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. :roll:
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.
