times it needs to be said, but 100% guilt can certainly be determined by reasonable people, not burdened with an unworkable philsophy, and in any case guilt only needs to be determined beyond any reasonable doubt.

You have admitted that you would act like a reasonable human being, and probably undertake whatever is needed, including torture. That is commendable and a morally correct decision as any normal western democratic society, and Judge Posner would determine. How you treat yourself, torture yourself, or come to terms with your unworkable philsophy, is your concern. 

Edited March 17, 2022 by beecee

[Peterkin]

51 minutes ago, beecee said:

Whether you consider you have done the wrong thing or not, is neither here nor there.

It is where the OP question asked us to fill in the blank.

Is it ever right? No.

Would you do it?

I don't know. Maybe, if I were desperate. But it would still be just as wrong if I did it as if anyone else did. 

51 minutes ago, beecee said:

And your hypocrisy is amazing after just "correcting" me of misrepresentation, and the you misrepresent me.

 

51 minutes ago, beecee said:

(PS. I don't believe Spock pronounced on the guilt and innocence of individuals in question, nor what specific needs the many may have that requires torturing a few, or how that specific need manifests in a decision between actions. Also, I'm not all sure he would be convinced by the 100% guilty/no other option scenario.)  

That's not an interpretation of you. That's a statement about my recollection the Spock quote. I recall it being said a couple of times, but nothing about innocence. 

Quote

What of Spock’s claim, “Logic clearly dictates that the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few”? Logic requires that some evidence be offered in support of such a claim—but Spock offers no evidence in support of this. He just asserts it. Which “many”? Which “few”? “Outweigh” on whose scale? For what purpose? To whose benefit? Why is his or their benefit the proper benefit? Spock does not address such questions; he simply asserts that logic clearly dictates his conclusion. But it doesn’t.

That's another opinion on the subject. https://theobjectivestandard.com/2013/09/spocks-illogic-the-needs-of-the-many-outweigh-the-needs-of-the-few/

 

51 minutes ago, beecee said:

Not sure how many times it needs to be said, but 100% guilt can certainly be determined by reasonable people, not burdened with an unworkable philsophy, and in any case guilt only needs to be determined beyond any reasonable doubt.

As many times as it takes to convince the unconvinced that it is our philosophy that's a "fairy tale", not your unshakeable belief in reasonable people and guilt beyond reasonable doubt and protocols,  in any world outside the scripted thought-experiment.

Quote

It is well documented that between 1973 and the fall of 1991, at Detective Areas 2 and 3 of the Chicago Police Department, Commander Jon Burge and detectives working under his command allegedly tortured more than 100 criminal suspects by methods including electric shock to the genitals, “baggings” (i.e., suffocation by plastic typewriter cover or bag), “Russian roulette,” mock executions, and beatings. [8][8]See Center on Wrongful Convictions, Northwestern University… The gravity of these torture practices first surfaced in connection with the Andrew Wilson case. [9][9]For a detailed account of the history of the Andrew Wilson… In September 1990, internal investigator Michael Goldston issued the following conclusions after studying numerous cases of alleged torture that occurred at Area 2 police headquarters over a period of more than a decade :

https://www.cairn.info/revue-internationale-de-droit-penal-2007-1-page-209.htm

Edited March 17, 2022 by Peterkin

[beecee]

2 hours ago, Peterkin said:

It is where the OP question asked us to fill in the blank.

Is it ever right? No.

Yes, It could certainly be the moral decision to make in the scenarios given or similar.

2 hours ago, Peterkin said:

Would you do it?

I would condone its use as would any reasonable western democratic society would in those situations.

2 hours ago, Peterkin said:

I don't know. Maybe, if I were desperate. But it would still be just as wrong if I did it as if anyone else did. 

No, it is the correct moral thing to do. The innocent lives in those situations, have the right to have every avenue exhausted to free or save them, torture being the last resort. And any reasonable western democratic society would condone its use.

2 hours ago, Peterkin said:

What of Spock’s claim, “Logic clearly dictates that the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few”? Logic requires that some evidence be offered in support of such a claim—but Spock offers no evidence in support of this. He just asserts it. Which “many”? Which “few”? “Outweigh” on whose scale? For what purpose? To whose benefit? Why is his or their benefit the proper benefit? Spock does not address such questions; he simply asserts that logic clearly dictates his conclusion. But it doesn’t.

 Don't be so bloody daft. Spock is speaking of a different set of circumstances, that being the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, or the one. The rest is the usual philsophical claptrap. There is no statement so absurd that no philosopher will make it.

Cicero, Marcus Tullius (106-43 BCE) Roman statesman. De Divinatione

In humoring you though, let me answer the so called probing questions you put..."Logic requires that some evidence be offered in support of such a claim"

We are talking about possible examples of scenarios that can happen, but I have given real life examples of 100% guilt in the justice/punishment thread. Is observational or other evidence logic?  Of course it is! What is logic, is presuming guilt when it is beyond reasonable doubt. " Which “many”? Which “few” Obviously as dictated in the movie 🙄 “Outweigh” on whose scale? The scale of logic.  "For what purpose? Saving the lives of the crew on the Enterprise, To whose benefit? You need to address that to Captain Kirk and the crew. Why is his or their benefit the proper benefit? The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few or the one. Or you could ask the heros that in war and even piece time, that have sacrificed there lives for family, friends and comrades. Spock does not address such questions; he simply asserts that logic clearly dictates his conclusion. But it doesn’t. What it does address though is the recent criticism by reputable scientists re philsophy and poor attempts at philsophy as this is. And of course, There is no statement so absurd that no philosopher will make it. Cicero, Marcus Tullius.

2 hours ago, Peterkin said:

That's another opinion on the subject. https://theobjectivestandard.com/2013/09/spocks-illogic-the-needs-of-the-many-outweigh-the-needs-of-the-few/

Yes, I reject that philsophy, the same as I reject yours. At best, the subject can be said to be debatable. My position is obvious and I believe would be the position of the vast majority. Yours is also obvious and the same as mine funnily enough, although you would beat up on yourself, for having the need to reject your "absolute" philsophy. 

2 hours ago, Peterkin said:

As many times as it takes to convince the unconvinced that it is our philosophy that's a "fairy tale", not your unshakeable belief in reasonable people and guilt beyond reasonable doubt and protocols,  in any world outside the scripted thought-experiment.

No it is not a fairy tale and I have given real life examples to show that to be a fact.

 I speak outside the scripted world with such facts, and whatever circumstances you  may be able to dig up, I can also dig up others that are the complete reverse. In other words, there is no "absolute" answer re torture as any reasonable society would support in rare circumstances.

And with regards to your link, we have bad eggs in all areas of society, government, police, old farts, your punks, the employed, the unemployed, the religious, the atheists and poor would be philsophers. But we all know who to call on in times of need and trouble, when confronted by would be criminals, or kidnappers, or terrorists. The best we can do is weed the the bad eggs  out to the best of our ability. 

 

 

 

 

Edited March 18, 2022 by beecee

[Peterkin]

14 minutes ago, beecee said:

Don't be so bloody daft. Spock is speaking of a different set of circumstances,

Yes, he was. Not a word about torture, innocents, guilt or reasonable doubt; only about need. 

 

16 minutes ago, beecee said:

n humoring you though, let me answer the so called probing questions you put..."Logic requires that some evidence be offered in support of such a claim"

I put no such question. I offered you the opinion of a disinterested third party.

 

17 minutes ago, beecee said:

We are talking about possible examples of scenarios that can happen, but I have given real life examples of 100% guilt in the justice/punishment thread

Both of them irrelevant to the scenario as presented. And Spock was talking about none of those. 

18 minutes ago, beecee said:

My position is obvious and I believe would be the position of the vast majority.

Probably. So long as that majority feels itself safe from arrest.

20 minutes ago, beecee said:

Yours is also obvious

Yes. Also simple, clearly stated and entirely straightforward.

 

22 minutes ago, beecee said:

And with regards to your link, we have bad eggs in all areas of society, government, police, old farts,

Yes. That is the real world.

 

23 minutes ago, beecee said:

But we all know who to call on in times of need and trouble,

Chicago PD!

[beecee]

On 2/8/2022 at 4:04 PM, mistermack said:

Which would you rather, be tortured and survive, or be blown to bits along with your family by a cruise missile? 

It's a strange world, when people were outraged by torture by guards in a prison, but were quite happy to see missiles raining down on Bhagdad. The basic principle is, if I don't see the pictures, it's ok.

Worth repeating.

Just now, Peterkin said:

Yes, he was. Not a word about torture, innocents, guilt or reasonable doubt; only about need. 

Yes, just the facts that in the eyes of a hero, the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few or the one. You need to check out the good Judge I linked to for the validity of torture.

2 minutes ago, Peterkin said:

I put no such question. I offered you the opinion of a disinterested third party.

OK, no problems, other then just unrealistic philsophical claptrap.

4 minutes ago, Peterkin said:

Both of them irrelevant to the scenario as presented. And Spock was talking about none of those. 

Stop being so obtuse! They are totally relevant to the fact that it is indeed possible that 100% guilt can be known. 

6 minutes ago, Peterkin said:

Probably. So long as that majority feels itself safe from arrest.

Abide by the law and you are unlikley to be arrested. There can be of course unusual circumstances, as per the banning of torture. 

8 minutes ago, Peterkin said:

Yes. Also simple, clearly stated and entirely straightforward.

Yep, you would consider torture if all else had failed. But now are chosing to be philsophically controversial as many philsophers are apt to chose. 

10 minutes ago, Peterkin said:

Yes. That is the real world.

But thankfully they rae in the minority.

11 minutes ago, Peterkin said:

Chicago PD!

Of course! What else would you suggest? Police forces, all around the world, like the military are necessary evils.