View Poll Results: Would You Utilize Torture to Save a Family Member?

Voters
76. You may not vote on this poll
  • Yes

    61 80.26%
  • No

    15 19.74%
Page 37 of 44 FirstFirst ... 273536373839 ... LastLast
Results 361 to 370 of 439

Thread: Would You Utilize Torture to Save a Life?

  1. #361
    salmon bisque
    Saboteur's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Last Seen
    02-20-13 @ 05:14 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    2,192

    Re: Would You Utilize Torture to Save a Life?

    Ethereal
    Guru

    Join Date: Sep 2005
    Last Online: Today 05:02 PM
    Location: Chicago
    Posts: 2,683
    Thanks: 2,734
    Thanked 1,415 Times in 760 Posts
    Lean: Libertarian


    [ame=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deontological_ethics]Deontological ethics - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame]

    Non-Aggression Principle

    Main article: non-aggression principle
    The non-aggression principle, also known as the non-aggression axiom and zero aggression principle, is an ethical stance which states that any initiation of force is immoral.

    The libertarian economist and philosopher Murray Rothbard argued for a form of the non-aggression principle, arguing that it is the basis for all libertarianism:

    No one may threaten or commit violence ('aggress') against another man's person or property. Violence may be employed only against the man who commits such violence; that is, only defensively against the aggressive violence of another. In short, no violence may be employed against a nonaggressor. Here is the fundamental rule from which can be deduced the entire corpus of libertarian theory.[16]


    Man Libertarians
    “We must picture hell as a state where everyone is perpetually concerned about his own dignity and advancement, where everyone has a grievance, and where everyone lives with the deadly serious passions of envy, self-importance, and resentment.”
    ― C.S. Lewis, The Screwtape Letters

  2. #362
    Global Moderator
    The Hammer of Chaos
    Goshin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Dixie
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 11:35 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    40,476

    Re: Would You Utilize Torture to Save a Life?

    Quote Originally Posted by ADK_Forever View Post
    To infer that that saying insinuates that those rough men stand ready to break the law for us dishonors those same men and women.

    I made no such statement or inference. You chose to take it that way, either in error or as a deliberate straw-man ploy.
    Last edited by Goshin; 05-12-09 at 05:11 PM.

    Fiddling While Rome Burns
    Carthago Delenda Est
    "I used to roll the dice; see the fear in my enemies' eyes... listen as the crowd would sing, 'now the old king is dead, Long Live the King.'.."

  3. #363
    Banned
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Chicago
    Last Seen
    04-02-15 @ 04:08 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    8,211

    Re: Would You Utilize Torture to Save a Life?

    Quote Originally Posted by Saboteur View Post
    Ethereal
    Guru

    Join Date: Sep 2005
    Last Online: Today 05:02 PM
    Location: Chicago
    Posts: 2,683
    Thanks: 2,734
    Thanked 1,415 Times in 760 Posts
    Lean: Libertarian


    Deontological ethics - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    Non-Aggression Principle

    Main article: non-aggression principle
    The non-aggression principle, also known as the non-aggression axiom and zero aggression principle, is an ethical stance which states that any initiation of force is immoral.

    The libertarian economist and philosopher Murray Rothbard argued for a form of the non-aggression principle, arguing that it is the basis for all libertarianism:

    No one may threaten or commit violence ('aggress') against another man's person or property. Violence may be employed only against the man who commits such violence; that is, only defensively against the aggressive violence of another. In short, no violence may be employed against a nonaggressor. Here is the fundamental rule from which can be deduced the entire corpus of libertarian theory.[16]


    Man Libertarians
    How does this apply to my argument? Where have I justified violence against a nonagressor?

  4. #364
    activist professor Inferno's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Tipping Velvet
    Last Seen
    07-01-09 @ 12:05 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Liberal
    Posts
    2,017

    Re: Would You Utilize Torture to Save a Life?

    Quote Originally Posted by Goshin View Post
    I cannot help but admire someone who sticks to their principles regardless; it is a quality I find admirable and noble...

    Cowardice, is not feeling fear; everyone feels fear at at times. Cowardice is when you allow fear to dominate your mind to the extent that you fail to do your duty due to fear.
    Thanks but i do not see it as noble. I see it as sanity. Cowardice in the sense that it is being discussed is a dominate fear from the OP in my mind.

    Murder: murder is the unlawful killing of another human being with malice, and without justification. Absent malice or premeditation, it is manslaughter. If specifics are lacking it is known as homicide, which simply means killing any human. The commonly accepted justifications for homicide are: self-defense, defense of an innocent third party, in the course of a soldier's duty in time of war, or execution by agents of the State for capital crimes after due process.
    Commonly accepted justifications: Commonly is the catch word. Just because 500 billion people would think it it correct doesn't make it so. I don't agree with war in any of it's forms. I do not believe that we should put anyone to death. I do not live by the commonly definition.

    Undoubtably, if humankind were more rational on the whole, there would be far less need to resort to violence. However, the world is not and never will be a safe place. In the absence of persons willing to use force, including deadly force, to protect the innocent, it is likely that the very worst of humanity would rise to rule the rest. When I speak of "the worst of humanity", I am thinking of Stalin, Hitler, Pol Pot, Edi Amin, Goebels, and suchlike... genocidal monsters.
    I never said there would not be loses in this struggle. For me, I would rather be killed than submit to a tyrant. I think this is the mistake that the many make. One should never submit to that.

    In this sense I submit that pacifism is not the high ground of morality its exponents often claim, because the end result would be the greatest misery for the greatest numbers of humanity. "Peaceful resistance", a la Gandhi, only works if the PTB are not willing to keep killing people en-masse until the rest decide to cooperate. Gandhi was dealing with the civilized British... Stalin, Hitler, Pol Pot, etc would have had no problem with killing millions until the rest ceased to resist. (and they would, probably sooner rather than later.)
    Amritsar Massacre - Jallian Wala Bagh
    Brigadier General Reginald Dyer: On April 13, 1919, a multitude of Punjabis gathered in Amritsar's Jallian wala Bagh as part of the Sikh Festival "Baisakhi fair" and to protest at these extraordinary measures. The throng, penned in a narrow space smaller than Trafalgar Square, had been peacefully listening to the testimony of victims when Dyer appeared at the head of a contingent of British troops. Giving no word of warning, he ordered 50 soldiers to fire into the gathering, and for 10 to 15 minutes 1,650 rounds of ammunition were unloaded into the screaming, terrified crowd, some of whom were trampled by those desperately trying to escape.Dyer then marched away, leaving 379 dead and over 1,500 wounded.
    I have been a cop. I have used the threat of deadly force to intervene in a number of situations where a criminal was threatening an innocent. If necessary I would have completed my threat and killed the criminal. There are times when nothing less will succeed. I believe I acted very morally, risking my life for the sake of a stranger... and I think the near-victims would certainly agree.
    You were a police officer. This was your job. It is what you chose to do. If you could justify it than that was your choice.

    Someone uses as their sig line this marvelous quote: Millions of peaceable people sleep soundly in their beds tonight, only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf. I think no truer words have been said.
    I don't agree. Peace breeds peace. John Lennon said "Give peace a chance"

    It takes all kinds to make a world, supposedly. Let those who seek peace work to achieve it as much as possible; that is good. Let those who know how to fight be prepared to fight, because war is far more certain that peace, and all those peaceniks are going to need protection when the SHTF.

    I do not ask anyone to go to war for me or protect me. They have made such a choice not me.

    We now return you to your regularly scheduled partisan bickering.


    G.
    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.

  5. #365
    Guru
    ADK_Forever's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Last Seen
    05-07-11 @ 07:26 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    3,706

    Re: Would You Utilize Torture to Save a Life?

    Quote Originally Posted by Goshin View Post
    I made no such statement or inference. You chose to take it that way, either in error or as a deliberate straw-man ploy.
    Just clarifying.
    Thank You Barack Obama for Restoring Honor To The Presidency.
    President Obama will rank as one of our greatest presidents!

  6. #366
    Global Moderator
    The Hammer of Chaos
    Goshin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Dixie
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 11:35 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    40,476

    Re: Would You Utilize Torture to Save a Life?

    Quote Originally Posted by Inferno View Post
    Commonly accepted justifications: Commonly is the catch word. Just because 500 billion people would think it it correct doesn't make it so. I don't agree with war in any of it's forms. I do not believe that we should put anyone to death. I do not live by the commonly definition.
    If that is your choice, that is your choice. I am willing to let you live by your principles, if you are willing to let me live by mine. Are you?



    I never said there would not be loses in this struggle. For me, I would rather be killed than submit to a tyrant. I think this is the mistake that the many make. One should never submit to that....
    I don't agree. Peace breeds peace. John Lennon said "Give peace a chance"
    I consider this a noble but misguided sentiment. There are criminals and tyrants in the world who see peacefulness as weakness, and their instinct is to exploit weakness. It is all very well to say "we will resist them peacefully and never submit"... but in point of fact this works only against civilized oppressors who are queasy about mass extermination. The Brits killed a few hundred Gandhi'ites perhaps...Stalin would have had no problem with exterminating tens of millions, until those with sufficient backbone to die for the cause were gone and only those fearful enough to submit remained.


    You were a police officer. This was your job. It is what you chose to do. If you could justify it than that was your choice.
    Yes. What do you think would happen to our society, if all police officers decided to adopt your philosophy? If they all put away their weapons and decided that nothing was ever worth killing for, or using the threat of lethal force for? Do you think criminals would be so impressed they would cease to rape, rob and murder, or do you think there would be a nationwide crime-spree of epic proportions? I strongly suspect the latter.



    I do not ask anyone to go to war for me or protect me. They have made such a choice not me.
    And yet, you are the beneficiary of it, whether you asked for it or not. Pacifism is relatively painless as long as you have non-pacifists choosing to protect you.
    Case in point: if the USA had chosen to adopt, as national policy, the principles you espouse (ie killing is never justified, war is never acceptible) beginning in the year 1936, say... the odds are the Nazi's and the Imperial Japanese would have conquered the world between them, including the USA.
    If you are as true to your principles as you propose to be, you would be dead for resisting the will of Der Furher...as Hitler clearly had no compunctions against slaughtering millions until he got his way. Those of your compatriots who were slightly less willing to die would be laboring under the onus of the Third Reich.

    If you set the date (of USA turning totally pacifistic) up to 1946, we would have been conquered by Stalin and suffer under Soviet Totalitarianism.

    For these reasons, I will never be able to accept that pacifism is a morally superior philosophy. I chose to stand between the innocent and those who would harm them, and would do so again. If it were not for those who make that choice, you would have no choices: you would either be dead or under tyranny.

    Fortunately, pacifism is philosophy unlikely to attract enough adherents that we reach the point of refusing to kill in self-defense, as a culture. This will be to your good fortune, as you will be able to continue being a pacifist but probably won't have to die for your principles. Others will choose to give their lives in your stead, whether you asked them to or not.


    G.

    Fiddling While Rome Burns
    Carthago Delenda Est
    "I used to roll the dice; see the fear in my enemies' eyes... listen as the crowd would sing, 'now the old king is dead, Long Live the King.'.."

  7. #367
    activist professor Inferno's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Tipping Velvet
    Last Seen
    07-01-09 @ 12:05 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Liberal
    Posts
    2,017

    Re: Would You Utilize Torture to Save a Life?

    Quote Originally Posted by Goshin View Post
    If that is your choice, that is your choice. I am willing to let you live by your principles, if you are willing to let me live by mine. Are you?
    It is up to you to live your choice. I think much of what is being discussed moves well beyond torture and into theory of violence v pacifism.



    I consider this a noble but misguided sentiment. There are criminals and tyrants in the world who see peacefulness as weakness, and their instinct is to exploit weakness. It is all very well to say "we will resist them peacefully and never submit"... but in point of fact this works only against civilized oppressors who are queasy about mass extermination. The Brits killed a few hundred Gandhi'ites perhaps...Stalin would have had no problem with exterminating tens of millions, until those with sufficient backbone to die for the cause were gone and only those fearful enough to submit remained.
    We disagree. Many would have died. The more seen violence that is done against a group the stronger they become. Killing to many and eventually even the leader sees the error in his ways.

    Yes. What do you think would happen to our society, if all police officers decided to adopt your philosophy? If they all put away their weapons and decided that nothing was ever worth killing for, or using the threat of lethal force for? Do you think criminals would be so impressed they would cease to rape, rob and murder, or do you think there would be a nationwide crime-spree of epic proportions? I strongly suspect the latter.
    We are in the society that we are in. We are all humans at a different point on the evolutionary mountain. Society and the human race does not change in a day or a year. I don't expect people to be ready to live in my world today. My vision is not this type of world at all. I am part of a large commune with socialistic principles to govern us within the greater society. It is not the way that you live day to day you against the world.

    I think there will always be criminal minds. Do you use violence against them or do you contain them. Do you house them like animals or do you attempt to rehab them. All questions in need of answers.

    And yet, you are the beneficiary of it, whether you asked for it or not.
    Pacifism is relatively painless as long as you have non-pacifists choosing to protect you.
    Case in point: if the USA had chosen to adopt, as national policy, the principles you espouse (ie killing is never justified, war is never acceptible) beginning in the year 1936, say... the odds are the Nazi's and the Imperial Japanese would have conquered the world between them, including the USA.
    If you are as true to your principles as you propose to be, you would be dead for resisting the will of Der Furher...as Hitler clearly had no compunctions against slaughtering millions until he got his way. Those of your compatriots who were slightly less willing to die would be laboring under the onus of the Third Reich.
    I bolded one sentence to highlight something. A long time ago in a non violent protest I was not very old just 20. The march had ended and the painless march cost me my ability to walk when i was attacked and beaten by one of your benevolent police officers. I walked with two canes all from that time until last year when i was moved full time to a wheel chair. I am not certain what you mean by painless. Pacifism is being willing to stand in harms way to allow humanity to grow beyond it's boundaries. It is the tool that says no we will not give into to this. Millions may die but by peace we grow, By peace we say we are more. By standing in the gap unarmed we fight.

    There is a song by Bob Dylan where he says something interesting:
    Chimes of Freedom Lyric by: Bob Dylan

    Flashing for the warriors whose strength is not to fight
    Flashing for the refugees on the unarmed road of flight
    An' for each an' ev'ry underdog soldier in the night
    An' we gazed upon the chimes of freedom flashing.
    We can and do go unarmed into the battle and can win. That is in the end the answer for all of humanity.

    If you set the date (of USA turning totally pacifistic) up to 1946, we would have been conquered by Stalin and suffer under Soviet Totalitarianism.

    For these reasons, I will never be able to accept that pacifism is a morally superior philosophy. I chose to stand between the innocent and those who would harm them, and would do so again. If it were not for those who make that choice, you would have no choices: you would either be dead or under tyranny.

    Fortunately, pacifism is philosophy unlikely to attract enough adherents that we reach the point of refusing to kill in self-defense, as a culture. This will be to your good fortune, as you will be able to continue being a pacifist but probably won't have to die for your principles. Others will choose to give their lives in your stead, whether you asked them to or not.

    G.[/QUOTE]

    I really don't ask anyone to fight for me. I would rather die than have one ounce of an others blood shed for me. I suppose i get the benefits in a way. I will not raise a weapon. I will defend myself. I will not kill. I will not torture. I will not do any harm that is not required to subdue an attacker. That is a principle.

    America in it's policy to torture has lost it's way. It has changed into the enemy.
    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.

  8. #368
    Global Moderator
    The Hammer of Chaos
    Goshin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Dixie
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 11:35 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    40,476

    Re: Would You Utilize Torture to Save a Life?

    Quote Originally Posted by Inferno View Post
    It is up to you to live your choice. I think much of what is being discussed moves well beyond torture and into theory of violence v pacifism.
    Yes. I saw the debate moving in that direction and thought it a more intresting subject to address. However, I note that you didn't exactly answer my question: if it were up to you, would you allow me to live by my principles? One of which is defending myself and those I care about with such force as is necessary, up to and including lethal force? Or if you could take that choice from me by law, (gun banning for instance), would you do so?


    We disagree. Many would have died. The more seen violence that is done against a group the stronger they become. Killing to many and eventually even the leader sees the error in his ways.
    I do not mean to be patronizing, but this is very naive. The leaders I mentioned were not dissuaded by the deaths of millions of innocents, nor were their followers. People who are willing to be passive resisters and not only die themselves, but watch their friends, family, siblings, children and parents die, without submitting and without using lethal force in self-defense, are rare. A good many say they would, but in my experience most are engaging in self-delusion. Regrettably I've found that many self-identified "pacifists" or war protesters are far from being truly peaceful. (present company excepted, I hope.)


    We are in the society that we are in. We are all humans at a different point on the evolutionary mountain. Society and the human race does not change in a day or a year. I don't expect people to be ready to live in my world today. My vision is not this type of world at all. I am part of a large commune with socialistic principles to govern us within the greater society. It is not the way that you live day to day you against the world.
    Ma'am, I consider that to be part of the problem... you have a vision, but your vision is not reality as it exists or is ever likely to exist. "I don't expect people to be ready to live in my world today." Whew, that statement reveals a lot. There is only one world, and you and your commune are part of it, and probably could not exist in present form except that you are defended by non-pacifists. You also didn't answer my question about what would happen if all cops set aside their weapons today. Today, in the real world, not in some maybe-some-day fantasy world, please.


    I think there will always be criminal minds. Do you use violence against them or do you contain them. Do you house them like animals or do you attempt to rehab them. All questions in need of answers.
    Perhaps you would propose some answers that fit into your pacifistic philosophy, if you can come up with any which would actually work in the real world as it exists today.


    I bolded one sentence to highlight something. A long time ago in a non violent protest I was not very old just 20. The march had ended and the painless march cost me my ability to walk when i was attacked and beaten by one of your benevolent police officers. I walked with two canes all from that time until last year when i was moved full time to a wheel chair. I am not certain what you mean by painless.
    I am sincerly sorry that a policeman injured you. Cops are people too, and like any group of people there are some who are evil. The majority of cops I've known were truly concerned with protecting the innocent... and those were different times as well. That was your experience, allow me to relate one of my own:

    On the other side of the fence...I was once an Event Marshal in Washington DC, during a protest. On one side was a Veteran's group, on the other were various War Protest groups. There were thousands of screaming people; I and my comrades were in the middle, charged with keeping the peace. To be perfectly frank, I found the Vets to be much better behaved than the "pacifists". The war protesters hurled vile personal insults at the vets; had to be restrained from flinging balloons filled with excrement; indeed some of them seemed hell-bent on provoking the vets to attack them. I do not consider this a form of "pacifism" or "peace-making" or being "anti-war", but rather of hypocracy.




    There is a song by Bob Dylan where he says something interesting:

    While I appreciate that songs are often dear to people's hearts, a song proves nothing.





    I really don't ask anyone to fight for me. I would rather die than have one ounce of an others blood shed for me. I suppose i get the benefits in a way. I will not raise a weapon. I will defend myself. I will not kill. I will not torture. I will not do any harm that is not required to subdue an attacker. That is a principle.
    I ask you again, if that had been US policy during 1939-1945, what would have happened? Tens of millions more would have died, which I find unacceptible; and in the end those like Stalin, Hitler and company who were willing to butcher millions and millions would have ruled, and oppressed those who survived, and this is also unacceptible. Pacifism is a house of cards; if were not guarded by soldiers and police it would come tumbling down in a moment.


    America in it's policy to torture has lost it's way. It has changed into the enemy.
    Regrettably, it is no suprise to me to hear someone self-labeled "very liberal" profess America as the enemy. I sincerely hope you never have to find out, personally and first-hand, how bad the real enemy can be.

    G.
    Last edited by Goshin; 05-12-09 at 08:03 PM.

    Fiddling While Rome Burns
    Carthago Delenda Est
    "I used to roll the dice; see the fear in my enemies' eyes... listen as the crowd would sing, 'now the old king is dead, Long Live the King.'.."

  9. #369
    Dorset Patriot
    Wessexman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Sydney, Australia(but my heart is back in Dorset.)
    Last Seen
    04-04-14 @ 01:37 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    8,233

    Re: Would You Utilize Torture to Save a Life?

    Quote Originally Posted by Ethereal View Post
    The logical choice and the emotional choice are not always mutually exclusive.
    I agree completely, I don't think much of the level of moral discussion raised by such a simplistic scenario but I agree you can't discuss morality or humanity without taking emotions into account.

    However when one approaches an issue from a purely emotionally and partisan standpoint there is a greater chance their choice will not coincide with logic. In my hypothetical the emotional choice is the logical choice and vise versa. The only illogical thing to do in my hypothetical would be to stand idly by, waiting for your family to die as you held your head high like some proud fool.
    I don't think that is necessarily correct at all. Your scenario is rather worthless but I agree I'd probably torture but I wouldn't consider it as simple as you are suggesting.
    "It is written in the eternal constitution that men of intemperate minds cannot be free. Their passions forge their fetters." - Edmund Burke

  10. #370
    Banned
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Chicago
    Last Seen
    04-02-15 @ 04:08 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    8,211

    Re: Would You Utilize Torture to Save a Life?

    Quote Originally Posted by Wessexman View Post
    I don't think much of the level of moral discussion raised by such a simplistic scenario...
    Not all moral analysis needs to be an exercise in complexity. You just enjoy bandying about the term simplistic, as if it actually meant something.

    I don't think that is necessarily correct at all. Your scenario is rather worthless...
    Oh, because you say so...I forgot that crucial point. Never mind the fact that my hypothetical has spawned a complex moral debate on the justification for violence.

    Hey everyone! Wessexman thinks my hypothetical is worthless because it's "simplistic", cease and desist all discussions which have arisen from this worthless moral query - they are for naught.

    but I agree I'd probably torture but I wouldn't consider it as simple as you are suggesting.
    Then feel free to debate the substance of the issue instead of annoying me with your incessant nit-picking.

Page 37 of 44 FirstFirst ... 273536373839 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •