One reason I made this poll was to demonstrate the absolute unwillingness of some people to approach this issue logically and objectively.
I think you've confused yourself with those who are not pro-torture. The only person lacking logic here is you - the guy who believes that a personal moral/ethical code that changes with the breeze is a
good moral/ethical code; the ONLY moral/ethical code.
Here's a small lesson for you: a moral/ethical code that weakens or disappears when things get rough is NOT a moral/ethical code. What it is, is a convenient cop-out. Only wimps and prevaricators try to rationalize their willingness to abrogate strongly held personal beliefs and/or break national and international law with "But the situation called for it! That guy was a murderous THUG!"
You've used this supposed "lack of logic and objectivity" bull several times, Ethereal. You state that those who are opposed to torture for any and all reasons are simply "too emotional" to make a rational decision, else they'd come to the exact same conclusion that you have, i.e. that it is perfectly acceptable for one's moral/ethical code to change if this or that situation warrants it. I say again, a moral/ethical code that changes with the breeze is no code at all - it's nothing more than trying to have your cake and eat it, too.
The hypothetical is purposely black and white so as to make the choice easy and obvious. For any person with a shred of courage and love, the only acceptable answer to this poll was unequivocally, "yes".
So, if someone answers "No, I wouldn't torture for ANY reason" they have "no courage?" Really? In my world it takes far more courage to honor one's moral/ethical code and refuse to torture a convenient target, than it does to wimp out and let fear and anger lead to brutality and violence. I guess things are different on your planet, but the United States is a nation built on the rule of law. You are advocating vigilantism. I say, sir, that you are an unrepentant anarchist with no morals at all.
I was simply trying to demonstrate that some people will be against "torture" EVEN WHEN it's morally justified.
Of course you'll argue it, but this statement just proves that
you have no moral or ethical code. Blaming your willingness, nay, your eagerness, to inflict pain on others "when it's morally justified" is akin to saying "I'll just do what my irrational thoughts suggest I do at this moment, and that's justification enough."
I'd be very interested in seeing your list of "when it's morally justified" scenarios. Care to share?
They reflexively reject "torture" on an emotional basis instead of approaching it logically. To them, "torture" is axiomatically evil and requires little to no logical or moral analysis.
And yet here you are, implying that a moral code is foolish and unnecessary (really nothing more than being "too emotional") - that a
situation should dictate one's morals. That, in fact, if the situation appears dire enough, morals and ethics shouldn't even be considered.
You know, you've yet to explain your rationale behind the idea that beating someone senseless
requires logic and morals...
This oughta be good. :roll: