Effectiveness of Torture

[BeAChooser]

I could go on, but the fact is that you haven't got a clue about Afghanistan or Al Qaeda or Zarqawi or Jordan or anything you're talking about.

Actually, that's my opinion of you.

So I don't intend to waste any more time discussing this with you.

I think I've said what needed to be said on this thread.

Readers can make up their own minds based on that.

[thaiboxerken]

And this was infinitely more lethal.

Waterboarding will prevent more of this.

Sometimes you have to choose the lesser of evils.

How will water-boarding prevent more of that? Also, there is no need to choose to torture people, NONE at all. No need for the "lesser of evils" here. Try again.

Now, about that evidence that torture actually is effective and reliable. Have anything more than opinions?

[Towlie]

Shock. Hate. Intolerance. Terror.

It spells out the essence of conservative arguments.

[thaiboxerken]

The hypothetical of saving millions by torturing one evil person is just another fear-mongering tactic. Do conservatives ever get tired of dishing out fear?

[JoeTheJuggler]

I see you're continuing the off topic discussion of what constitutes torture rather than staying focused on the question of the effectiveness of torture.

I think I've already won this portion of the argument since I've already established that the definition of the phrases "severe" and "prolonged" in the definition of torture aren't written on any tablet or even in any convention or law signed or passed by the US.
Nonsense. The US Code says:
(2) “severe mental pain or suffering” means the prolonged mental harm caused by or resulting from—
(A) the intentional infliction or threatened infliction of severe physical pain or suffering;
(B) the administration or application, or threatened administration or application, of mind-altering substances or other procedures calculated to disrupt profoundly the senses or the personality;
(C) the threat of imminent death; or
(D) the threat that another person will imminently be subjected to death, severe physical pain or suffering, or the administration or application of mind-altering substances or other procedures calculated to disrupt profoundly the senses or personality;

This language is very similar to the language of the U.S.'s ratification reservations to the C.A.T.

So saying that the term "severe mental pain" is not defined is a lie.

Also, as I've pointed out repeatedly, the courts don't shy away from terms that involve judgement and degree like "severe" and "reasonable" and "appropriate".

Thus, interpretation plays an important role in the law and allows wide latitude as to what acts actually do constitute torture. We've seen that latitude at work over the last few decades.
I agree interpretation plays a role, but I disagree that there's such "wide latitude" that waterboarding which relies on making the victim think he is about to die can possibly be interpreted not to be the use of "threat of imminent death".

But let's assume for the sake of argument (a hypothetical, if you please) that waterboarding is torture. Even then, I think the CAT and your use of it in setting US policy is fatally flawed.
You're really all over the place with this, aren't you. So now you're leaving the question of the definition of torture and the effectiveness of torture and want to discuss the approach that you think the C.A.T. is bad law and it's bad policy to obey it. Fine.

The problem is that the Bush administration did not renounce the C.A.T. Instead they tried to spin the definitions (in contradiction to the law) and claim that we are not committing torture. (In other words, Dubya tried to maintain the illusion that if an agent of the U.S. government committed torture, we would still abide by our obligations under the C.A.T. and prosecute that person for his crimes.)

I disagree that it's bad law or a flawed policy for the reasons I've given repeatedly in these discussions. Primarily, if you allow exceptions for cases when you think you'll get valid intel, you have effectively removed the ban on torture. You can't make a separate law for "them" and "us". If you want us to rely on the judgement of our people, then you have to abide by the judgement of others, and pretty much we're just allowing torture.

The likelihood of a phobic person dying from fright from a bug is just as high as a person dying while being waterboarded by the CIA under the guidelines it set.
The likelihood of dying is not a requirement for something to be torture. It is the intentional infliction of severe mental pain, in this case. Can you find experts to testify that confining a person with a bad insect phobia in a box with an insect is NOT severe mental pain? I suspect if this case ever went to court, it would come down to a battle of experts trying to answer that question. (That's one way courts deal with these phrases that are subject to interpretation.)

Again, the whole point of waterboarding is to make the person think he is about to die. It is "the threat of imminent death". It is similar to the example of hauling a prisoner out of his cell, blindfolding him in front of a firing squad and shooting blanks. There is little to no danger of actually killing the guy, but this is nonetheless torture in that it is the threat of imminent death. It's illegal.

[Whiplash]

Shock. Hate. Intolerance. Terror.

It spells out the essence of conservative arguments.


As a conservative who doesn't believe in doing any of those things, I take offense at your broad brush stroking here. It actually strikes me as rhetoric, based in it's own hate and intolerance of conservatives. Is it really necessary to go this low? How is this anything more than a cheap shot? No substance, just throwing mud.

The hypothetical of saving millions by torturing one evil person is just another fear-mongering tactic. Do conservatives ever get tired of dishing out fear?


With all due respect, I find this also to be rhetoric. I wonder if people who hate the right will ever get tired of painting the right in the most evil, irresponsible, hateful and deceitful ways possible. Don't you realize that what you said is really the same as what you accuse the right of doing? You are accusing them of fear mongering, while making them out to be dishonest, manipulative and deceitful. In effect, also doing your own fear mongering, of them.

You have zero tolerance for conservatives, clearly.

I'm trying to find common ground with people here. But with some of you, I can't help but feel I'll never find it. You are way too certain in your assessment of what all conservatives are. Your opinions fly in the face of my own personal realty, consistently. And it bothers me.

[thaiboxerken]

Ok, I should've used the word "torture advocates" instead of "conservatives." Sorry about that, Whippy.

[shecky]

Whiplash, your point is well taken. There are conservatives who find torture generally, and waterboarding specifically, to be repugnant.

I do wonder, not specifically addressing you, are there any liberal advocates of torture? I'm sure there are. But such advocates do seem to identify as conservatives.

[Morrigan]

I've made fun of Whiplash in the past, because he seems to be so easily offended and outraged at (usually) nothing; but I have to say, in this case, I can't disagree with him. He's completely unlike BeAChooser and his pro-torture ilk, and in his place I would also take umbrage at being lumped long with him.

Oh yeah, can I get the million dollar (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=4780059#post4780059) now? :D

[leftysergeant]

So was this:

http://tonyrogers.com/images/wtc/wtc_jump_01_large.jpg

And this was infinitely more lethal.

Waterboarding will prevent more of this.

Sometimes you have to choose the lesser of evils.

Bull flops. Torture will convince more people that we had it coming because we are evil, arrogant and petty.

Torture makes this MORE likely, not less.

Torture does not yield actionable intel of any value.

Grow up.

[JoeTheJuggler]

I've made fun of Whiplash in the past, because he seems to be so easily offended and outraged at (usually) nothing; but I have to say, in this case, I can't disagree with him. He's completely unlike BeAChooser and his pro-torture ilk, and in his place I would also take umbrage at being lumped long with him.

You should be in public office, Morrigan! I think you managed to praise and damn Whiplash in the same breath. :)

At any rate, I think Whiplash was right to take exception to the use of "conservative" as equal to "torture advocate", and I think thaiboxerken was right to make a prompt and sincere retraction and apology.

[Whiplash]

Thank you all, I was dreading coming back to this thread, as I feared I'd be attacked. When I first came here, I really would constantly be surprised by things I'd read here, causing me to rant (and the "outrage" jokes, which were deserved based on the content I was posting). But I really couldn't believe some of the things I was seeing, and wasn't sure how to react than shock or disbelief. I'm trying now to find some middle ground, as I said, and open my mind to understand the arguments against things I believe in.

And now I have to say, that this place still manages to surprise me, because as I said, I was really expecting to get insulted. I thought maybe I had been too defensive. But you all pleasantly surprised me.

Thank you very much.

[Morrigan]

Hey Joe, actually I wasn't damning him, I was merely acknowledging that I've less than kind in the past. :D

Speaking of damning and praising at the same time - I think that saying I should run for public office is also both a damnation and a praise, in a way, yes? :D

[Matthew Best]

http://i196.photobucket.com/albums/aa68/Batocchio/TortureApologiaChart6.jpg

[CapelDodger]

Waterboarding will prevent more of this.

Despite the profundity of your belief I remain deeply unconvinced.

Your argument appears to be that because 9/11 has been a one-off, torture must have prevented any more. This is not a valid argument.

Apart from that you simply argue from the unsupported authority of interested parties.

Free the Tapes!

I wonder what the CIA's position is on freeing the tapes. Do your sources tell you anything on that?

[CapelDodger]

Actually, that's my opinion of you.

I don't doubt it.

Have you considered that your sources of information might not be terribly accurate? I'm one of those who didn't take their eyes off Afghanistan when the Soviets pulled out. I can remember a world without Al Qaeda and the Taliban. My knowledge is based on following events as they occur, not reports from interested sources long after the event.

So I don't intend to waste any more time discussing this with you.

I think I've said what needed to be said on this thread.

I'm sure you've said what you felt the need to say, and I've responded.

Readers can make up their own minds based on that.

No doubt they will.

[CapelDodger]

As a conservative who doesn't believe in doing any of those things, I take offense at your broad brush stroking here.

Quite rightly. "Conservative" and "liberal" are thrown around with great abandon (particularly by US Americans, for whom they have special meaning).

Heck, I've been called a liberal and I don't even support universal suffrage.

I prefer the term "radical conservative" for the clique that's dominated the Republican party in recent decades. They've been much more radical than they've been conservative.

[thaiboxerken]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3036677#31396046

Hmmm..torture seems to provide false information.

[JoeTheJuggler]

Speaking of damning and praising at the same time - I think that saying I should run for public office is also both a damnation and a praise, in a way, yes? :D

:D

Wish I could say that was intentional.

[Upchurch]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3036677#31396046

Hmmm..torture seems to provide false information.

Perhaps a slightly better source (http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-cia-detainee16-2009jun16,0,316330.story?track=rss).


eta: better yet: source documents (http://www.aclu.org/safefree/torture/csrtfoia.html)

[Upchurch]

eta: better yet: source documents (http://www.aclu.org/safefree/torture/csrtfoia.html)
The statements quoted in the article are on page 15.

The question is whether or not KSM is credible on this. Personally, I dunno. On the one hand, the guy is a scum bag terrorist who is responsible for the deaths of thousands of innocent people. On the other hand, that doesn't necessarily mean he is lying about this.

[JoeTheJuggler]

And I don't think it's even necessary to prove that he was lying (during interrogation) or giving bogus information. The fact is, he could have. That means when the decision was made to break the law and commit the crime of torture, nobody knew it would provide useful intelligence.

The response that we also don't know whether legal and ethical investigative techniques will work is easily answered: when we decide to do those things, we're not breaking laws we agreed to obey.

[thaiboxerken]

Well, besides KSM, there is the other guy they tortured that they verified DID give false information and false confessions. They apologized to that person.

[BeAChooser]

Did you notice that at the same hearing where Mohammed claimed he lied under torture, he also listed 29 terror plots in which he took part? And if he lied before, could he be lying now?

The only way we are going to know the real truth is if the Obama administration releases everything related to those enhanced interrogations. We need to see exactly what questions were asked, what the answers were, and how accurate the information obtained turned out to be.

What the Obama administration is doing is continuing to play political games ... releasing only select information that paints the picture that they want painted ... that waterboarding doesn't work.

The bottom line is this. Either numerous people at the CIA lied or they didn't. If they lied, then Obama should be punishing them. So far he isn't. If they didn't lie, then someone else needs to be punished.

So you really should be joining me in demanding that Obama release ALL the data on these interrogations.

[thaiboxerken]

Yea, BeaChooser, it seems that you do choose to place value on the evidence that support your position and none on those that don't. The reports about the unreliability of torture isn't only about KSM, but of the other guy that the CIA apologized to. The guy that the CIA forced false confessions and information out of, that they verified was false, and subsequently decided to apologize for that torture. I'm glad of one thing, though, BeaCh, you are no longer trying to convince people that water boarding isn't torture. At least there is one point to which you've seen where you are wrong.

[BeAChooser]

Yea, BeaChooser, it seems that you do choose to place value on the evidence that support your position and none on those that don't.

FALSE. I've stated multiple times now that the CIA might be lying (although in that case, why isn't Obama punishing them?). That's why I've called for a full release of the data related to enhanced interrogation use by the CIA.

If anyone places no value on the other sides *evidence*, it is you. You just ignore the material I've provided and continue to insist that waterboarding and the other enhanced interrogation methods didn't stop any terrorist plots or save any lies. And you show no interest in joining me in demanding that Obama clear this matter up by releasing the full data set.

I'm glad of one thing, though, BeaCh, you are no longer trying to convince people that water boarding isn't torture. At least there is one point to which you've seen where you are wrong.

And don't continue to mischaracterize my other statements either.

[thaiboxerken]

BeAch, the CIA said it garnered some good information from these torture techniques. However, it appears that they garnered much, much more false information. This includes false confessions. I'd say that shows that such methodology cannot be justified under the guise of effectiveness.

[BeAChooser]

BeAch, the CIA said it garnered some good information from these torture techniques. However, it appears that they garnered much, much more false information.

You don't know this. Most of the material on the interrogations is still classified (that's what heavily redacted means ... and we've only seen a fraction of the documents that must exist on this). Most of the material is being withheld from the public eye by the Obama administration. The Obama administration is only releasing what it chooses to release, and it has a political motivation for painting the picture that enhanced interrogation did not work and saved no American (or foreign) lives.

What we do have on the record are the statements of various CIA and other Intelligence officials. And they categorically state that much valuable information ... information that stopped terrorist plots and saved many lives ... was learned via enhanced interrogation AFTER conventional methods had failed to produce much intel of value. So either they are lying or they are not (in which case others ... on your side of this debate ... have lied). Now since Obama hasn't taken any action against these CIA officials, the logical conclusion is that the CIA personel aren't lying (because why would Obama want a bunch of liars in the CIA?). Like I said, if anyone is ignoring evidence to the contrary ... it's YOU.

[GreyICE]

Isn't there a point where you realize you're apologizing for torture? I mean... really? How do you manage this?

[Towlie]

Isn't there a point where you realize you're apologizing for torture? I mean... really? How do you manage this?I wonder if he thinks 1984 has a happy ending.

[GreyICE]

I wonder if he thinks 1984 has a happy ending.

Oh, I know the truth of that book, I'm just constantly amazed by it.

[JoeTheJuggler]

I think I've already won this portion of the argument since I've already established that the definition of the phrases "severe" and "prolonged" in the definition of torture aren't written on any tablet or even in any convention or law signed or passed by the US.
Sorry, but you're factually wrong, and I've already shown you how. In the U.S. Code, the types of things that can cause "severe mental pain" are spelled out (and I've quoted this to you before).

Thus, interpretation plays an important role in the law and allows wide latitude as to what acts actually do constitute torture. We've seen that latitude at work over the last few decades.
First, let me remind you that this thread is about the effectiveness of torture, not about what may or may not comprise torture. You're arguing both things, I think, and getting all mixed up.
At any rate interpretation is a part of what courts do. Courts do not shy away from making determinations of what is "severe" or "excessive" or "reasonable" and so on.

Since this thread is not about whether a certain type of technique is torture, I'm not sure what you're referring to. Waterboarding is definitely a form of torture because it relies on making the victim think he is drowning. The "threat of immanent death" is one of the items specifically mentioned in the U.S. Code as a cause of severe mental pain.



Then even without specifically answering my hypothetical question you've answered it.
I have specifically answered your hypotheticals over and over. I reject them as being impossible. You cannot possibly know that committing the crime of torture will result in saving lives. Even if you could (and you can't), you couldn't possibly know that it is the only way to save those lives (that is, that there weren't ways of saving those lives that do not involve committing a crime or an unethical action).

If inflicting temporary pain on one person could with 100 percent certainty prevent the otherwise certain destruction of the universe (all I've described is a circumstance and you did say "ANY circumstance WHATSOEVER"), you wouldn't do it. Personally, I think that's insane.
As I said, I reject the "if" portion of this statement. That's exactly why I think torture is not justified in any circumstances. It is impossible to know that with 100 percent certainty that inflicting temporary pain (is there any other kind?) on one person will result in saving everyone in the universe or a billion people or a thousand people. It matters not at all that you repeat the same hypothetical with different numbers of people.

ETA: It's like asking, "If it's a good deed to slaughter innocent children, would you be in favor of slaughtering innocent children?" and insisting that I accept the hypothetical and answer the question.




There is no threat of imminent death from waterboarding as used by the CIA.
You're either wrong about the way waterboarding works, or you're intentionally misreading the phrase "threat of imminent death". If you haul someone out of their cell, and pretend you are about to execute them by firing squad (even though there is no chance whatsoever that you will actually kill him--because of blanks in the guns or whatever), you are nonetheless causing severe mental pain caused by the threat of imminent death.

By the way, I notice that you're still engaging in something that is off topic for this thread. Can you not keep separate the debate about the effectiveness of torture and the debate about whether waterboarding is torture?


We've waterboarded thousands of our own soldiers. Journalists are volunteering to be waterboarded. Obviously, there is no threat of imminent death.
Nonsense. A soldier and journalist who voluntarily undergoes waterboarding is not being threatened with imminent death because they know they won't be killed. (The situation also fails to meet the definition of torture on a number of other points, as you well know.) A prisoner suspected of terrorism has no such knowledge. Should I remind you that suspected terrorists have been murdered in U.S. run prisons?

Again, arguments of the following form:
X is somehow like Y
Y is not torture
Therefore X is not torture
are not logical. Here you've merely put waterboaring experienced by trainees or journalists for Y and waterboarding of detainees during interrogation for X. It's still illogical, and I've pointed this out numerous times now.

At any rate, the topic of this thread is not the question of whether waterboarding is torture.

Are you at all interested in resuming the discussion on topic for this thread?

[JoeTheJuggler]

Did you notice that at the same hearing where Mohammed claimed he lied under torture, he also listed 29 terror plots in which he took part? And if he lied before, could he be lying now?

Again, the point is at the moment you decide to commit the crime of torture, you do not know whether you're going to get good intel. Even if you subsequently verify that the info you got from torturing someone (and right now we're hearing that these guys sometimes lied and sometimes told the truth under torture), it does nothing to change the fact that you didn't know whether or not you'd get good intel.

[JoeTheJuggler]

It's not just a conscious thought; the sense of smothering works at the brain-stem level so what you experience is horror and panic. It is very, very unpleasant.

Yes. If anything, I think it is even more effective than the fake firing squad technique at making a prisoner think he's about to be killed.

[thaiboxerken]

Did BeaCH just claim that water-boarding can't kill a person?!

[JoeTheJuggler]

Did BeaCH just claim that water-boarding can't kill a person?!
More than that, he claimed that prisoners know they can't be killed by waterboarding.

[Upchurch]

You'll enjoy this (http://www.ethicalstl.org/platforms/ESSTLPlatform2008-10-19.mp3), Joe.

It's from these locals (http://www.ethicalstl.org/). Ever been?

[JoeTheJuggler]

You'll enjoy this (http://www.ethicalstl.org/platforms/ESSTLPlatform2008-10-19.mp3), Joe.

It's from these locals (http://www.ethicalstl.org/). Ever been?

Yep. Our atheist group has done some events with them.

[BeAChooser]

Our atheist group

I'm curious, Joe. If you don't believe in God, how can you believe in absolute morality? Or do you? It seems to me that if there is no higher power, then there is no right or wrong beyond personal preference. With that in mind, I can understand why you might believe in moral equivalency.

[Skeptic Ginger]

I'm curious, Joe. If you don't believe in God, how can you believe in absolute morality? Or do you? It seems to me that if there is no higher power, then there is no right or wrong beyond personal preference. With that in mind, I can understand why you might believe in moral equivalency.Surely you have been on the JREF forum long enough to have had this question answered hundreds of times and yet you still cling to your false belief that morality comes from god beliefs.

Tell me, why would any Christian be concerned about right and wrong when all they need do is ask for forgiveness just before dying?

[Upchurch]

... yet you still cling to your false belief that morality comes from god beliefs.

He does? I didn't know BAC was particularly theistic, let alone Christian.

[Whiplash]

I'm curious, Joe. If you don't believe in God, how can you believe in absolute morality? Or do you? It seems to me that if there is no higher power, then there is no right or wrong beyond personal preference. With that in mind, I can understand why you might believe in moral equivalency.


I disagree, sir. A sense of right and wrong can easily be developed my reasonable people based on their own exerpiences with what causes pain and suffering, and what causes happiness.

The idea that murder is wrong, only because "God" says so, is silly. The victim of the murder didn't want to die. The family members of the victim suffer pain and grief that they didn't want. I think the same arguments can be made about things like theft, and rape.

[Upchurch]

BAC, you may not enjoy this:
You'll enjoy this (http://www.ethicalstl.org/platforms/ESSTLPlatform2008-10-19.mp3), Joe.
but you sure need to listen to it.

[JoeTheJuggler]

I'm curious, Joe. If you don't believe in God, how can you believe in absolute morality? Or do you? It seems to me that if there is no higher power, then there is no right or wrong beyond personal preference.

Morality is a mental capacity that evolved in humans as an adaptation to living in very complex groups. I like to compare it with language--another mental capacity that evolved as an adaptation to living in complex groups. As with language, there is an innate mental capacity and a social/conventional aspect to it. As with language, some aspects are very nearly universal, but others differ by convention in different societies.

God is no more necessary to explain morality than he is necessary to explain language. . or indeed anything at all.

[BeAChooser]

A sense of right and wrong can easily be developed my reasonable people based on their own exerpiences with what causes pain and suffering, and what causes happiness.

I don't disagree. People can develop a PERSONAL sense of right and wrong without believing in "God". But that then leaves the definition of right and wrong up to the individual and the culture they experience. Doesn't it? Which is why acts considered wrong by individuals in one culture are sometimes considered right by individuals in a different culture. Which means, under your explanation, that "right" and "wrong", and "moral" and "immoral", don't really have strict, absolute definitions. In fact, the terms become somewhat meaningless once you move beyond a single individual or small group of individuals. And therein lies a problem.

Given my specific circumstances, I could quite reasonably conclude that an act is good (and moral) that you conclude (given your circumstances) is bad (and immoral). Likewise, you might conclude that two immoral acts are equally immoral when I, quite reasonably, conclude that one immoral act is far worse than another and might even be a moral act if it prevented the far more immoral act from happening.

So if you really do believe what you claim ... that it's up to the individual ... why do I hear so many personal attacks on my viewpoint ... on me even ... for regarding the saving thousands of lives by hurting just one person to be a good thing? It seems to me that you folks want to IMPOSE your sense of right and wrong and morality on me. Seems to me you folks want to set yourself up as the higher authority determining what is right and wrong, moral and immoral. In other words, you want to, in effect, play God.

You see the illogic in your position?

The idea that murder is wrong, only because "God" says so, is silly. The victim of the murder didn't want to die. The family members of the victim suffer pain and grief that they didn't want. I think the same arguments can be made about things like theft, and rape.

And yet, if you leave definitions of right and wrong, moral and immoral, solely up to people, then circumstances arise where people, justifiably thinking they are doing right, murder. Steal. Perhaps even rape. Who are you to judge them?

Believing that a higher authority than oneself ... higher than even mankind ... is what really determines right and wrong, moral and immoral, can resolve this dilemma. It doesn't matter what form that "God" takes, only that we agree terms like morality should have an absolute meaning .. an absolute scale that doesn't depend on the whims of the moment or a small group of people. And I think the authors of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution understood this. And too many people, nowadays, don't.

[thaiboxerken]

Believers also make up their own definitions of right and wrong, they just assign the credit to their gods. Believing in a higher authority doesn't solve any dilemma, it just camouflages it. After all, who are you do say what god thinks is right or wrong?

[JoeTheJuggler]

I don't disagree. People can develop a PERSONAL sense of right and wrong without believing in "God". But that then leaves the definition of right and wrong up to the individual and the culture they experience. Doesn't it?
Not exactly.

Again, consider language, or better yet the narrow category of semantics. We know that words (other than onomatopoeia and their sign language counter part "classifiers") have no natural meaning. Meaning is by convention. As individuals, our brains have the capacity and tendency to look for an understand semiotic meaning. There are any number of brain structures and functions that comprise this capacity--memory, pattern matching, etc. But meaning is something that is by convention. You as an individual cannot simply decide that a word means something contrary to convention. You can try, and you might succeed, but if you succeed it's because it has become conventional, not because you as individual decided to give it that meaning.

At any rate, it takes no outside agency (like God or even a set of moral rules or language rules somehow encoded into "the universe").

I use this comparison because I think they're very similar (and even overlapping) mental capacities, but also because there are some theists who indeed believe that language devolved from God ("the Word" or "Logos"). Generally, that approach is no more accepted than a literal interpretation of the Adam & Eve creation stories or the stories of Noah's flood.

[JoeTheJuggler]

Believers also make up their own definitions of right and wrong, they just assign the credit to their gods. Believing in a higher authority doesn't solve any dilemma, it just camouflages it. After all, who are you do say what god thinks is right or wrong?

Very good point.

It's the same problem with Pascal's Wager. People making such arguments forget that "God" can refer to vastly different concepts, and the idea of "what God says is moral" has even more variants.

ETA: In an attempt to steer this back to something closer to the topic: I have a hard time understanding how people can consider that an entity that would even consider damning a human to eternal torture to be a "loving" or "compassionate" God!

[thaiboxerken]

Well, the bible describes a God that shows little to no compassion for people of other faiths. That's how they can justify it. Those are just Muslims terrorists being tortured, why do you care about the well-being of them?

[JoeTheJuggler]

Those are just Muslims terrorists being tortured, why do you care about the well-being of them?
Well it's probably because anyone like me who questions the legality or morality of some of the actions of the Bush administration obviously hates America (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=146347). :)

[Towlie]

I'm curious, Joe. If you don't believe in God, how can you believe in absolute morality? Or do you? It seems to me that if there is no higher power, then there is no right or wrong beyond personal preference. With that in mind, I can understand why you might believe in moral equivalency.This from the torture apologist? Unbelievable!

A more appropriate question might be: If you don't believe in God, how can you advocate torture? Answer: You can't. It takes religion to pervert our instinctive morality and enable us to argue in favor of what we know deep inside is wrong.

[JoeTheJuggler]

And yet, if you leave definitions of right and wrong, moral and immoral, solely up to people, then circumstances arise where people, justifiably thinking they are doing right, murder. Steal. Perhaps even rape. Who are you to judge them?
First, all moral and legal definitions are in fact made by people. Some of the people just attempt to justify their definitions by invoking a deity.

Second, here you're using the term "people" ambiguously. You're sometimes using it to refer to humans (as opposed to God or whatever) and sometimes using it to refer to an individual. As I've shown above, individuals really can't establish moral convention single handedly. So we (collectively) are able to judge when an individual has violated moral conventions.

Interesting to note that I'm using the term "convention" to point out that language and morals are basically what they are by general consensus or agreement, and one of the key legal documents we've been discussing with regard to torture is the U.N. Convention Against Torture.

I wonder if your position on torture would be different if one of the prescriptions handed down from Judeo-Christian scriptures was "Thou shalt not commit torture".

[BeAChooser]

First, all moral and legal definitions are in fact made by people. Some of the people just attempt to justify their definitions by invoking a deity.

Fine. By your own admission, your definition of torture is no better than mine. Your definition of morality is no better than mine. Your definition of right is no better than mine. Your definition of wrong is no better than mine. It's ultimately a personal matter. That's the logical consequence of your thinking. You are simply trying to impose your definitions on me and others. You are simply trying to act like ... well ... a "god".

[Praktik]

Fine. By your own admission, your definition of torture is no better than mine. Your definition of morality is no better than mine. Your definition of right is no better than mine. Your definition of wrong is no better than mine. It's ultimately a personal matter. That's the logical consequence of your thinking. You are simply trying to impose your definitions on me and others. You are simply trying to act like ... well ... a "god".

And you are attempting to act "god-like" in that you fantasize that your morality is the prescribed morality of an invisible super hero who lives in outer space. Why else would you claim that morality must have a divine underpinning if you don't have the conceit that your morality is god's morality?

[BeAChooser]

Why else would you claim that morality must have a divine underpinning

Maybe I just believe in the Declaration of Independence. Don't you? :D

Remember where it says ...


We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.


I suspect our Founding Fathers believed that morality had a divine underpinning. That the notions of "good" and "evil", and "right" and "wrong", transcend mere humans. I join them in that belief and certainly don't think they were trying to "act 'god-like'". :D

[Towlie]

What does the metaphor of "God-given rights" have to do with morality? :confused:

[JoeTheJuggler]

Fine. By your own admission, your definition of torture is no better than mine. Your definition of morality is no better than mine. Your definition of right is no better than mine. Your definition of wrong is no better than mine. It's ultimately a personal matter. That's the logical consequence of your thinking. You are simply trying to impose your definitions on me and others. You are simply trying to act like ... well ... a "god".
Not at all. First of all, the definition I've been citing in all these torturous torture threads is the one given in the C.A.T. and the U.S. Code. They are not "my" definitions, which fits in precisely with my approach to morality--that an individual cannot make something a convention.

I've never claimed it was "ultimately a personal matter". In fact, I reject that notion outright. I also reject your accusation that I am trying to impose my definition on others. That's a false statement.

The ban on torture is the convention we have. Also, I've provided logical arguments (a part of that mental capacity for morality) to support the idea that an outright ban in all situations is the best standard, even if you think torture can in rare circumstances be justified.

B.A.C. I think maybe you don't actually read my posts. You accuse me of holding positions that are exactly contrary to my expressed position.

[thaiboxerken]

I suspect our Founding Fathers believed that morality had a divine underpinning.

They also thought slavery was ok.:eek:

[Skeptic Ginger]

He does? I didn't know BAC was particularly theistic, let alone Christian.How else do you interpret: "If you don't believe in God, how can you believe in absolute morality?"

And it would appear from some of the other replies they interpreted the statement in a similar way. I don't have everyone's degree of theism memorized. My reply was based on that post and the fact we have dispelled the 'morals come from god beliefs' in this forum ad nauseum.