tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post1037639316668521522..comments2023-10-24T04:29:23.693-06:00Comments on Atheist Ethicist: Bush's Defense of TortureAlonzo Fyfehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05687777216426347054noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-91852827362540074282008-03-01T21:45:00.000-07:002008-03-01T21:45:00.000-07:00mgarelickThe issue of the blameworthiness of the p...<B>mgarelick</B><BR/><BR/>The issue of the blameworthiness of the person whose car was taken is not relevant to the point of this argument.<BR/><BR/>The ticking bomb scenario is built on a premise that an act must fit into one of two moral categories - that it must be permissible, or it must be prohibited.<BR/><BR/>The bee sting example is meant to prove that the assumption that we are limited to these two moral categories is false. That in addition to 'permissions' and 'exceptions' we have 'outweighings'.<BR/><BR/>By the way, the 'apology' that I wrote about is not owed to the person tortured. The appology is owed to society - for everybody who is put at risk of torture if the social/psychological aversion to torture is weakened. (Weakening this aversion makes torture more common, and making torture more common puts innocent people at risk. Given the numbers of innocent people who are tortured today at our current level of aversion, it would be senseless to conclude that further weakening of this aversion will not cause the suffering of additional innocent people.)<BR/><BR/>As far as I know, Bush might well have visited those that were tortured and offered a personal appology. Whether he did nor did not is irrelevant. In order to promote an overall aversion to torture that will save innocent people, he needs to make a clear statement of the wrongness of torture and demonstrate that he did all that he could to avoid this dreadful act to the world.<BR/><BR/>It is to us that he should appologize.Alonzo Fyfehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05687777216426347054noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-53669094402642207452008-03-01T20:06:00.000-07:002008-03-01T20:06:00.000-07:00I have a different problem with your analogy. In ...I have a different problem with your analogy. In your case, the car owner is indisputably blameless; they were not his bees, he did not cause or wish the child to be stung. In the Bush/torture case, Bush is alleging that the people to be tortured are not blameless. (The Scalia hypthetical is not as explicit on this, but unless he is making a pure utilitarian argument (in which case your analogy may be more apt), I think it is implied.) <BR/><BR/>Of course, it is likely that Bush is exaggerating (or lying his head off) about the blameworthiness of the suspected terrorists, but if his premises can be granted for the sake of abstract moral argument, the problem with your analogy is clear. I think your analogy is better with respect to something like the situation of Israel and the Palestinians. If it is argued that Israel needs to act against the interest or well-being of innocent Palestinians to ensure its own security (or that the existence of Israel as a Jewish state is necessary for the security of the Jewish people -- n.b. that I am not claiming that either of these premises is true), then it should also be acknowledged that this justification does not eliminate the obligation to provide remedies and apologies to the innocent victims of one's actions. Another analogy I like about this situation is that of a person who, jumping from a burning building, lands one someone else. OK, you had to jump -- but it's not the other guy's fault that you landed on him.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-41748670708162295482008-02-17T17:32:00.000-07:002008-02-17T17:32:00.000-07:00I have to disagree with your analogy. It just doe...I have to disagree with your analogy. It just doesn't go far enough. <BR/>Torture on the suspicion that the person may know valuable information is more akin (in my mind) to having the bee stung child, seeing an old man walking a dog, running up to the old man and mugging him (kicking the dog for good measure), in the hopes that he'll have a key for a car nearby. <BR/>Yes, he may have a car nearby, but he may just as likely not have a car nearby, or perhaps he has a car but it's a piece of crap (you know, like the *valuable* knowledge that someone who has been in guatanamo for the past 6 years has about some upcoming plan).<BR/><BR/>Frankly, even if you apologize pretty profusely, I think that has no place in society.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-36404094990930592752008-02-14T07:56:00.000-07:002008-02-14T07:56:00.000-07:00This comment has been removed by the author.NALhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12244370945682162312noreply@blogger.com