Various Waterboarding Scenarios

[Alycin]

The fact that an immoral action [u]may or may not [/u]save millions of lives doesn't make the action morally permissable...Embryonic stem cell research ring a bell? If you were God and somehow knew beyond a shadow of a doubt that these people you are just dying to torture actually had some kind of information that you needed to save lives... then you could try to argue using your scenarios.

But you're not God, are you?



By the way... I don't think you're grasping the concept of ends justifying the means.

[dairygirl4u2c]

i'm grasping the concept. if you accept that as your premise, then it's sound to a degree and arguably. i'm a consequentialist, so as a foundational problem, i cannot see how you'd not justify the means.
or find a way to rationalize it as you do with so many other things.... like saying capital punishment isn't justifying the means etc... but again i'm a consequentialist, so i would say that. to me it's the end that matters weighed with various other considrations, totaltity of the situation.
see, i could embrace it as a rule of thumb the ends stuff but that's all.
to me, it's not evil an evil act to begin with if the end is proper.

i still think you better shape up before you go before God and explain why you let millions of people die or those children die, or would be willing to. i know i'd be happy to die for these convictions and those pepole.
he's not gonna be pleased you were being dogmatic at the expense of lives and common sense....

Edited February 9, 2008 by dairygirl4u2c

[Alycin]

lol!

Execpt that your scenarios are MADE UP and highly unlikely!

To say that if the end of something is good, the action is morally permissable, is laughable.

Premarital sex ending in an awesome bundle of joy makes premarital sex right? Uhm, no.

[Alycin]

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' post='1457911' date='Feb 8 2008, 08:25 PM']i still think you better shape up before you go before God and explain why you let millions of people die or those children die, or would be willing to. i know i'd be happy to die for these convictions and those pepole.
he's not gonna be pleased you were being dogmatic at the expense of lives and common sense....[/quote]


Ha! Thanks for the tip.

By the way, I already mentioned yesterday that I would give up my life for people. Just not kill or torture anyone.:

[quote name='Alycin' post='1457461' date='Feb 8 2008, 02:18 AM']I would most definitely give up my own life in order to not compromise my morals. I would gladly be killed before having to kill another human being.[/quote]

Good try with the guilt trip though!

[Deb]

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' post='1457853' date='Feb 8 2008, 07:11 PM']it just seems to defy common sense that you'd let millions die.
the only reason that i can see is because you're being told that's what you have to believe.[/quote]


Who would be telling me what to believe? Who is telling you what to believe?

[MIKolbe]

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' post='1457706' date='Feb 8 2008, 01:25 PM']it's not a dead horse until you acknowledge explicitly....

"i would allow those children to die even though torturing might have saved their lives"[/quote]
in other words.. I WILL DO EVIL SO THAT GOOD MAY COME FROM IT.


[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' post='1457706' date='Feb 8 2008, 01:25 PM']"i would allow millions to die even though in that hypothetical torturing might have saved millions of lives"[/quote]
in other words.. I WILL DO EVIL SO THAT GOOD MAY COME FROM IT.


[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' post='1457706' date='Feb 8 2008, 01:25 PM']i also want to add to the hypos,,, although i admit it's getting more far fetched... that you know they are prone to spilling the beans when tortured.
or... the only way they would and they stated they would is if you pried their fingernails off[/quote]
in other words.. I WILL DO EVIL SO THAT GOOD MAY COME FROM IT.

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' post='1457706' date='Feb 8 2008, 01:25 PM']please state this or it's not a dead horse.

all of you who said it's not allowed are cowards, and if you turned down to torture in these situations, you should be executed.[/quote]

in other words.. I WILL DO EVIL SO THAT GOOD MAY COME FROM IT. [size=1] (and if you don't believe me, i will appeal to your pride and call you a COWARD)[/size]

someone take the horse to the glue factory now.....

[Justin86]

[quote name='MIkolbe' post='1458202' date='Feb 10 2008, 01:34 AM']I WILL DO EVIL SO THAT GOOD MAY COME FROM IT.[/quote]
How does the Church's teaching on just war not say the same thing?

[MIKolbe]

Tell you what....

Instead of trying to prove that something evil is in fact good by switching the arguments around, let's see if you can come at this argument straight on....

From the CCC
[i]2313 Non-combatants, wounded soldiers, and prisoners must be respected and treated humanely. [/i]

Explain how water-boarding or other forms of torutre perpetrated on non-combatants, wounded soldiers, and prisoners is in line with the above statement from the CCC?

Possible answers which are irrelevant
1) We are the good guys, they are the bad guys, so it's ok.
2) It's war, so it's ok.
3) It's a war like no other, so it's ok.
4) They started it, so it's ok.
5) Other people do it, so it's ok.
6) The Church has done bad things (maybe even worse things) in the past, so it's ok.
7) MIKolbe, you're an idiot, and you have no idea how to defend a nation; so it's ok.
8) You don't know what it's like, so it's ok.
9) This is the only way to get info, so it's ok.


And for all those who say water-boarding ain't torture, and i should grow a set and shut up; this is from the AFJ (armed forced journal)(perhaps the definitve proof waterboard enthusists will accept, appearently for some more authoritative than the Catholic Church):

[i]Let AFJ be crystal clear on a subject where these men are opaque: Waterboarding is a torture technique that has its history rooted in the Spanish Inquisition. [b]In 1947, the U.S. prosecuted a Japanese military officer for carrying out a form of waterboarding on a U.S. civilian during World War II.[/b]

Waterboarding inflicts on its victims the terror of imminent death. And as with all torture techniques, it is, therefore, an inherently flawed method for gaining reliable information. In short, it doesn’t work. That blunt truth means all U.S. leaders, present and future, should be clear on the issue.[/i]

[url="http://www.armedforcesjournal.com/2007/12/3230108"]full article here[/url]

[url="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/10/05/AR2007100502492_pf.html"]And here's a story about some guys who used to get info without torture or "compromising their humanity"... but that was then, and they are just silly old men now..[/url]


Heard this today at Mass
[i]But the serpent said to the woman:
“You certainly will not die!
No, God knows well that the moment you eat of it
your eyes will be opened and you will be like gods
who know what is good and what is evil.”[/i]

I ain't no theologian, but sounds like the best way the devil tricks us is NOT by telling us not to do good, but by telling us to do evil stuff that is not REALLY evil.

[Alycin]

[quote name='MIkolbe' post='1458655' date='Feb 10 2008, 03:55 PM']Tell you what....

Instead of trying to prove that something evil is in fact good by switching the arguments around, let's see if you can come at this argument straight on....

From the CCC
[i]2313 Non-combatants, wounded soldiers, and prisoners must be respected and treated humanely. [/i]

Explain how water-boarding or other forms of torutre perpetrated on non-combatants, wounded soldiers, and prisoners is in line with the above statement from the CCC?

Possible answers which are irrelevant
1) We are the good guys, they are the bad guys, so it's ok.
2) It's war, so it's ok.
3) It's a war like no other, so it's ok.
4) They started it, so it's ok.
5) Other people do it, so it's ok.
6) The Church has done bad things (maybe even worse things) in the past, so it's ok.
7) MIKolbe, you're an idiot, and you have no idea how to defend a nation; so it's ok.
8) You don't know what it's like, so it's ok.
9) This is the only way to get info, so it's ok.
And for all those who say water-boarding ain't torture, and i should grow a set and shut up; this is from the AFJ (armed forced journal)(perhaps the definitve proof waterboard enthusists will accept, appearently for some more authoritative than the Catholic Church):

[i]Let AFJ be crystal clear on a subject where these men are opaque: Waterboarding is a torture technique that has its history rooted in the Spanish Inquisition. [b]In 1947, the U.S. prosecuted a Japanese military officer for carrying out a form of waterboarding on a U.S. civilian during World War II.[/b]

Waterboarding inflicts on its victims the terror of imminent death. And as with all torture techniques, it is, therefore, an inherently flawed method for gaining reliable information. In short, it doesn’t work. That blunt truth means all U.S. leaders, present and future, should be clear on the issue.[/i]

[url="http://www.armedforcesjournal.com/2007/12/3230108"]full article here[/url]

[url="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/10/05/AR2007100502492_pf.html"]And here's a story about some guys who used to get info without torture or "compromising their humanity"... but that was then, and they are just silly old men now..[/url]
Heard this today at Mass
[i]But the serpent said to the woman:
“You certainly will not die!
No, God knows well that the moment you eat of it
your eyes will be opened and you will be like gods
who know what is good and what is evil.”[/i]

I ain't no theologian, but sounds like the best way the devil tricks us is NOT by telling us not to do good, but by telling us to do evil stuff that is not REALLY evil.[/quote]

You're so smart.

Edited February 10, 2008 by Alycin

[XIX]

[quote name='MIkolbe' post='1458655' date='Feb 10 2008, 04:55 PM']Tell you what....

Instead of trying to prove that something evil is in fact good by switching the arguments around, let's see if you can come at this argument straight on....

From the CCC
[i]2313 Non-combatants, wounded soldiers, and prisoners must be respected and treated humanely. [/i]

Explain how water-boarding or other forms of torutre perpetrated on non-combatants, wounded soldiers, and prisoners is in line with the above statement from the CCC?

Possible answers which are irrelevant
1) We are the good guys, they are the bad guys, so it's ok.
2) It's war, so it's ok.
3) It's a war like no other, so it's ok.
4) They started it, so it's ok.
5) Other people do it, so it's ok.
6) The Church has done bad things (maybe even worse things) in the past, so it's ok.
7) MIKolbe, you're an idiot, and you have no idea how to defend a nation; so it's ok.
8) You don't know what it's like, so it's ok.
9) This is the only way to get info, so it's ok.
And for all those who say water-boarding ain't torture, and i should grow a set and shut up; this is from the AFJ (armed forced journal)(perhaps the definitve proof waterboard enthusists will accept, appearently for some more authoritative than the Catholic Church):

[i]Let AFJ be crystal clear on a subject where these men are opaque: Waterboarding is a torture technique that has its history rooted in the Spanish Inquisition. [b]In 1947, the U.S. prosecuted a Japanese military officer for carrying out a form of waterboarding on a U.S. civilian during World War II.[/b]

Waterboarding inflicts on its victims the terror of imminent death. And as with all torture techniques, it is, therefore, an inherently flawed method for gaining reliable information. In short, it doesn’t work. That blunt truth means all U.S. leaders, present and future, should be clear on the issue.[/i]

[url="http://www.armedforcesjournal.com/2007/12/3230108"]full article here[/url]

[url="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/10/05/AR2007100502492_pf.html"]And here's a story about some guys who used to get info without torture or "compromising their humanity"... but that was then, and they are just silly old men now..[/url]
Heard this today at Mass
[i]But the serpent said to the woman:
“You certainly will not die!
No, God knows well that the moment you eat of it
your eyes will be opened and you will be like gods
who know what is good and what is evil.”[/i]

I ain't no theologian, but sounds like the best way the devil tricks us is NOT by telling us not to do good, but by telling us to do evil stuff that is not REALLY evil.[/quote]
You should tell us what you really think.

[ardillacid]

[quote name='MIkolbe' post='1458655' date='Feb 10 2008, 03:55 PM']Tell you what....

Instead of trying to prove that something evil is in fact good by switching the arguments around, let's see if you can come at this argument straight on....

From the CCC
[i]2313 Non-combatants, wounded soldiers, and prisoners must be respected and treated humanely. [/i]

Explain how water-boarding or other forms of torutre perpetrated on non-combatants, wounded soldiers, and prisoners is in line with the above statement from the CCC?

Possible answers which are irrelevant
1) We are the good guys, they are the bad guys, so it's ok.
2) It's war, so it's ok.
3) It's a war like no other, so it's ok.
4) They started it, so it's ok.
5) Other people do it, so it's ok.
6) The Church has done bad things (maybe even worse things) in the past, so it's ok.
7) MIKolbe, you're an idiot, and you have no idea how to defend a nation; so it's ok.
8) You don't know what it's like, so it's ok.
9) This is the only way to get info, so it's ok.
And for all those who say water-boarding ain't torture, and i should grow a set and shut up; this is from the AFJ (armed forced journal)(perhaps the definitve proof waterboard enthusists will accept, appearently for some more authoritative than the Catholic Church):

[i]Let AFJ be crystal clear on a subject where these men are opaque: Waterboarding is a torture technique that has its history rooted in the Spanish Inquisition. [b]In 1947, the U.S. prosecuted a Japanese military officer for carrying out a form of waterboarding on a U.S. civilian during World War II.[/b]

Waterboarding inflicts on its victims the terror of imminent death. And as with all torture techniques, it is, therefore, an inherently flawed method for gaining reliable information. In short, it doesn’t work. That blunt truth means all U.S. leaders, present and future, should be clear on the issue.[/i]

[url="http://www.armedforcesjournal.com/2007/12/3230108"]full article here[/url]

[url="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/10/05/AR2007100502492_pf.html"]And here's a story about some guys who used to get info without torture or "compromising their humanity"... but that was then, and they are just silly old men now..[/url]
Heard this today at Mass
[i]But the serpent said to the woman:
“You certainly will not die!
No, God knows well that the moment you eat of it
your eyes will be opened and you will be like gods
who know what is good and what is evil.”[/i]

I ain't no theologian, but sounds like the best way the devil tricks us is NOT by telling us not to do good, but by telling us to do evil stuff that is not REALLY evil.[/quote]
#7 is at least partially true!

[MIKolbe]

yeah..

you got me..

[dairygirl4u2c]

[quote]in other words.. I WILL DO EVIL SO THAT GOOD MAY COME FROM IT. (and if you don't believe me, i will appeal to your pride and call you a COWARD)

someone take the horse to the glue factory now.....[/quote]

i don't think it's evil. but if it's is, it's for the greater good and the common sense way to proceed, sometimes. i don't see how you could call it evil though.

you are a coward kolbe. who would let an underground vault of children die when the person who put them there can get them out and is the only way they're going to get out? only someone who puts dogmatic approach to a situation prevail over common sense and the way of God. God is not immune from violent acts when necessary, as reading the bible shows.

you talk about how ineffective the methods are. but, the FBI etc have said they've gotten information. and in hypos like my undergound vault scenario, the person we all know knows the info. bad guys knowing the vital info and everyone knowing htey know it is rare but not uncommon. you guys like to raionalize that these are "unlikely" but the point is that you'd let it happen... and it's not always unlikely, if you think about many criminals in everyday society knowing something and not telling (like the police beatings etc)
really, your points about ineffectivenes doesn't matter. you should just admit that even if it was the perfect siutation, you would not torture, cause it's against your principles. you're making excuses for your cowardice and silly principles.
instead of stating ilke i asked to say "i would let millions die etc" you simply mocked and puts words in my mouth in caps..... still avoiding?
your principles of death, a lack of common sense, absolutely immoral cowardice, and inhumane evil.

Edited February 11, 2008 by dairygirl4u2c

[dairygirl4u2c]

[quote]How does the Church's teaching on just war not say the same thing?[/quote]

well, that's self defense. i'm not being sarcastic.
and similar to the principle of double effects.
when you bomb hiroshima, ideally you'd do it when preventing death would be proportinate to what you're doing. i doubt that was proportionate and needed but, i'm sure catholics could disagree on that. the idea is that you're intended to kill the baddies, and the civiliian casualties are a side effect.

now, you could get into many many death side effects, and it'd almsot effectively be worse than many times you'd justify the means, and that's a big point i have. but people just don't like to think about it, and let it go on technicality.
i still dont know why it's okay to kill people to get info or prevent catastrohes, or execute in general, but it's not okay to torture especially if it'd be certain to get info.

here is a good part of an article that put it better than me:

[quote]The Double Speak of Double Effect:

From the combox:

It is the same as the principle of double effect in ectopic pregnancy. The surgery is intended, the death of the infant is not intended. It is known that the infant shall die, but that is not the intent.

Does “double-effect” sound like “double-speak” to anybody besides me? The same line of thought is used to rationalize so called ‘collateral damage’, in which we know that the bombs we are dropping are about to kill people (pregnant women included), yet somehow our hands are clean - all because we don’t “intend” it (whatever that means). How can anyone seriously claim that those deaths are unintentional (without twisting the word’s meaning with philosophy)?

Let’s say our government had nuked Baghdad to kill Saddam before the war started. Could they have honestly claimed, “we didn’t intend to destroy Baghdad and kill all its inhabitants . . . we only intended to kill Saddam”? This is the same sort of reasoning used to defend the obliteration of Nagasaki and Hiroshima. But strangely, the arguments don’t rely soley upon double-effect. The arguments, while claiming clean hands, add the idea of proportionality (”if we hadn’t killed more of them, they’d have killed more of us”).

Torturous Limits

How many people can we kill with double-effect before we have to bring in other arguments like proportionality? One? Two? Ten? Ten million?

Is there anything that double-effect won’t give us a free pass to do?


“Little girl, I know that you are innocent. I know that you have nothing to do with your father. But you see, he has planted a nuke in NYC. We’ve got him in the other room.” And then we bring the terrorist into the room. “Little girl,” we continue, “We don’t want to have to do what we’re about to do. But there’s no time left. What we’re about to do isn’t intended to . . . ” But then we cut to the chase, let in the foreign goons, and unintentionally allow them to gang-rape an innocent girl. And we save NYC. God bless double-effect.

What is the limit to double-effect? Is there no limit? Can we rape innocents, kill children, torture anybody - all “unintentionally” for a supposed greater good? Can we get away with anything, as long as we don’t intend it?

If we can kill babies in wombs unintentionally, then there is no limit to what double-effect can do for us. We can commit whatever evil we like, as long as we cloak it under the guise of double-effect. Yet underneath that cloak we see the truth - we are simply doing evil in order that good might come from it (”greater good”).

The Greater Good of Evil

Maybe gang-raping little children does serve the greater good? Maybe indirectly killing babies serves the greater good? But at least call a spade a spade. Let’s stop pulling out these fanciful ideas like ‘double-effect’ and just cut to the chase: sometimes, to get what we want, we’ve got to destroy, kill, rape, and mutilate.

Sometimes, being good means being bad.[/quote]

Edited February 11, 2008 by dairygirl4u2c

[dairygirl4u2c]

when innocent people are involved it gets grayer but it's still probably the greater good.


[quote]Imagine that you are a federal law enforcement agent in New York. In the course of your duties, you capture an Islamic terrorist just before he can set off a nuclear explosive in the heart of the city. The terrorist tells you that another bomb has been planted in Chicago, where your family happens to live, that he knows where it is, and, unless it’s stopped, it will be detonated within the hour. The catch is that he won’t tell you the specific location. Other agents attempt to torture the information out of the terrorist, but he knows that he only has to hold out for an hour to prevail. Torture is completely ineffective.

Another agent locates the terrorist’s newborn son. The baby is brought to the interrogation room and handed to you. One of the other agents prepares a large pot of boiling water.

You are certain of four things: (1) the terrorist is telling the truth about the existence of the second bomb and his knowledge of its location; (2) there is no way to find the bomb before it detonates without being told its location; (3) if the bomb is not located and defused, it will detonate and kill hundreds of thousands of people; and (4) if you begin to boil the baby, the terrorist will eventually reveal the location of the second bomb.

What do you do, and what is your moral justification?[/quote]


why couldn't you torture him? he knows the info.
the baby at least starts to kind of make sense, not torturing as he's innocent.
not torturing the terrorist makes absolutely no sense other than to those blind taking dogma too far.
[quote]“Ann Frank dilemma”, in which the subject is asked to imagine that he lives in Germany during the Third Reich, that he is hiding Ann Frank and her family in his attic, and that an SS officer appears at his door and asks him, “Are there Jews in your attic?”[/quote]

why can't you lie? if you say nothing, they'll catch on.
you know you all would probably lie. so in addition to cowards, you're probably hypocrites too.
it's not that you're being weak and lying when you should tell the truth.... it's that you're doing what makes sense and is the right thing to do.