• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Would You Utilize Torture to Save a Life?

Would You Utilize Torture to Save a Family Member?


  • Total voters
    60
Where have I said this? Quote me.

I was simply trying to demonstrate that some people will be against "torture" EVEN WHEN it's morally justified.

Real morals - those tenets that one will not break even under threat of death - do not change, whether you torture is "morally justified [something you've yet to expound upon or prove with any authority]," or not. Real morals either remain static or they are false morals, easily tossed into the trash when this or that circumstance makes it easier to ignore/deny them.

My moral code remains well intact. I'm not the one who believes "torture" is categorically immoral.

No. You believe torturing someone is acceptable if/when you want to torture someone. Apparently, in all other cases, it's not.

:roll:

How about you provide us with a few examples where inflicting torture on others would not be acceptable to you?


I believe it is justified under certain circumstances, just as killing can be justified under certain circumstances. Your position is the one which lacks moral continuity. You state axiomatically the immorality of "torture" yet you would defend the killing of another person in war or self-defense. How can inflicting harm upon one's enemy be categorically immoral yet killing them is justifiable? Please, explain.

Random "killing" is not "justified under certain circumstances;" self defense is. Furthermore, killing someone in self defense is in no way comparable to the purposeful inflicting of intense pain on an incapacitated/restrained/bound person with the intent to punish, coerce, or derive sadistic pleasure. That you believe otherwise speaks volumes about your "morals."

It's the same rationale one would employ when beating or killing a rapist. It's the same rationale a Marine employs on the battlefield when the enemy is in his crosshairs. It's the same rationale a fighter-pilot employs when they drop a bomb on a military target which is in close proximity to civilians.

You are trying to equate an act of self defense with beating a restrained person to get information out of them (information you have no way of knowing they possess). There simply is no comparison, but feel free to continue trying to convince anyone other than yourself of this lunacy.
 
Last edited:
It most certainly does. Those are the only logical conclusions of pacifism. Either you are lying or you are a coward. If you will not resort to violence in any circumstance you are most certainly a craven coward of the worst kind.

I won't speak for Inferno, but I don't believe I ever said "I will not resort to violence in any circumstance." If someone jumps out of the bushes and tries to rape me, I'll "violently" defend myself to the death. This is nothing like the torture you advocate. I'll fight off an attacker with every ounce of my being, but tying someone down and beating them until they say something I want to hear, is NOT self defense, no matter how pretty you try to paint it.
 
Real morals - those tenets that one will not break even under threat of death - do not change, whether you torture is "morally justified [something you've yet to expound upon or prove with any authority]," or not. Real morals either remain static or they are false morals, easily tossed into the trash when this or that circumstance makes it easier to ignore/deny them.

Let me make this as simple as possible for you.

I do not believe torture is categorically immoral, therefore allowing it under certain circumstances is in no way a violation of my moral code. The fact that I do not share your moral code does nothing to undermine the continuity of my position.

No. You believe torturing someone is acceptable if/when you want to torture someone. Apparently, in all other cases, it's not.

:roll:

I don't see your point. Most likely because you do not have one.

How about you provide us with a few examples where inflicting torture on others would not be acceptable to you?

Torturing someone for fun.

Random "killing" is not "justified under certain circumstances;" self defense is.

In case you haven't noticed, I'm not advocating random torture, so your point is irrelevant, not to mention perplexing.

Furthermore, killing someone in self defense is in no way comparable to the purposeful inflicting of intense pain on an incapacitated/restrained/bound person with the intent to punish, coerce, or derive sadistic pleasure. That you believe otherwise speaks volumes about your "morals."

How many straw-men are you going to erect? Not once have I implied that torture for the sake or punishment or sadistic pleasure is acceptable. Your entire rebuttal has been nothing but one giant misrepresentation of my position. When logic fails, resort to lies...

You are trying to equate an act of self defense with beating a restrained person to get information out of them (information you have no way of knowing they possess). There simply is no comparison, but feel free to continue trying to convince anyone other than yourself of this lunacy.

You haven't answered the question, no surprise there. How can you justify the ultimate act of violence (killing) and not "torture"? Please try to answer the question without mentioning me or my position. I want a direct answer, not another army of straw-man and intellectual fumblings.
 
+
It most certainly does. Those are the only logical conclusions of pacifism. Either you are lying or you are a coward. If you will not resort to violence in any circumstance you are most certainly a craven coward of the worst kind.
That is your opinion and it is wrong. Only a coward feels that violence is needed.
Absolutely we are. I would meet unjust violence with righteous violence, whereas you would cower and permit the unjust to transpire out of pride.

No such thing as righteous violence. That is some made up term that you must really like. It sounds like a silly term used to promote that idea that killing can somehow be justified. It can't.
Then you are a coward.

You still do not know me and cannot make this statement.
Special or not, a courageous person will not stand idly by while violence is visited upon the innocent.

Did I anywhere say anything about standing by and watching. I don't recall that. Do you want to point that out. This is a question on would I utilize torture... It queries nothing about what else I might do.


Pacifism is nothing more than a fanciful notion steeped in naiveté and pride. At the end of the day you and I are the same; we are both willing to commit acts of violence under the right circumstances; you simply delude yourself into believing otherwise.

Sorry that is wrong. Look up the meaning and look up pacifists and see how much many of them took to win their cause. Win they did.
 
I won't speak for Inferno, but I don't believe I ever said "I will not resort to violence in any circumstance."

I never implied that you did.

If someone jumps out of the bushes and tries to rape me, I'll "violently" defend myself to the death. This is nothing like the torture you advocate. I'll fight off an attacker with every ounce of my being, but tying someone down and beating them until they say something I want to hear, is NOT self defense, no matter how pretty you try to paint it.

Who said anything about self-defense? What if I kill a rapist who is harming another person? How does that fit into your self-defense argument?
 
+That is your opinion and it is wrong. Only a coward feels that violence is needed.

So, if I kill a man who is raping my sister I am a coward?

No such thing as righteous violence. That is some made up term that you must really like. It sounds like a silly term used to promote that idea that killing can somehow be justified. It can't.

So, killing a rapist is not an act of righteous violence? Then what is it?

You still do not know me and cannot make this statement.

Fine. You have a gun in your hand and a man is about to rape a little girl, what do you do?

Did I anywhere say anything about standing by and watching. I don't recall that. Do you want to point that out. This is a question on would I utilize torture... It queries nothing about what else I might do.

Then what would you do? Try to reason with the madman? Ask him nicely to stop?

Sorry that is wrong. Look up the meaning and look up pacifists and see how much many of them took to win their cause. Win they did.

I don't suppose pacifism could have stopped the Holocaust, do you?
 
So, if I kill a man who is raping my sister I am a coward?

So, killing a rapist is not an act of righteous violence? Then what is it?

Fine. You have a gun in your hand and a man is about to rape a little girl, what do you do?

Then what would you do? Try to reason with the madman? Ask him nicely to stop?

I don't suppose pacifism could have stopped the Holocaust, do you?

Well if you look at the opic of the thread tyou certainly have strayed from that.
1. There are ways to subdue someone short of killing them.
1a. You are not in a situation to torture here.

2. Killing a man because he is a rapist is murder. Putting him on trial is the law. It is murder not righteous violence. That is a term to make someone think there is a good type of murder and a bad type of murder. It is a statement of justification.

3. It is not even to assumed that I have a gun in my hand. I never would. Now if you are asking if i would attempt to stop the girl from being raped I surely would. It does not mean kill or torture. You are confused on defense and protective measures and killing and torture. They are not the same.

4. Yes to try and reason with a madman. When is the last time you were faced with a madman? If you have never been in this situation I suggest being afraid of this happening is fear and fear comes from being scared and cowards are people who are scared is that true?

5. The holocaust needed never have taken place. The leaders in Europe and others are part and parcel to those events. Yes though to answer your question non violence in ending the holocaust would have worked. It may have saved many lives. The Jewish cooperated with violence. They did not resist. They were afraid. In the end they perished. If they had stood there ground and said no. Some may have died but the violence against these would have been seen and people would have stood up against it much faster.
 
Well if you look at the opic of the thread tyou certainly have strayed from that.
1. There are ways to subdue someone short of killing them.
1a. You are not in a situation to torture here.

2. Killing a man because he is a rapist is murder. Putting him on trial is the law. It is murder not righteous violence. That is a term to make someone think there is a good type of murder and a bad type of murder. It is a statement of justification.

3. It is not even to assumed that I have a gun in my hand. I never would. Now if you are asking if i would attempt to stop the girl from being raped I surely would. It does not mean kill or torture. You are confused on defense and protective measures and killing and torture. They are not the same.

4. Yes to try and reason with a madman. When is the last time you were faced with a madman? If you have never been in this situation I suggest being afraid of this happening is fear and fear comes from being scared and cowards are people who are scared is that true?

5. The holocaust needed never have taken place. The leaders in Europe and others are part and parcel to those events. Yes though to answer your question non violence in ending the holocaust would have worked. It may have saved many lives. The Jewish cooperated with violence. They did not resist. They were afraid. In the end they perished. If they had stood there ground and said no. Some may have died but the violence against these would have been seen and people would have stood up against it much faster.

I cannot help but admire someone who sticks to their principles regardless; it is a quality I find admirable and noble.

However, I also cannot help but disagree with the principles you are espousing.

Certain terms need clarification it seems:
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.

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.

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.

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.)

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.

As Paul the apostle said, live in peace with all as much as is possible. Unfortunately it is not always possible.

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.

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.

We now return you to your regularly scheduled partisan bickering. :mrgreen:


G.
 
Last edited:
Well if you look at the opic of the thread tyou certainly have strayed from that.

We are discussing the supposed necessity of violence, therefore it is a logical and valid extension of the thread topic. Please don't muddle it up.

1. There are ways to subdue someone short of killing them.

Which also necessitate violence.

1a. You are not in a situation to torture here.

It matters not. The essence of this argument is the supposed necessity of violence, therefore we may compare and contrast different forms of violence with in varying contexts.

2. Killing a man because he is a rapist is murder. Putting him on trial is the law. It is murder not righteous violence. That is a term to make someone think there is a good type of murder and a bad type of murder. It is a statement of justification.

I'm talking about killing a rapist who is presently committing a rape, not killing them after the fact. This is not murder as murder is the unlawful killing of another person. If you are acting in the defense of another's life or body it is justifiable homicide, not murder.

3. It is not even to assumed that I have a gun in my hand. I never would.

Jesus Christ! Does anyone know what a HYPOTHETICAL is or how it applies to arguments? You have a gun in your hand (never mind how it got there) and a man is about to rape a little girl right in front of you, WHAT DO YOU DO? Answer the question.

Now if you are asking if i would attempt to stop the girl from being raped I surely would. It does not mean kill or torture. You are confused on defense and protective measures and killing and torture. They are not the same.

This argument is becoming so muddled and nonsensical. I'm not concerned with the measures one employs in defensive and protective measures or killing and torture; they are irrelevant. I'm concerned with the moral justifications of violence. That is what we are discussing, that is what you and I are contesting.

4. Yes to try and reason with a madman.

Oh yes! I'm sure that will work wonders...

"Excuse me, Mr. Rapist, but I noticed you were about to violate an innocent little girl. Would you be so kind as to stop?"

When is the last time you were faced with a madman? If you have never been in this situation I suggest being afraid of this happening is fear and fear comes from being scared and cowards are people who are scared is that true?

Absolutely not. Fear is something we all experience. To quote John Wayne:

"Courage is being scared to death - but saddling up anyway."

Courage is taking action in the face of fear. Only when one fails or refuses to act in the face of fear do they become a coward.

5. The holocaust needed never have taken place.

Well, this is a profound statement.

The leaders in Europe and others are part and parcel to those events. Yes though to answer your question non violence in ending the holocaust would have worked. It may have saved many lives. The Jewish cooperated with violence. They did not resist. They were afraid. In the end they perished. If they had stood there ground and said no. Some may have died but the violence against these would have been seen and people would have stood up against it much faster.

Resistance to violence implies one of two things: either you reciprocate that violence or you submit to it. Which option should the Jews have employed and how would it work?
 
Last edited:
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.

To infer that that saying insinuates that those rough men stand ready to break the law for us dishonors those same men and women.
 
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 :roll:
 
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:
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 :roll:

How does this apply to my argument? Where have I justified violence against a nonagressor?
 
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. :mrgreen:


G.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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:
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.
 
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.
 
This hypothetical scenario is an attempt to gauge one's moral position on torture. It is not meant to elicit idiotic references to the television show 24. That a hypothetical is unlikely to occur is irrelevant - they are intended to subject our moral suppositions to scrutiny by forcing us to make a choice. Having said that, please answer the question with a YES or NO answer followed by an explanation.

If you had to brutally torture a person in order to save the lives of your family, would you do it?

The hypothetical assumes said person is a murderous thug who is directly responsible for endangering your family.


Answer: Yes.

Explanation: Because I hold the lives of my family in a higher regard than murderous thugs.




It looks like 44 torture photos are going to be released this month.


Obama to release interrogation photos - UPI.com


Talking about torture and seeing/doing it are two different things. I'm curious what affect the release of the photos will have on people's perspectives.

Guess we'll find out on the 28th.

:?
 
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?

Your principles are part of the current design. I could not stop you. I could ask it of you and appeal to you with reason. But I would or could not force people into a society that by force or violent revolution. Gun banning as a course of action could happen. I would ban guns but that is not really the type of gun banning you are referring too. You are entitled to defend yourself. If for you that means a gun than as long as it is within the bounds of laws that we have today you may have one. I hope that makes the point clear.
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.)

I am against violence pure and simple. I have said that I would defend myself if attack. I would not use a weapon such as a gun ever. I also would not cooperate with an attacker. I would not be lead off like a sheep to be slaughtered. I would fight that yes. I would not take a life. I see no reason to. I have seen non violent protesters burn down buildings and throw rocks through police car windows. I hardly call that non violent. If someone is apt to get injured by said demonstration it is not worth doing.

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 do have a vision. It is the driving force of any idea. It requires people to look and think beyond the bounds of what is. Example: One day there was no e mail. Someone had an idea. someone had the vision. someone built the chip. Then there was e mail.
That is the process of evolutionary design. Idea, vision, process then change. It was a fantasy that in 1969 there was a riot at Stonewall Inn in NY. Now here we are in 2009 considering Same sex marriage. It was only in 1969 that you could be jailed for being gay or lesbian. The world changes and evolves everyday. Unless you were part of the walk toward change you don't realize that the next fantasy that will be reality is just around the corner.

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.

First you need to change the way people think and that is through education. That changes everything. What we learn is what we do. Now it is in the American head that all things Muslim must be bad. That is asinine at it's core. That's where it has to begin in small steps.

I am sincerely 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 hypocrisy.

Were they pacifists or anti war protesters. A huge difference.
I can agree with that yes your assessment is very good I would say that this being true I would believe you to be correct.


The object of activism at it's core is reaction. If you do not or cannot provoke a response by what you are doing you do not escalate. You continue the protest as such. Apparently those in charge of the protest rally had very little control over the masses. That would make them very poor leaders and those types of leaders rise up through the ranks by violence. Stalin Mao Hitler in a sense. These all rose up through violence. Violence does not breed good leaders. It makes great dictators but leaders no.

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 unacceptable; 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 unacceptable. Pacifism is a house of cards; if were not guarded by soldiers and police it would come tumbling down in a moment.

The world is responsible for those leaders coming to the head of their states. Hitler rises to power because the European crush is on from the end of WWI. Germany could not breath. Hitler rose up and he did so by creating a demon and it was the Jew. When the European nations stop immigration for the Jews or charged Germany a fortune to take them. They force the Nazi's to camp them. Ghetto them Kill them. Something could have been done long before this became a problem.

Stalin rose up out of the Revolution. I said that these brought bad leaders. Lenin, Then Trotsky would that be the same. Trotsky was he like Stalin. Stalin had the military at his beckon call. Help from the world may have staved off much of the problem. It is hard to create a revisionist or if history.

Regrettably, it is no surprise 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.

When we practice the tactics of our enemy such as torture are we not the enemy within ourselves. When people justify the tactics they detest as good and right. They have become the enemy. We were not the enemy. We look in the mirror and become the enemy.
 
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.
Did I not explain what it meant in several detailed posts at the beginning of the thread? Please don't make dismissive comments like that, it is not conducive to propert debate.

It is simplistic because it posits a simple, implausible situations rather than a complex, multi-faceted one as real life and real exploration of morality requires. Morality as such is always part of life and life is complicated, these kind of scenarios particularly so implausible ones reveal little of most of its aspects in any useful way.

But, no someone should have told Plutarch he was wrong, his detailed lives in which he tried to show moral problems through the complex lives of the famous and infamous was a waste of time he would have revealed more with a few simple, implausible scenario's as Ethereal has discovered and of course those foolish religions with their complex scriptures and mythology with which they come to their ethical precepts what were they thinking of, how wrong could they have been as "Ethereal the Wise" has shown.:roll:


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.
Has it? Really? I must have missed that. The only discussion it spawned seemed to be after people acknowledged it was a rather meaningless scenario.



Then feel free to debate the substance of the issue instead of annoying me with your incessant nit-picking.
I did debate it.
 
Did I not explain what it meant in several detailed posts at the beginning of the thread? Please don't make dismissive comments like that, it is not conducive to propert debate.

It is simplistic because it posits a simple, implausible situations rather than a complex, multi-faceted one as real life and real exploration of morality requires. Morality as such is always part of life and life is complicated, these kind of scenarios particularly so implausible ones reveal little of most of its aspects in any useful way.

Says you. I disagree that a worthwhile moral analysis cannot arise from a simple or implausible premise.

But, no someone should have told Plutarch he was wrong, his detailed lives in which he tried to show moral problems through the complex lives of the famous and infamous was a waste of time he would have revealed more with a few simple, implausible scenario's as Ethereal has discovered and of course those foolish religions with their complex scriptures and mythology with which they come to their ethical precepts what were they thinking of, how wrong could they have been as "Ethereal the Wise" has shown.:roll:

Irrelevant tangent.

Has it? Really? I must have missed that. The only discussion it spawned seemed to be after people acknowledged it was a rather meaningless scenario.

Yes, we all understand. It's meaningless because it's simplistic, and it's simplistic because it's meaningless. Very good.

I did debate it.

You've debated nothing. Instead, you've chosen to fixate upon my hypothetical, ignoring the moral quandary it poses and the discussions it yielded. Your only objection seems to be that Plutarch didn't posit it, oh, and that it's simplistic, as if nothing worthwhile could arise from a simplistic premise.

DP Member: There is no God...discuss!

Wessexman: That's a simplistic statement! Nothing worthwhile can come of it. Accommodate me!
 
Says you. I disagree that a worthwhile moral analysis cannot arise from a simple or implausible premise.
And yet you don't point out why. If life is something complex then how can morality, when one is trying to show the real-life dilemmas, be shown in any simple scenario?

Take this scenario, what is achieved by it? All I can see is that it shows most of us, from the comfort of our desks, would say we would probably torture in that extreme scenario. I do not see what can be directly taken away from or really used for any kind further analysis.


Irrelevant tangent.
Not really, you seem to be condemning all worthwhile more complex analysis to the waste-paper bin.
Yes, we all understand. It's meaningless because it's simplistic, and it's simplistic because it's meaningless. Very good.
How was that the argument in that passage?:confused:



You've debated nothing. Instead, you've chosen to fixate upon my hypothetical, ignoring the moral quandary it poses and the discussions it yielded. Your only objection seems to be that Plutarch didn't posit it, oh, and that it's simplistic, as if nothing worthwhile could arise from a simplistic premise.
Did you not read my past posts at the beginning? Because they were reasonably detailed. You took no notice and then when I reiterate my points more succinctly later you still ignore most of it and hone into a few words.What worthwhile has come from this simplistic scenario? (And it is not a premise but a scenario.).

DP Member: There is no God...discuss!

Wessexman: That's a simplistic statement! Nothing worthwhile can come of it. Accommodate me!
:yawn:
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom