Page 7 of 8 FirstFirst ... 5678 LastLast
Results 61 to 70 of 78

Thread: If someone in your Family

  1. #61
    salmon bisque
    Saboteur's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Last Seen
    02-20-13 @ 05:14 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    2,192

    Re: If someone in your Family

    Quote Originally Posted by Tucker Case View Post
    What context did I leave out?
    As we've established, I agree that an animal is less than a human physically and mentally. I said that animals have a certain amount of innocence, in order to illustrate that they are not as powerful or cunning as a human. And because of that I am saying it is immorale for a human to use thier superior attributes to abuse or torture an animal.

    So? You still gave a false definition. All you've shown now is that animals have a lesser degree of self-awareness than humans, but that they doe have some rudimentary awareness.

    Have you proven that psychologica torture is worse for them yet?
    You know, I don't like it when people come in here and bring up points in a debate, then don't back them up with anything yet continue to demand of their opponent evidence and proof. This is what you are doing, and I know that it is simply an attempt to wear me out enough to give up. This is a way to win a debate, however it is an empty way to win.

    Now, how about you prove that psychological torture isn't an aspect in animal torture at all?

    It's your position, defend it.

    When have you refuted my logic? You would need logic for that. You haven't given any thus far. Your entire argumetn is based on your opinion of what is moral.

    you have yet to show that your opinion is factual.
    You are right, you haven’t shown any logic yet. Instead you’ve chosen to highjack this thread because you refuse to take the original question at face value and answer it. Instead, you want details, scenarios and circumstances.


    The consequences are dependent on the circumstances.
    If you are going to claim that your credibility in a debate about morals and the ethics required to define those morals, while claiming that I have no idea what I am talking about, you should have already known what I have outlined for you.

    The ends must justify the means, not the other way around. Now, we have on the authority of the experience of UtahBill that torture is not a good way to obtain information. Therefore by the logic of the situational ethics required for your consequential morals, torture cannot be justified as means for a good outcome.

    You have yet to prove that your view of morality is unequivocally correct. Beware: Now that you've gone the rout of moral absolutism, you cannot say that it is right for you, and you don;t need to prove it. That means you are promoting Moral relativism, and your entire argument will fall to pieces immediately.

    If you can prove that your view of morality is undeniably correct, I will concede the point. But I want a logical Aristotelian deduction for this proof with concise premises. Inductive reasoning can not work.
    Again, so demanding. Why don’t you do your own legwork and educate me?

    Aristotle's Logic (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

    Kant thought that Aristotle had discovered everything there was to know about logic, and the historian of logic Prantl drew the corollary that any logician after Aristotle who said anything new was confused, stupid, or perverse.

    But the truth is I don't know how to go about doing what you request. This is not an admission that my position is invalid. But more like a WTF are you talking about?

    I just won't take the irrational "immorality" argument when I make fight against that brand of torture because that approach will always fail in it's asininity.
    This is your opinion.

    Well done. Have you ever heard of the "Murderer at the door" scenario that basically bitch slaps Kantian ethics?

    Look it up. Anyone who buys that bull**** is too irrational for words.
    Your love of fantasy astounds me.

    PEA Soup: The murderer at the door: What Kant might have said

    "My argument is actually quite simple:
    1. It is morally permissible (from a Kantian perspective) for an innocent person (i.e., a person who does
    not deserve to die for some other reason) to lie to a murderer in self-defense.
    2. If it is morally permissible (from a Kantian perspective) for an innocent person to lie to a murderer in
    self-defense, then it is also morally permissible (from a Kantian perspective) for any person to lie to a
    murderer in the defense of another innocent person."


    Really? I torture a guilty murderer to revenge the life of an innocent child and that doesn't justify my actions?
    Yes really, quickly dispatching the offender is the revenge and is also vigilante justice. Do you want to discuss the morals of vigilantism now? Well I officially refuse to let you try to open another avenue of browbeating in place of debate. Prove vigilante justice is moral using Aristotelian deductive logic.

    Prove that you can't justify the actions using Aristotelian deductive logic. Please. You started bringing up ethicists, so I must assume you are well versed in philosophy. Lay out your deductions.
    I brought morals and ethics up at your demand, the ball is now in your court. I am not well versed in philosophy I admit that however you have not provided any evidence that would lead me to believe that you are.


    All teh problems in the world. do you have some sort of evidence besides happy thoughts and butterfly kisses that humans are innately benevolent?
    I originally brought up benevolence (in sarcasm) in response to Blackdog’s comment that only humans can appreciate art and natural beauty which was his reason for believing that humans and animals cannot be compared.

    Though, I have heard of apes, cats, and elephants that paint. The intrinsic value of such painting is up for debate. And I do not believe it has intrinsic value and do not wish to debate this.

    Yep. No duty. A duty is morla obligation. Can you show me evidence of any moral obligations whatsoever that are species-wide?

    I just ask one one signle solid irrefutable peice of evidence that there is some form of species-wide moral obligation.
    Why? I am not making this claim, you are putting words in my mouth.

    Do you think that is an intelligent response? We don't know if you molest children while playing Mr Rogers, but we should probably wait for the slightest bit evidence before we make the accusation.

    When there is nothing at all that indicates the accusation is true, it is better to presume that it isn't the case.
    I'm only speculating that there could be evidence that he abused his kids not say saying he probably did.

    your arguemtn is that torturing animals means that you are willing to torture humans. When I show evidence of a legitimate reason to torture animals without feeling the compulsion to torture humans, you come up with somethignthat is totally and completely illogical as a response.
    You think research on whether or not a rat can be trained is legitimate? To what end?

    That's just disturbing to me.
    Maybe it would help if you took my statement for what it was and didn't assume all kinds of other things along with it.

    Where? when you said you would grieve for your cats as much as you would your wife?

    I think you lost it completely there.
    Really? You haven't made half the effort to prove your position that I have. In fact you're just bitching me out for believing what I do and not showing me any proof that it is wrong.

    How is killing a dog worse than mauling a child? You are the one that has stated that consequences are all that matter. Why is it the Dog's consequences matter all of a sudden?
    I didn't say killing a dog was worse than mauling a child. I said the consequence for the dog was unfair due to the dog's lack of ability to reason.

    Oh, I know. Because even you can't stand the stench of bull**** your argument exudes.

    Remember, Mauling a child is always wrong right, Mr. Moral Absolutist


    Circumstances don't MATTER, Mr. Moral Absolutist.

    Therefore, given the entire of your argument, your comment that what I would have done would be worse than what the dog would have done means: Killing a dog worse than mauling a child.
    This is not my argument, you continue to put words in my mouth.

    That's why you have no moral credibility. You can't even keep in teh spirit of your own argument. You shift the morality dependin gon circumstances for the dog, but it is unshiftable for the human.

    It proves unequivocally that A. You don;t even understand your own argument fully

    Or

    B. You have no moral compass. You are making bull**** up as you go along because you feel that this is how it should be.
    No, you choose to ignore my argument. And refuse to provide anything to support your's except opinion. I brought up moral absolutism without claiming to be a student of the philosophy. Just like you brought up 'Aristotelian deductive logic' without using it yourself.

    Not really. I've been a fairly exemplary person my whole life. I have fought for people in need. I have sacrificed a higher income in order to take care of an infirm person. I donate loads of time to charity.

    I'm well liked in my community, and I always give money to the homeless, even if it's the last dime in my pocket.

    so know, I have no shame. I have some pride, though. It's a failing of mine.
    Is that why you are the way you are here?

    You bottle it all up in real life then annoymously come in here and let it fly?

    You said torturing an animal is worse than torturing a person. That strongly implies that you feel an animal is more important than a person.

    They aren't even in the same ballpark. I'm not saying an animal is nothing but property. It is well above the level of a sofa, but it is far below a human.
    Do you think it's worse to torture a child rather than an adult? Or to abuse a handicapped person rather than someone that isn't?

    I do, and I think animals deserve the same kind of reverence. I'm not saying they are better than humans I'm saying they should be treated equally in some situations.

    Torturing a human is usually worse than torturing an animal. It would depend on the circumstances, but there are very very few circumstances where I feel torturing people can be moral, so the times that torturing animals is worse than torturing people for me is limited to those circumstances where tortue can be moral.
    Strange.

    It is very much true with torture. I've given the circustances where I would see nothing to forgive. The guy who tortured and killed Jeffery Dahmer? Yeah, I would forgive that guy.

    John Wayne Gacy? Hell no.
    Finally an answer to the original question.

    Prove that there are some absolutes without hyperbole or opinion statements.
    I already have.

    So what happens when he attacks soemone else in teh fuure. Will you feel guilty for not removing him from society?
    He got the medication his parents weren't buying for him and was placed in foster care. Should I have killed him?

    Situation one automatically means that situation two would not be the primary cause of the torture. It's just an added bonus.
    Tha's what I thought, I find your morals disturbing.
    “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. #62
    Matthew 16:3
    Tucker Case's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Everywhere and nowhere
    Last Seen
    Today @ 05:42 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    45,366

    Re: If someone in your Family

    Quote Originally Posted by Saboteur View Post
    Your love of fantasy astounds me.

    PEA Soup: The murderer at the door: What Kant might have said

    "My argument is actually quite simple:
    1. It is morally permissible (from a Kantian perspective) for an innocent person (i.e., a person who does
    not deserve to die for some other reason) to lie to a murderer in self-defense.
    2. If it is morally permissible (from a Kantian perspective) for an innocent person to lie to a murderer in
    self-defense, then it is also morally permissible (from a Kantian perspective) for any person to lie to a
    murderer in the defense of another innocent person."
    You've already negated that defense of Kant by arguing that torture is always immoral, even in defense of an innocent person.

    That's why I posted the way I did.

    If we apply the logic given in defense of Kant to the murderer at the door, we are actually entering into the realm where torture can be considered moral when performed in the defense of a innocent.

    In other words, you just used the only defense that saves Kant from the murderer at the door scenario that also fully negates your argument that torture is always wrong or that circumstances do not matter.

    Congratulations on defeating your own position so thoroughly.


  3. #63
    salmon bisque
    Saboteur's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Last Seen
    02-20-13 @ 05:14 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    2,192

    Re: If someone in your Family

    Alright, by popular demand, let's start over with all the fun emotionally charged scenarios everybody needs to fantisize about.

    1. Your father, who served in the German military during WWII, confesses to you on his death bed that he tortured allied POWs and some of the information he got helped his fellow soldiers stay alive a little longer.

    Do you forgive him?

    2. Your father, who served in the pacific conflict of WWII as a U.S. marine, confesses to you on his death bed that he tortured Japanese POWs and none of the information he got did any good.

    Do you forgive him?

    3. Your Brother, part of the RAF, comes home from Iraq and confesses to you that he tortured Iraqis with out knowing if they were insurgents or terrorists or civilians and has no idea if the information he obtained was good, he was just the muscle.

    Do you forgive him?

    4. You catch your 17 year old son beating your neighbor's a dog, that is chained to a tree. When you ask him why he says because the dog was barking for several hours and he got sick of it.

    Do you forgive him?
    “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

  4. #64
    Running to Happiness
    Renae's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    San Antonio Texas
    Last Seen
    Today @ 07:13 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    33,222
    Blog Entries
    10

    Re: If someone in your Family

    Quote Originally Posted by Saboteur View Post
    If someone in your family admitted to torturing another human being or animal, would you forgive them?

    Can't find the Poll controlls.

    Answer yes or no or not at all.

    Assuming you hold yourself responsible for your emotions and the way you feel about things as opposed to blaming others for your feelings.
    What a horrible loaded question.

    Torture for the sake of hurting another living creature? Forgive yes... but I'd really hate he/she did it.

    If there was a greater cause on say a terrorist? To save lives? I'd give em a medal.

    No animal deserves to be harmed for the pleasure of others.

    If it's in the course of life saving research... well, that's different.
    C.T.L.W. You figure it out
    My Endo doc went over my blood work. "I see your estrogen level is now at 315, do you feel like you have too much Estrogen now?"
    I told her "... N... N.. No..." and started crying.


  5. #65
    Matthew 16:3
    Tucker Case's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Everywhere and nowhere
    Last Seen
    Today @ 05:42 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    45,366

    Re: If someone in your Family

    Quote Originally Posted by Saboteur View Post
    Alright, by popular demand, let's start over with all the fun emotionally charged scenarios everybody needs to fantisize about.
    You are limiting the scenarios. Good work. (I mean that seriously)

    1. Your father, who served in the German military during WWII, confesses to you on his death bed that he tortured allied POWs and some of the information he got helped his fellow soldiers stay alive a little longer.

    Do you forgive him?
    Yeah, I'd forgive him for that.

    2. Your father, who served in the pacific conflict of WWII as a U.S. marine, confesses to you on his death bed that he tortured Japanese POWs and none of the information he got did any good.

    Do you forgive him?
    Just for clarification: Was he at least trying to get information that could save lives, or was he doing it as a punishment for them being Japanese soldiers?

    If he was trying to save lives, I'd forgive him without much thought. If he was doing it as punishment, I'd probably forgive him, but I';d lose some respect for him, as bad as that is.


    3. Your Brother, part of the RAF, comes home from Iraq and confesses to you that he tortured Iraqis with out knowing if they were insurgents or terrorists or civilians and has no idea if the information he obtained was good, he was just the muscle.

    Do you forgive him?
    I'd lose a lot of respect for him over this, but I'd forgive him (I'm a pretty forgiving person)



    4. You catch your 17 year old son beating your neighbor's a dog, that is chained to a tree. When you ask him why he says because the dog was barking for several hours and he got sick of it.

    Do you forgive him?
    Again, I'd forgive him, but I'd definitely punish him for it as it is within my power to punish my child. I've also caught him in the act, instead of years later.

  6. #66
    salmon bisque
    Saboteur's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Last Seen
    02-20-13 @ 05:14 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    2,192

    Re: If someone in your Family

    Quote Originally Posted by Tucker Case View Post
    You've already negated that defense of Kant by arguing that torture is always immoral, even in defense of an innocent person.

    That's why I posted the way I did.

    If we apply the logic given in defense of Kant to the murderer at the door, we are actually entering into the realm where torture can be considered moral when performed in the defense of a innocent.

    In other words, you just used the only defense that saves Kant from the murderer at the door scenario that also fully negates your argument that torture is always wrong or that circumstances do not matter.

    Congratulations on defeating your own position so thoroughly.

    You still fail to address how I proved that torture is immoral even to the moral reletavist.

    You should consider that Kant's philosophy is based on the autonomy of the individual. And consider that torture is based on taking that autonomy away. While the innocent murder victim still has the chance to defend themselves.

    Also consider that the lie told to the murderer doesn't necessarily protect the innocent person as much as delay the murder. Meanwhile torturing someone to protect the innocent doesn't necessarily delay the act they need protection from.

    In fact in considering this myself, I recinde my reference in defense of Kant on the 'murderer at the door' scenario. And debunk the scenario itself!

    Since telling a lie to a murderer as to the whereabouts of the innocent person only delays the murder and does not stop it, there is no reason to lie. But that doesn't stop one, while having told the truth to the murder, from warning the victim or stopping the murderer right there.
    Last edited by Saboteur; 05-13-09 at 05:05 PM.
    “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

  7. #67
    Matthew 16:3
    Tucker Case's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Everywhere and nowhere
    Last Seen
    Today @ 05:42 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    45,366

    Re: If someone in your Family

    Quote Originally Posted by Saboteur View Post
    You still fail to address how I proved that torture is immoral even to the moral reletavist.

    You should consider that Kant's philosophy is based on the autonomy of the individual. And consider that torture is based on taking that autonomy away. While the innocent murder victim still has the chance to defend themselves.

    Also consider that the lie told to the murderer doesn't necessarily protect the innocent person as much as delay the murder. Meanwhile torturing someone to protect the innocent doesn't necessarily delay the act they need protection from.

    In fact in considering this myself, I recinde my reference in defense of Kant on the 'murderer at the door' scenario. And debunk the scenario itself!

    Since telling a lie to a murderer as to the whereabouts of the innocent person only delays the murder and does not stop it, there is no reason to lie. But that doesn't stop one, while having told the truth to the murder, from warning the victim or stopping the murderer right there.
    "Rescinding" an argument that you tried to use in refutation of my points because you foolishly failed to realize that the argument you were making utterly and completely destroyed your own argument and not mine is both cowardly and dishonest.

    I am through entertaining your dishonest debate tactics.


    The good news, though, is that since you have already disproven your argument once, you might be able to finish the debate alone. With enough time, I'm sure you'll screw up again since it is clear you don't even understand your own posts.

    Peace.

  8. #68
    salmon bisque
    Saboteur's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Last Seen
    02-20-13 @ 05:14 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    2,192

    Re: If someone in your Family

    Quote Originally Posted by Tucker Case;1058023246[QUOTE
    ]"Rescinding" an argument that you tried to use in refutation of my points because you foolishly failed to realize that the argument you were making utterly and completely destroyed your own argument and not mine is both cowardly and dishonest
    .

    Fine I don't rescind my argument. All it proves is that I am not a moral absolutist, which I told you I wasn't twice.

    Quote Originally Posted by Saboteur View Post
    Yes there are levels of morality and some are absolute.
    That's me agreeing that morals are relative.

    Quote Originally Posted by Saboteur View Post
    I brought up moral absolutism without claiming to be a student of the philosophy.
    I also proved that torture is immoral using the tennants of relative morality. You just chose to ignore that and label me a moral absolutist.

    Quote Originally Posted by Saboteur View Post
    Situational ethics - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    Situational ethics is a teleological, or consequential theory, in that it is concerned with the outcome or consequences of an action; the end, as opposed to an action being intrinsically wrong such as in deontological theories. In the case of situational ethics, the ends can justify the means.


    Situational ethics - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    Situational ethics outlined

    There are four presuppositions that Fletcher makes before setting out the situational ethics theory:

    1. Pragmatism - This is that the course of action must be practical and work

    2. Relativism - All situations are always relative; situational ethicists try to avoid such words as "never" and "always"

    3. Positivism - The whole of situational ethics relies upon the fact that the person freely chooses to believe in agape love as described by Christianity.

    4. Personalism - Whereas the legalist thinks people should work to laws, the situational ethicist believes that laws are for the benefit of the people.


    With torture you cannot argue that the ends justufy the means therefore torture is absolutely morally wrong.
    I am through entertaining your dishonest debate tactics.
    You call my tacticts dishonest? What about yours?

    Quote Originally Posted by Tucker Case View Post
    Do you think that is an intelligent response? We don't know if you molest children while playing Mr Rogers, but we should probably wait for the slightest bit evidence before we make the accusation.

    It proves unequivocally that A. You don;t even understand your own argument fully

    Or

    B. You have no moral compass. You are making bull**** up as you go along because you feel that this is how it should be.

    Oh, I know. Because even you can't stand the stench of bull**** your argument exudes.

    Remember, Mauling a child is always wrong right, Mr. Moral Absolutist?

    Circumstances don't MATTER, Mr. Moral Absolutist.

    I find your morality somewhat disturbing, but hey, that's just me.
    And you accuse me of Hyperbole

    The good news, though, is that since you have already disproven your argument once, you might be able to finish the debate alone. With enough time, I'm sure you'll screw up again since it is clear you don't even understand your own posts.
    You wish this was the case I hope. Otherwise you, even for the internet, are a very disturbed person.

    Peace.
    No. No peace until you face reality and admit you lost this debate before you posted the 'murderer at the door' scenario and apologize.

    I won't let you pretend you didn't ignore how I proved torture is immoral using relative morality.

    In your response post you totally blew it off and latched on to moral absolutism. You tried to create my argument for me and then you thought you trapped me.
    Last edited by Saboteur; 05-14-09 at 11:07 AM.
    “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

  9. #69
    salmon bisque
    Saboteur's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Last Seen
    02-20-13 @ 05:14 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    2,192

    Re: If someone in your Family

    Quote Originally Posted by Tucker Case View Post
    For the record, I have consistently argued against the use of torture by the US government. I just refuse to fall into the irrational "it's immoral" arguments against it because they presuppose that your mortality is correct. Which is an unprovable premise.

    An unprovable premise may or may not be false, but it is assuredly illogical to use any premise of unknown veracity.
    I don't think so, everyone knows that rape and murder are immoral. How can you sit there and say you can't prove torture is immoral because no morality is the correct morality?

    If you want to talk about irrational arguments that's it. Plus you just lied, you say you refuse to fall into arguments against torture where morality is concered. Yet you spent quite a bit of time here getting your ass handed to you.

    You really are quite delusional aren't you?
    “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

  10. #70
    Matthew 16:3
    Tucker Case's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Everywhere and nowhere
    Last Seen
    Today @ 05:42 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    45,366

    Re: If someone in your Family

    Quote Originally Posted by Saboteur View Post
    Fine I don't rescind my argument. All it proves is that I am not a moral absolutist, which I told you I wasn't twice.
    Then, if you aren't a moral absolutist, why make the moral absolutist statemnt that torture is always immoral independent of the circumstances?



    That's me agreeing that morals are relative.
    Which is an example of how you contradicted yourself in this debate because that was in the same post that you cited moral absolutism as what you subscribed to after I called moral absolutism "insane".

    [U04] Absolutism vs contextualism

    Moral absolutism is the view that some actions are morally required or morally prohibited regardless of the situation and the potential consequences.

    Moral absolutism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    Moral_absolutism Moral_absolutism

    Moral absolutism is the meta-ethical view that certain actions are absolutely right or wrong, devoid of the context of the act. Thus lying, for instance, might be considered to be always immoral, even if done to promote some other good (e.g., saving a life). Moral absolutism stands in contrast to categories of ethical theories such as consequentialism and situational ethics, which holds that the morality of an act depends on the consequences or the context of the act.

    Ethical theories which place strong emphasis on rights, such as the deontological ethics of Immanuel Kant, are often forms of moral absolutism, as are many religious moral codes, particularly those of the Abrahamic religions.

    Yeah insane.

    That's you calling yourself a moral absolutist. Why do you consistently resort to lies and distortions?



    I also proved that torture is immoral using the tennants of relative morality. You just chose to ignore that and label me a moral absolutist.
    I labelled you a moral absolutist?

    So are you now saying that you didn't argue against my contextualist argument by citing moral absolutism?

    I believe that you have changed your stance because you came to realize that your argument was fundementally flawed.

    How did you arrive at this realization, one might ask.

    I know! It's because I pointed out the contradictory nature of your comments!

    So you now retract from moral absolutism, AFTER you had previously used it to defend you position. Fair enough. You are a moral relativist... now. You were a moral abslolutist...then.

    Most people would see this as a tacit admission to a flawed argument.

    And, furthermore, you haven't "proven" anything. You've given your opinion that the ends of torture cannot justify the means, but you haven't proven any such thing.

    Let's take the true moral relativistic route, shall we? For this argument I will be utilizing the Utilitarian ethical structure (which is a specific subset of consequentialism, although I personally do not subscribe to it). I'll use an Aristotelian deductive argument in order to make it clear:

    Premise one: Utilitarians believe that Morality is dependent on the net "good" that comes from committing an action.

    Premise Two: The net "good" is measured by overall happiness - overall pain.

    Premise three: For an action to be called "moral" it must increase the net "happiness"

    Premise four: Torturing a person increases net "pain" by a certain level per person.

    Premise five: People being killed increases the net "pain" by a certain level per person

    Premise six: People being maimed increases the net "Pain" by a certain level per person.

    Premise seven: Loved ones being killed increases net "pain" by a certain level per person.

    Premise eight: Preventing pain increases net happiness.

    Premise nine. The net pain from one person being tortured is less than the net pain form one person being killed and/or maimed.

    Premise ten: Mild torture increases net pain by a lower amount that extreme torture.

    Premise eleven: Torturing a person for information that can save lives will produce information.

    Premise twelve: That information may be unreliable and thus, it would not save lives.

    Premise thirteen: That information may be reliable, and thus, it would save lives

    Conclusion one: Torture is moral if it produces reliable information that saves lives as this will increase net happiness.

    Conclusion two: Torture is immoral if it does not produce information that saves lives because it increases net pain.

    Admittedly, Utilitarianism is an entirely "ends justify the means" style of ethos, but you will see that if one subscribes to the hedonistic precepts of Utilitarianism, torture would not be universally immoral.

    Other forms of ethics would follow a different deductive pathway to achieve the conclusion that Torture may be moral in certain circumstances.

    I also note that I chose Utilitariansim because when you clarified your hypotheticals with specific examples, you had two similar situations where POW's were tortured, but had the results and "sides" f teh war different. This implies that you acknowledge that one may argue that morality may indeed be depedennt on results. Which is a very Utilitarian point of view.

    Also, many Utilitarians have often argued for a non-human centered approach to ethics because animals can feel both pleasure and pain. It would be a form of ethics that assists your argument there.

    Feel free to use it in the future.

    You call my tacticts dishonest? What about yours?
    I'm not the one who keeps moving the goal posts because I've contradicted myself. One second you are promoting moral absolutism to counter me, but the next you are denouncing it to counter me.

    You lie and say that I label you something which you've labeled yourself because I point out how you are contradicting yourself by taking on that label.

    Sure, I'm the dishonest debater here.



    And you accuse me of Hyperbole
    Where did I say that? Oh, I know. I didn't. You are a liar. As in Dishonest. That's what I've accused you of. And right there, you've proven it.

    So now that you have AGAIN proven me correct about something (i.e. your dishonesty) I'll address teh next part of your post:


    You wish this was the case I hope. Otherwise you, even for the internet, are a very disturbed person.
    How am I disturbed? You've just proven that I'm correct about you being dishonest by accusing me of accusing you of hyperbole. I've accused you of contradicting yourself. I've accused you of dishonesty. I've accused you of cowardice.

    So far, you've unequivocally PROVEN that you are a liar in the very post to which I respond because it contains not one, but TWO flat-out lies in it.

    Lie #1: That I laeblled you a moral absolutist, considering that YOU were the one who posted moral absolutism as a failed attampt at rebuttal.

    Lie #2: That I accused you of hyperbole. I never did any such thing.

    So now that you have proven me correct on yet ANOTHER thing, how could I possibly be the "disturbed" person in this conversation?

    No. No peace until you face reality and admit you lost this debate before you posted the 'murderer at the door' scenario and apologize.

    I won't let you pretend you didn't ignore how I proved torture is immoral using relative morality.
    That is funny. YOu've changed tactics, retracted arguemtns, moved goal posts, flat-out lied, and yet you still think you "Won" the debate? You think you "proved" that torture is immoral?

    That's delusional.


    In your response post you totally blew it off and latched on to moral absolutism. You tried to create my argument for me and then you thought you trapped me.
    I did trap you, silly. Otherwise you wouldn't have tried to retract.

    I've also allowed you to prove unequivocally that you don't even comprehend the evidence that you try to use because that evidence contradicts what you argue.

    Up until I showed this, you had no clue that you were contradicting yourself, otherwise, you wouldn't have posted and then subsequently attempted to retract after I pointed out the contradiction.

    What you haven't grasped yet, and I doubt you ever will, is that I'm not arguing against your conclusions as much as I'm arguing against how poorly thought out your approach has been.

    Can someone legitimately come to the conclusion that torture is always wrong, regardless of the circumstances? Absolutely.

    Can someone do this and then argue that one form of torture is "more wrong" than another? Not without inherently contradicting their argument and falling prey to flawed logic.

    Can someone "prove" that torture is always immoral? Never. Morality can never be "proven". There are many different moralities that exist in the world. If one subscribes to one ethos over another, they can conclude something, but never "prove" it unequivocally.

    They may be able to "prove" it logically within the precepts of their particular ethos, as I "proved" torture to sometimes be moral from the Utilitarianist perspective. This "proof" is only logically valid if one accepts the Utilitarian perspective.

    The reason I've debated you here is not because I have issue with your beliefs, per se. It's because I have issue with the fact that you are presuming that your beliefs are "undeniably" correct.

    You are free to believe that torture is always immoral. That is your prerogative and I'll even commend you for your staunch refusal to shift form your preconceived beliefs. What I find distasteful and asinine is that the basic premise of your argument is "I believe this, so it must be undeniably true".

    Because that is your basic premise, you will not entertain any arguments that don't coincide with your preconceptions as valid, regardles sof the inherent validity of those arguments. It has led you to move the goal posts instead of acknowledging the flaws in your argument. It has led you to dishonest tactics and self-contradiction.

    Instead of challenging your own views and addressing the flaws, you alter teh facts in order to make it fit with your preconceptions. I gave an example of torturing animals that doesn't fit the increased propensity for torturing humans argument that you set up, you responding by make up a new version of things based on "what-ifs" in order to cram the actual reality that contradicts you into your world-view instead of adjusting your world-view to reflect the reality.

    That is why you haven't won any debate here. You haven't actually debated. You've only sought to place yourself on a moral pedestal that is based on your own flawed view of reality where just because you "thunk" it, it has to be true.

Page 7 of 8 FirstFirst ... 5678 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
  •