Torture V. Killing

[jeffpugh]

Bravo.

[dairygirl4u2c]

to clarify, hurting is getting info that important, torture is jsut cruelty for the sake of cruelty. in my scenarios.

so are you saying that killing in a war is not evil and so not justifying the means? why couldn't you say that hurting in a war is not evil? is "hurting" inherently torture to you no matter what? i'm still not getting any explanatinos for why you can kill but you can't hurt as per what i just asked. execution is not what i'm arguing to comare.
i'm arguing killing, for example, muslim zeolots conspiring to kill us in some middle east area with no immediate threat to us. v. hurting someone who has the info to save millions right now. both in just wars

as a separate issue, i'm still not sure why you insist the ends don't justify the means. it seems just like something people are told once, and it makes sense at some point, so they apply it placse it isn't realistic like this situation. or, if i would accept that you can't be evil to get a good mean.
it seems that many pick and choose what they want to be "evil" means and what they want to say "is never really evil to begin with" means. with no clear distinctions for how to make those designations. which, i'd argue, is happening here with killing v hurting.

[dairygirl4u2c]

i finally thought of a pretty good distinction which no one has explicitly stated.

the muslim zeolot is an active aggressor, even if very un immmediate. and the person being tortured is no longer able to be active in his aggression as he's immobilized, as would necessarily be the case if you are able to torture.

this is sort of reltaed to what some have said, but better state IMHO.

but, still, i don't think just cause i found a difference means it's significant enough.

having the standard.... kill a muslim zeolot with no apparent immediate threat to us, and not hurting a muslim with info to save millions right now.. is not wise.

Edited November 3, 2007 by dairygirl4u2c

[Groo the Wanderer]

I would rather die than be wake boarded...just can't stand to wear wetsuits and skis....

[kenrockthefirst]

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' post='1413312' date='Nov 2 2007, 05:39 PM']first, killing is cruel too.

second, your analogy is not analogous. they are not to be tortured just for the sake of torturing them. at least in my opinion for what id allow. the catechism is clear you don't torture for the sake and i agree.

what the catechism is not clear on, i don't think, and how i think your analogy fails, is that the "torture" that we'd be doing is only for informational purposes. if they prob know something with a lot of lives at risk, hardcore torture. if not sure or not a lot, less torture. depends on the stuation. plus you don't kill the person you torture as in your analogy.

we're not being cruel for the sake of cruel as you analogize.

no one has really explained how they are different yet. (if you are saying the analogy to make the point that torture is agonizeing an simply insist on priniple, i understand, but you're not being clear on that)[/quote]
What the Church teaches is that you cannot treat human beings in a utilitarian way, for what you "can get out of them." Hence, you cannot exploit embryonic stem cells, cannot perform abortions or euthanasia, etc., because that is dealing with human lives as commodities.

In this case, to violate the dignity of a human being through torture for "informational purposes" is likewise to be condemned.

[dairygirl4u2c]

that's a good distinction. "utilitarian informational purposes" while killing is not. you also have what i pointed out as they are actively aggressive, the people we kill, even if effectively less directly dangerous.

i guess it's just an inherent value difference. i think you're dead wrong, as i'm sure you do with me. but, it's a value difference.