MSC

3 minutes ago, Peterkin said:

These are selfish considerations... Is that wrong?

I don't think so. Doing what you can live with is more about personal self awareness. We all need to be able to look at ourselves in the mirror without a mountain of shame and guilt. There is a shortage of consideration on how we treat ourselves in comparison to how much consideration we give to how we treat others. To me, both are relevant factors in most moral situations. 

9 minutes ago, Peterkin said:

Evil is an emergent property of the valuation process of self-reflective moral entities.

Wow. That's a really good definition. I'd have used the word "agents" over "entities" but it makes little difference. 

+1

32 minutes ago, TheVat said:

wonder if the drug cocktail might be worth trying.

Probably. Beats nails in the fingertips and a defibrillator easy. LSD is another potential avenue. I'd definitely try drug cocktails over torture. The perp has valuable Intel. Physical torture; especially for the untrained, is a threat to that Intel, as you may accidentally kill the perp before they divulge anything. 

7 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

I don't think Socrates did either

Oh you know him. He'd just tell us he is wise for admitting he doesn't know whether or not the soul exists! 

8 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

Indeed, evil is as rare as a unicorn

😆 I've been avoiding the problem of evil literature, but this comment about sums it up! Often written about, but impossible to find. But saying evil doesn't exist, in my experience, opens you up to all manner of strange and unfair accusations. It's a slog.

6 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

It's because you've damaged your soul, as Socrates would say...

I dont really know if I believe in souls. It would certainly damage my mind and my self-image. If it is the parent scenario though, while I'd still say it were morally incorrect to torture, I think this is a situation where paternal instinct is so strong I'd probably have no real choice in the matter. I'd just be bound to do what most mammalian parents would do. Protect their young. In this hypothetical scenario, since I prefer my scenarios to have some realism, since we know I'd still be tried in court for torturing someone because my child was in danger, after the fact, I'd probably enter a temporary insanity plea. 

6 hours ago, Intoscience said:

My focus for answering the OP is centred around the one possibility where an evil act could be the right thing to do and the lesser of the 2 evils. In long consideration and listening to all the arguments presented I cannot honestly change my stance and still suggest that there could plausibly be a real situation where torture is the only option left which is the lesser of the 2 evils. 

Agreed, but we are still calling it an evil, even if it lesser of the two. When the only other option is inaction/apathy, and it's your own child in danger, you will probably choose to torture or condone it's use. I would not say this makes it morally correct, just the least morally incorrect. Even if successful at making safe my child, the memory and knowledge that I have tortured would be something that I'd feel shame about. I think it's because I'm a parent. Yes I can prioritize my own child in this situation, but I can't forget that the person I tortured was once also a child, someone's baby. A part of me will empathize with paternal heartbreak over seeing your child become a monster. 

I'd probably not judge any other parent that ever had or has to do this either. Mostly I am speaking for myself. This is why it is morally incorrect for at least me. Even as a necessary evil, I'll still feel evil afterward. 

Maybe I've just been reading too much Hume and put more stock in moral reasoning through emotional sentiment than I should? 

5 hours ago, beecee said:

And back on page 25 above.....Ooops, sorry, gives self uppercut!

Yup. I'm the Rincewind of debate (Discworld reference) 🤣 this new rule is hard. Still, I'm young, I'm allowed to make a few more mistakes. What's your excuse, auld yin?

43 minutes ago, beecee said:

I mean why the fuck would you assume it's not a fair one? Unless of course you live in Iraq, or Iran, or some African nation controlled by some despot. 

He didn't even assume that. Strawman. He literally said "assuming it's a fair trial.." and you're now accusing him of having claimed the exact opposite? This comment borders on racist also. Needs to be said.

You really ought to calm down a bit and stop knee jerk reacting to everything we say by going down the pointless route of trying to question the credibility of an entire field while attempting to actually poorly practice it. All the while the irony of that, is lost on you. 

You're not actually attacking our arguments, just philosophy, which is a thinly veiled attack on philosophers. Especially as you are still picking and choosing which philosophers are to be listened to and which ones are not and going so far as to misrepresent their views as if they are the same as yours. They aren't. Kant was a moral absolutist. 

I don't like or agree with everything every philosopher has to say. Some are total assholes to each other, some are not. You can't paint us all with the same brush. The sort of criticisms you are attempting to credit as strictly a problem of philosophy as a field of study, are criticisms that apply to any group of humans. You're not at odds with philosophers or philosophy, you're at odds with human behavior in general... in which case, welcome to the club that you've always been in 😆 

50 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

!

Moderator Note

I'm going to call for more civility here, or I must assume this long thread has run its course. There's been little discussion of late, so I'd like to remind you all that belittling someone else's stance doesn't count as support for your own. You're at a table, not on opposite sides of a fence. 

 

Sorry, hadn't seen this before my last comment. I'm done now. Thank you for weighing in. I also feel the thread has run its course now. 

3 minutes ago, beecee said:

In conclusion, the view that it is, all things considered, morally wrong to torture the terrorist in the scenario outlined faces very serious objections; and it is difficult to see how these objections can be met. It is plausible, therefore, that there are some imaginable circumstances in which it is morally permissible to torture someone.

Imaginable situations; does not mean realistic ones. I'm not a total moral absolutest either. I'm a context relativist. I could imagine a world where everyone feels that pain is pleasurable and that everyone wants to be tortured. There is a morally permissible context in that imaginary scenario. It's not real life though. It's just a what-if fantasy around the idea of it being okay to torture because someone likes torturing. This is the very thing you took issue with from philosophy in the first place. Fanciful thought experiments and scripted scenarios. Well the world isn't a movie or a game. It's reality. If the context is never going to call for torture being permissible in this world, then why argue for it until one of these imaginary scenarios actually calls for it? 

5 minutes ago, beecee said:

In actual fact, in the first instance, I am arguing from a ethically morally correct position, in that innocent lives far, far outweight any consideration for the perpetrators of evil. In the second instance, I am arguing that while I support laws and edicts against torture, just as I do against killing another human, that on very rare occasions, we may need to disregard those laws and edicts. In the third instance, I am arguing that such rare occurences when we may need to use such means, makes them morally correct, whether or not we are successful in saving the innocent lives at peril. In the forth instance, I am also saying that guilt can be 100% certain, or at least beyond any reasonable doubt. In the fifth instance I am arguing that is the rare circumstances when situations arise as being discussed, and as per the previous points, then the normal judicial system maybe put aside, and certainly would be in those circumstances. In the sixth instance, I am pretty sure that in a normal westernised democratic society, where some low life puts at risk the lives of thousands of innocents, then that society would support the decisions made, whether successful or not. 

And I disagree. Simple as that. I don't think yours is the morally correct position and you've not convinced me otherwise. Sorry. You aren't stating facts. You are stating your opinion and mislabeling them as facts. 

23 minutes ago, beecee said:

Actually and evidently it is the opposite taking place. Peterkin agrees with me and has admitted to considering torture in rare one off scenarios, but is now only left with maintaining a purely philsophical argument against that. Bashing philsophy? ☺️

There are different philsophies being put with the scenarios in question. You are appearing to demand that yours is correct and mine is wrong? Which I interpret as a pretentious methodology of maintaining ethical and moral standings for a criminal/terrorist, and putting at risk the lives of thousands of innocent people?

I am certainly maintaining that irrespective of whatever means undertaken, those innocent lives deserve every chance possible.

Nope, I'm not demanding anything. I am requesting that you address points raised by myself and others equitably. Ignoring the majority of them does nothing to convince others reading this that you are correct. I'd rather not assume that innocents would condone torture to save their lives. I'd also rather not torture a terrorist when I don't know if doing so will result in another retributive attack just for doing so. Resulting in more deaths. In a way, torturing them just makes it easier for others to view them as martyrs and gives weight, due or undue, to their claims that they are fighting against tyrants. 

The war on terror is just that, a war. You can't win every battle and some defeats are strategic. 

This bit is unrelated; but a new rule I've set for myself is to leave it at agreeing to disagree, before things get heated. Which is what I'm going to do now. I've said everything I need to say, if you can convince me that my points are moot, I'll respond again. Until then however take care and remember that this is just a place of open discussion, not a battleground and I bet nearly all of us here have no influence to action any of our suggestions or view points.

3 minutes ago, beecee said:

Metaphysics is a dark ocean without shores or lighthouse, strewn with many a philosophic wreck. Immanuel Kant

Just to be clear; Kant is a deontological ethicist. He personally believed in absolute rules. He once argued that it is always wrong to tell a lie. Even if someone gets hurt because of it. He would probably argue against torture too. Now, I actually agree with him and Wittgenstein on these critiques of metaphysics. Which are not critiques of philosophy. We also aren't discussing metaphysics here either. We are discussing ethics. Something which Kant very much believed in the importance of. 

8 minutes ago, beecee said:

Philosophy of science is about as useful to scientists as ornithology is to birds. Attributed to Richard Feynman (1918-88) U.S. Physicist. Nobel Prize 1965.

Scientists aren't birds and have the capacity to learn philosophy of science... 

9 minutes ago, beecee said:

It's truly amazing how offended philsophers can be, when shown how airy fairy their actual discipline is...I have also shown an example or two of less then "good faith " arguments.....

It's truly amazing how convinced some people can be, that they've actually shown that there is anything so wrong with philosophy, that the field can only be subject to ridicule. Talk about throwing out babies with the bathwater 😆 

Here is an idea for an experiment: Go to the physics section and start trying to do the same with physics. My prediction is that they will be just as defensive of their field as I am of mine. Especially when historically speaking, philosophers and scientists are targeted with these same criticisms and far worse by dictators and other tyrannical regimes, when we are so devoted to the truth we continue speak out against them even when it becomes dangerous to do so, sometimes at the cost of our lives and livelihoods. 

Final point; this whole hard science vs soft science debate is a myth, perpetuated by science-fiction writers and people who end up more celebrity than scientist. Good scientists and good philosophers listen to each other and work together. Always have. Always will. We don't always agree but we don't stoop to trying to publicly make light of the others field. If a few individuals do, it means little to me. I'm very confident that the relationship between science and philosophy is symbiotic. 

50 minutes ago, beecee said:

My lifestyle and interactions and experiences over 77 years, tells me he is certainly in the minority.

Appealing to age means little when a man like Donald Trump is only a year or two older than you. 

6 minutes ago, beecee said:

In Australia, we call that  "beating around the bush" or in Northern American english, avoiding the actual point...bringing up many myriads of examples and remote possibilities so that you can avoid talking about the important issue at hand or the actual subject matter. Plus of course getting back into the nitty gritty and actual circumstances, as I have mentioned many times, you have actually agreed with what me and Intoscience are putting to you. You agree you would do this lesser wrong. Although in my opinion, the lesser wrong actually becomes a "right" and is morally the correct decision to undertake.

The first part of this kind of sounds like projection. Peterkin is arguing in good faith and is doing his best to keep you on track. At this point however, you've summoned an army of strawman and we all have chafe stuck in our teeth now. 

I also don't think you've understood what Intoscience is saying. To be clear, he's not agreeing with you, just observing that this topic isn't straightforward, rounding up the discussion and making a point to say good arguments and points have been raised by all sides of the debate. 

I also feel that it means little to point out that most of us have agreed we may engage in torture in very personal but rare circumstances, that is more of an admission of our human falibility. It's not an admission that it is the right thing to do, just that as humans, our self-control to do the right thing has its limits due to our emotional nature and our implicit and explicit biases. 

3 hours ago, Peterkin said:

That's not a game, that's a sigh of resignation. I am well cognizant of my place in the minority.

I still am failing to be convinced by Beecee that you are in the minority.

I also it ironic that while bashing philosophy in general, Beecee is behaving exactly like the most stubborn kind of philosopher. The kind that for all intents and purposes, agrees with you, but makes a mountain of a molehill in one or two nuanced differences. 

Ultimately, I think the unspoken but most influential difference in the views expressed here, is the crime prevention vs due process debate within criminal justice theory. A debate I personally find tedious because I really really don't like forced binary choices between two similarly important factors. 

Yes we want to prevent crime, but without due process, we cannot prevent crimes that can only be perpetrated by members of law enforcement. 

The whole torture idea being acceptable before a trial really is putting the cart before the horse, as you said earlier. Confession under duress is a great way to get a case thrown out completely. It's throwing away the chance for justice to be served and for evidence to be polluted by its proximity to a crime of moral turpitude. 

We all need to keep in mind; that if a person is found not guilty, they cannot be retried for the same crime unless new evidence comes to light. If you've already submitted the best evidence in the trial that was corrupted by law enforcement, then legally bringing the same charge to the person is going to be a massive hurdle to overcome. The consequences of this; a costlier and more time consuming process and the erosion of public trust in law enforcement or judicial institutions. 

When we say innocent until proven guilty, we really mean that guilt needs to be proved to a court. Not yourself, not law enforcement, a court. It doesn't matter if you alone personally witnessed irrefutable proof, like a crime in process. To a court, that is still just one person vs the word of another. A court doesn't know you, a court doesn't know if you are or are not trustworthy. 

I mean, if you ever find yourself in this improbably rare circumstance, and you think torture would be permissible and is the right thing to do, then do it. Just don't expect to get away with it. You'll still have your own court case after that and you can still go to prison for it, even if what you did could be argued as the right thing to do. Plenty of people have went to jail for doing what some would say was the right thing. If you are prepared to accept those consequences, then you must do what you think is right, just dont expect it all to go according to plan and don't expect people to look beyond your acts to a bigger picture, when you have in fact broken the law to do what you feel is right. 

Let's face it though, in most real situations, time is a massive factor to consider. A terrorists bomb can go off, long before you've exhausted all the less morally contentious means of interrogation. If there is genuinely enough time to try everything else first, then chances are the situation is nowhere near as urgent as it would need to be to justify torture. 

1 hour ago, beecee said:

We are emotional creatures and while those emotions can be put aside for the hard stuff like physics, chemistry, cosmology, the soft sciences are controlled by those emotions to a great extent

What exactly do you think the soft sciences are in your own words? Because I'm reading a lot of bias and misunderstandings in your answers.

9 hours ago, beecee said:

As a wise individual noted on the first two or three pages, its going down the same road as the justice/punishment thread...in other words, an exersise in colliding philsophies.

I dunno, I find that most dialogues tend to end up as either an exercise in colliding philosophies or actual colliding people following different philosophies, whether the people in them would call themselves philosophers or not. I call it the war of the words sometimes. Simply out of a lack of anything better to call it really. For those of us here, self-interested philosophy permitting indulgence in our worst selves is the true enemy. 

The thing that unites us all, is that the prospect of having to authorize or carry out torture would give each of us extreme pause. Which I feel is good. Far better than the sinister types who use words as a weapon to do whatever they please, at the expense of others. The types of people who would jump at the chance for the very idea of legally being allowed to torture someone or to have them tortured. 

There is one last argument I would like to make in regards to why I think torture is wrong in any situation. As a torturer or someone with the power to command others to torture, you have absolute power over someone. Power is always intoxicating. Whether it comes from money, influence or control. Today we justify the torture of a terrorist in an extreme situation, tomorrow we justify torture for another terrorist who isn't an active threat. Where could it end? Torturing a starving man for stealing bread? Absolute power corrupts absolutely. The thing that frightens me, as a human, is that I don't know the answer to these following questions; if I engaged in torturing someone, if all 7billion+ people on this planet begged me to do it and I did... would there be some part of me, small or large, that enjoys it? Would it change me? Would it make it easier for me to do things that the me of today would abhore? 

The whole colliding philosophies thing is aggravating for sure. This is why I am a pragmatic contextualist. I try to find the value of every philosophical view, whether it is from right reasons or right emotional sentiment. Within strict pragmatic definitions of knowledge. It's not perfect, no philosophy ever will be, but I do find that so far, contextualism is the most scientifically minded philosophy, in that it seeks to account for and explain why philosophical differences and debates occur in the first place and finding out where they fit in the grand scheme of things. The goal is to have some kind of framework that does for philosophy what the standard model of physics, does for physics. Probably not completely correct in the long run, but helps us reach feasible explanations we can use to our benefit now. By observing just what the fuck is actually out there. 

30 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

Then you'll make the bugger's eyes water... 

Or you become like water! Be water my friend!

51 minutes ago, beecee said:

Can I give another take on that? Philsophy in general, imvho, is a collection of scenarios, moral standings, ethics, nature of reality, truth, (if truth exists at all) and can be sometimes pedantic in its application

So too can the law, and it does so, extremely pedanticly at times. We set up martial scenarios as generals/warriors too. I think you'd actually be hard pressed to find a topic where none of these things comes up or is practiced to some extent. Everyday humans imagine scenarios for themselves to think about what they would do in almost any situation you can think of. Some are realistic, some are far-fetched and fanciful. Some are pointless to the person engaging with or creating the scenario, sometimes they are useful instead. 

Personally, I still feel like it is wrong and impractical to engage in torture. Simply because I am unsure beyond a reasonable doubt that is effective enough to work. I mean hell, people were tortured into claiming to be witches or in league with the devil. Historically speaking more often than not, torture has been used to make people say what the torturers wanted to hear. That is a problem for me which stops me from condoning the practice. Maybe it's a torture methodology problem, but if so, I'm not sure I'd even want to read up on different success rates with different torture methods. I'm pretty sure if I waterboarded someone, I could make them say all kinds of things, true or untrue. 

19 hours ago, beecee said:

With all due respect, I believe you know that answer. It concerns itself with the rights of innocent people to be able to go about there normal lives, without threats from paedophiles, terrorists, and criminals, irrespective of circumstances. The question was asked earlier, and I don't believe I answered it, if it was my own flesh and blood, say a Brother, or a Father in the position of the paedophile or terrorist, my position would be the same

The suspects of crimes and even the convicts also have rights in western societies. Namely, the right to no cruel or inhumane punishments. Right to legal counsel etc. In order to agree with you that your claim is in the majority, I'd need to see some opinion polling on torture. Even if you turn out to be correct on that point, being in the majority doesn't make your argument more likely to be correct. If I was a German in 1939 and believed that Jewish people were less than human (which I don't) I'd be a part of the German majority at the time. It would not make me any less incorrect.

19 hours ago, beecee said:

Did I do the right thing? Or should I have aligned with the Mrs concept of turning the other cheek? 

I believe in teaching children the principles of self defense. Turning the other cheek is all well and good unless by doing so you are enabling bullying behaviors or putting your own life/well being at risk. So I think you did the right thing in the long run in that situation and it sounds like there were no ill consequences. I'm a parent myself so it may be biasing me toward agreeing with you here but then I think adults ought to adhere to self defense principles also. 

19 hours ago, beecee said:

Ironically, you have just posted a post addressed to me, where you have so far failed to be pretentious and condescending. I appreciate that.

Oh dear, I'll be canceled for sure this time! 😆 well I'm glad I managed because I wasn't sure. I am perfectly capable of being both (without realizing it of course) but on my good days, where I'm really trying to put myself into the shoes of the person I'm conversing with, I find myself surprised that I'm actually being listened to and appreciated. So thank you, really I mean that. 

19 hours ago, beecee said:

I'm a fairly open sort of person, and really try hard to understand another's position...sometimes that is fruitful, other times, I see it as an unworkable philsophy, (as in the justice/punishment thread) I also try and be as realistic as possible. My education is actually limited, when compared to most here...I left school at 15.5 years old after achieving what we called the Intermediate certificate, did an apprentiship in Fitting/maching/welding. I have been mostly blessed with good luck, although I believe in many cases, we make our own good luck, and moments of complete disaster. I hope I have rose above those moments. Perhaps I could have gone much further with education and knowledge, if I wasn't so attracted towards the good life and having fun. While having no qualifications in science, I am truely attracted and endowed with following as much science as I can and the scientific methodology. (and of course philosophy, despite my less then positive critique of that discipline) 

Sounds very familiar! Except I had to wait until I was 16 to legally leave school. Then I tried to join the army. Physics was my self learning passion for awhile, then it was psychology, then philosophy and now ethics (plus a number of other fields and subfields around those.) I've had dialogues and conversations with 100s of professionals in those fields. I think the first person I contacted myself, was Peter Higgs, when I was 14... this was before the Higgs boson was finally discovered, but even then I was fascinated by his work. 

Personally; I don't know how successful you'll be in learning philosophy through implication by watching debates or discussions. However in this golden information age we find ourselves in; getting into massive debt for a thorough education in something is now no longer required. 

There are two YouTube channels I think you would really like. Crash course and The School of life. Crash course philosophy is exactly what it sounds like and is a great starting point and it can point you to names and concepts to research yourself. 

School of life has bio videos on different philosophers/philosophies.

SEP - Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy is pretty good. I've been fortunate enough to speak to some of the editors there and they are really amazing people who want to put out as much free knowledge as they can and they are interested to hear how people respond to their work. 

IEP - Internet encyclopedia of philosophy is a good resource, I don't use it as much as SEP but still worth a look in. 

Project Gutenberg - This is a free online library of classic and out of print books. Want to read Marcus Aurelius mediations? Its there. Want to read it in Latin? It's there. From philosophy, physics to cooking and gardening; it has books on everything. Some of them being 1000s of years old. 

I have one last scenario; You have been interrogating a terrorism suspect. You are reasonably sure he knows where there is a bomb in a densely populated area. You try everything short of torture to try and get the location. You think you are close to breaking him, but your CO comes in and tells you that the bomb just went off, killing 1000 people. Whom is responsible for those deaths? You, for not torturing? Or the terrorist who set the situation up in the first place?

What if you did torture, got an answer that turned out to be a lie and 1000 people still died? Whom is responsible then? 

3 hours ago, dimreepr said:

There's nothing wrong in standing up for/defending yourself, but it was your instinct/bias talking, not your reason; for instance, I was a very angry young man from a broken home and I once put a kid in hospital, because he was calling me woody woodpecker (my sir name is wood); that's what convince me that violence is less than an answer.

Sure it may have worked well for your son, but that just reinforced your bias; meeting force with force just creates a bully, when the motive is revenge..

But the motive was clearly self defense and teaching an important lesson to the instigating child, that people can hit back and that it hurts. He was four at the time so I doubt he'd understand what it actually feels like to be hit or how it makes others feel. Learning to turn the other cheek is fine, until you're turning it for a knife. I agree with you that ultimately violence isn't the answer, but sometimes when reasonable answers are not or aren't going to be listened to, you either need to walk away or take a swing. Walking away isn't an option for a 4 year old whom has no control over where he goes or lives. Just my two cents really. That said, I probably would have confronted the parents myself first when it was clearly getting out of hand and let them know I've told my kid to hit back if their kid strikes again, and to get their shit together. 

3 hours ago, dimreepr said:

Sure it may have worked well for your son, but that just reinforced your bias; meeting force with force just creates a bully, when the motive is revenge...

I'd only say it reinforces the bias if the context of the situation changes and the same response is still given. For example if this had been happening between adults, and the advice is to hit back instead of calling the police, that could be a problem... then again if another adult where to hit me for no good reason, it might not be safe for me to assume they are only going to hit once and give me time to call the police. Hmmmm.. this is hard 😆 

3 hours ago, dimreepr said:

The problem is, in your scenario, to be 100% certain you, personally, would have to witness the crime (even then there's wiggle room as I've explained), which logically mean's only you can administer the torture in certainty of the facts.

This was one of my thoughts too. How do you know guilt has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt? Who decides that you do, without a judicial process to determine that? The judicial process exists out of recognition that no one person can truly know anything beyond a reasonable doubt and that justified certainty is difficult to reach. 

If I was a suspect In a crime like this, torturing me is probably the most effective way to make me hate a person enough that I would lie, just to see them fail. I doubt I'm the only person that feels that way either. Not that I'd ever do something like this; this is just me thinking about what it would be like to be in their self centered sociopathic shoes. 

8 hours ago, beecee said:

What I'm against, is the philsophical mumbo jumbo in this thread by a couple, rather then answering practical questions, with practical morally correct solutions.  While I understand how those thoughts may upset the philsophers amongst us, my own views on philosophy are similar to Krauss, DeGrasse-Tyson, and other reputable scientific figures. 

Ethics is a branch of philosophy. What did you expect? It seems the "mumbo jumbo" you dislike the least is people pointing out where your logic breaks down. That's not their fault. It isn't anyone's job here to be convinced by fallacy ridden arguments or to hold your hand to the finish line. 

You can base your opinions about philosophy on non-philosophers if you would like, but it isn't a convincing appeal to authority. Especially when pragmatism is a philosophy and all science is born of natural philosophy. 

Right now, I want to know why you believe that your moral views must be within the majority in western democracies and why this assumption is correct?

Could you torture someone as a job? If everyone else tells you that you had no choice, that you did the right thing, will that do anything to actually stop you from remembering everything you did to the person? Their screams and cries, the feeling of the flesh and bones being damaged by you. Would being morally correct stop you from feeling shame or guilt? Would it stop you from feeling like an innocent person yourself?

Let's imagine another scenario, you are accused of one of these horrible crimes, somebody wants to torture you for information but you are innocent. You are tortured mercilessly for hours on end; by the time they realize you are innocent, you've been horribly disfigured and will likely live with pain the rest of your life and you gave a false confession just to make the pain stop. How would you feel about torture then? Here is a question you might not have considered; is choosing not to torture someone, even if someone might die if we don't, morally wrong?

Ethics is not easy. Doing what is right; isn't always going to make you feel good. Sometimes, our choices are all so dire, that ultimately none of them are good ones, but some might be less bad than others. 

In the end, we have to be able to live with ourselves, with our choices and actions. If evil exists, and we fight it, we must take a care not to become something worse than the monsters we want to keep at bay. 

I'm not without some sympathy for your situation. Philosophers have a habit of sounding pretentious and condescending and we argue in a very different way than others, but you need to understand that our studies involve a lot of the terminology and theory about argumentation, logic and debate explicitly. 

7 hours ago, beecee said:

If there was anything more practically I could do I would. 

Learn more philosophy. This isn't meant as an attack but is a sincere suggestion. Knowledge is power.

Ultimately none of us really know enough to know whom is right. Learning philosophy at least, helps you figure out how to argue for your own views more convincingly but also helps you figure out how to question and consider your own and others views on things.

I can send you some useful links on that front. You seem like an intelligent person who could stand to benefit a lot from learning this stuff.

18 hours ago, Peterkin said:

I don't believe Spock pronounced on the guilt and innocence of individuals in question, nor what specific needs the many may have that requires torturing a few, or how that specific need manifests in a decision between actions. Also, I'm not all sure he would be convinced by the 100% guilty/no other option scenario.

I'm also struggling to recall if Spock ever once engaged in or condoned torture specifically. Pretty sure it's against starfleet regs though. 

The only thing I have personally to say on the subject; is that besides torture just being completely unreliable for gaining credible Intel, it's the last resort of fools that are too lazy to be creative with diplomacy or trickery. Trickery is useful in the hostage/bomb scenario, there was an episode of criminal minds where the terrorist was just straight up tricked by making him lose track of time and making him believe the attack had already happened, so gives away the location hours before it is due because he was brought a prayer mat at the wrong times everyday and he couldn't see the sun from his cell. That was a pretty good episode. Highly recommend. 

Now, nomatter what methods are used, you'll never be 100% certain if someone is lying or not until later, but lying to them is fair game and is easily less morally contentious than torture. 

That being said, I can think of scenarios where I personally would torture someone. If a pedo put my kids somewhere and I get a hold of him before the police do, I honestly don't know what I'd do in that situation. But it could be torture. I hope to never be in such an emotional state or a situation like that where I'd have to find that out. However if it was a stranger I didn't know and had done nothing to harm me personally, I'd never be able to do it. Interrogate, maybe. Torture, never. 

10 hours ago, beecee said:

No limitations of power necessary, simply jail the bad guys. They (the police) of couse do have ethical standards to uphold, which the majority do, but like everything, there will always be exceptions and bad eggs, just as we have moral exceptions for considering torture. Why make it harder for that which you would cry out to for protection tomorrow, if you had a violent home invasion or an assault on your person. If everyone was law abiding, we would not need them. Again I certainly question your unworkable philsophy.

In what way is being against torture some controversial philosophy?

Speaking of which, all philosophies are controversial depending on the audience of the philosopher. 

Are you suggesting all law enforcement bodies ought to be allowed to torture people when they feel it is justified and that somehow the majority of people all believe the same as you? Even if that were true, which I doubt, appealing to the majority means little and does nothing to give your arguments any credibility. If the majority of people believed the earth was flat, they would just be wrong. 

I'm just trying to understand what your position is exactly, as a lot of what you have said sounds far more controversial than anything Peterkin has said. Clearly you are in favour of torture in some situations. Can you give us some examples?

10 hours ago, beecee said:

If you live in a society where evil is more prevalent then good, you need to do something practical about it, instead of rhetorical  rants. But in reality I don't believe you do. And please, if you don't like insults and are offended and put off by them, then cease your childish condescending posts.

Condescending posts aren't against the rules, especially when someone is being childish by threatening insults. Pretty sure insults are against the rules however. I doubt I'd be that offended by insults from you to be honest. 

The insults rule however is simply about no ad hom. It just makes your arguments look weaker. 

1 hour ago, swansont said:

Again, I think this is getting into the game too late.

I'm of the opinion that a multi-faceted approach, of everything you and peterkin have suggested, plus what I have suggested is the best approach. 

Since you used the analogy of a game, should we assume that early game, mid-game and late game require the same strategies and tactics as each other? I'm actually thinking about the long game. Most philosophers are very long game orientated. We kind of have to be, as our debates tend to rage on across millenia. So I think part of what motivates me toward multi-faceted approaches, is wondering if the people of the future will think that I or we have done enough. I don't know if there will be a God to judge me, but my descendants probably will. As much as I may try to not let that bother me, the idea of being held in contempt by future generations leaves a bad taste in my mouth and is a powerful motivator for me. 

Is there a deterrent value to be considered when broaching the subject of class discrimination in any setting that is appropriate? You say, not in employment, what about in education?

1 hour ago, Peterkin said:

doubt that would make an appreciable difference. Imagine the difficulty of bringing charges and providing proof, plus the length of time such civil actions would take to settle. Seems wasteful. Seems to me, a government that has the ability to pass legislation that effective protects the underclasses could more easily change the tax structure to fund the programs that address all of these class problems at once, rather than slog through reform case by local case.

That's assuming their is only one front to the problem. In my reply to Swansont, I referenced a multi-faceted approach in a long game, and suggested that may be more effective. 

The way I see it, is that no-matter what route we try to go down to truly address the problems, there is going to be a number of herculean tasks in making it work (mainly convincing people to even try). 

Hypothetical scenario: imagine Class was made a protected characteristic today. What might some of the negative consequences of that action be?

2 hours ago, swansont said:

My issue here is not so much that I disagree with the broader thesis about classism (because I don't) as that I think you aren't making a good argument for assigning protected class status for hiring purposes.

Have thought about this for the past couple of hours now. I believe there is an alternative to the main question. 

How would you feel about the idea of legally enforced policy changes to companies found guilty of committing concrete harm to the lives of lower class communities/individuals, policy changes that revolve around hiring more people from those sorts of backgrounds (but still qualified) into executive/management positions?

The change to the question, makes it more like: Should the judiciary have more power to force companies to change the makeup of their leadership, when the current leadership has led the company into acts that are harmful to others?

9 hours ago, Peterkin said:

We light candles and ring bells only for those who have souls and that's an exclusively human property.

3 questions:

1. How do you know it is exclusively a human property? To have a soul I mean, obviously we are the only ones lighting candles... on this planet at least. 

2. How do you know that even we have a soul?

3. What is a soul?

5 minutes ago, Peterkin said:

Of course it should not. To enact a law that "protects" poverty is to establish poverty as an inherent characteristic of a designated group of people, and thereore enshrine poverty as a necessary and inevitable feature of human society.

Poverty needs to be eradicated, not legally perpetuated

This is genuinely one of your better counter-arguments. I'll have to reflect on it more, but those are some really good points. My first thoughts in response: A law protecting impoverished people, would be more about protecting the people than protecting poverty. I could also argue that it is a way of protecting the pipelines out of poverty. 

It can also be said that if you are born into poverty, it is an inherent characteristic of your past/upbringing, but yes, not your entire being as you point out. 

Not all of my immediate thoughts completely convince me that your point is moot. So I will definitely need to think on it more and get back to you. 

How seriously would you take precedent setting case law on this? If I can find cases where poverty came up as an important factor in a civil court, do you think that would give more to the discussion?

24 minutes ago, swansont said:

The problem as I see it is that protected classes are groups of people who are trapped in their group (though they might not agree with my wording of being trapped, and I don't mean any disrespect by it) What I mean is that if you are of a particular race or skin color, or are a woman, or you follow a particular religion, or are above a certain age, etc. there is no way (other than via extraordinary means for one or two categories) out of being in that category.

Good point to make, as I said to Peterkin I will have to reflect on it more. 

Do you think there is a legislative means of protecting those in poverty more than we currently do, without making it a protected characteristic? 

We both agree classism is a problem, so going from there, how do we mitigate the problem, if we assume making it a protected characteristic is not a good solution?

27 minutes ago, swansont said:

My issue here is not so much that I disagree with the broader thesis about classism (because I don't) as that I think you aren't making a good argument for assigning protected class status for hiring purposes.

Realizing that is your position now. I'm sorry for snapping at you before.. again.. my anger management is still a work in progress. I think I have a shorter cooling off period now though and am more patient since my daughter was born.

15 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

not really... Are you sure???

Sorry, I should probably expand and say it is difficult, unless you're a man of as few words as disreepr. 

Better? 😆 but yes, I'm fairly sure. Or at least I'm fairly sure it is hard for me to play devils advocate, period. 

3 hours ago, MigL said:

The concept of 'value' has no meaning unless you specify to whom.

There is no such thing as 'intrinsic value'.

This is the more succinct way of saying what I said! 😆 

We can settle for emergent value at least.