Furthermore, I don't think I was being illogical for having the belief that torturing someone is immoral, while having the belief that torture can be justified.
When viewed in only black and white, you can say that I have a hypocritical view on torture. But because it is not two dimensional like that, I am not being illogical, but only choosing the lesser of the two evils. I don't think hypocrisy is the appropriate term here.
How exactly is a situation about a muderous thug where your family is in mortal danger not emotional?
"It is written in the eternal constitution that men of intemperate minds cannot be free. Their passions forge their fetters." - Edmund Burke
Last edited by Inferno; 05-12-09 at 12:48 AM.
Democracy is the road to socialism. Karl Marx
Life member NY city Fisting Club!
I am Zoochie Purple Quivering Ghost Bear a Tiki Bar Tarte, you want some of my Panties.
I have already shown that reasonable people under the right circumstance can be forced to do or accept unreasonable things. This pretty much makes your statement incorrect as it has little to do with "emotion" and more to do with circumstance.
Last edited by Black Dog; 05-12-09 at 07:28 AM.
No Lives Matter
On Sheep, Wolves, and Sheepdogs - Dave Grossman
One can choose to show someone thier belly, or thier teeth. We make choices in our lives, act accordingly.
Matthew 10:34Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword.
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.
I'd be very interested in seeing your list of "when it's morally justified" scenarios. Care to share?
You know, you've yet to explain your rationale behind the idea that beating someone senseless requires logic and morals...
This oughta be good.
Thank You Barack Obama for Restoring Honor To The Presidency.
President Obama will rank as one of our greatest presidents!