Re: Torture
 

Would I kill someone to save another persons life? No. Here is why. I do not believe in utilitarian morality because we lack perfect information. Were I to understand the affects of my actions completely (which would require omniscience) than I would believe in utilitarian morality.

Let's take a simple example. One man is about to drown 5 good and moral young woman, 20 years old. Naturally you would think you should kill him to save them. Those woman are (likely) going to have children. Those children will have children. Their children will do things, which have affects on the world. They could be bad, they could be good. While it appears to be a clear cut issue of saving 5 woman, what if they have children who are all drunk drivers. Was my decision then immoral? Judging by the results, yes, and utilitarian morality judges by the ends.

We can never know what the results will be, and so I act in a manner which I consider moral. My actions follow my personal code, I do not consider what the results may or may not be because I lack complete information.

I do not want to get bogged down in examples here, my point has been made, let's not take the examples too far but carry on a discussion about the point.

Re: Torture
 

Then why is torture illegal, if the majority of people support it? Do you think the majority of people would allow a law to be passed allowing torture, even in cases like this?

Re: Torture
 

You have clearly recently seen The Cell.

Re: Torture
 

apparently you lack the ability to understand the English language. you specifically have difficulty in understanding clauses and relationships.

[ QUOTE ]
Then why is torture illegal, if the majority of people support it?

[/ QUOTE ]

Because indiscriminate torture has basically little to no support. never did I, or would i support indiscriminate torture. please read what i wrote again, you should be able to see what i meant if you actually read it.

[ QUOTE ]
Do you think the majority of people would allow a law to be passed allowing torture, even in cases like this?

[/ QUOTE ]

Your grammar here is awful. what are you getting at? are you asking if the majority of people would support torture in cases like this? I think thats what you are trying to write, so I will answer that question. my answer is no. here is why, because the fear of abuse of the law would make people not vote for the law. however, on a case by case basis people would approve torture in this case, that is my assertion.

Re: Torture
 

I like how you can't engage in a debate without smear tactics. It paints a nice picture of you. By the way, look into capitals. Investigate the shift key.

My question, reworded, was "Do you think the majority of people would support a law condoning torture, in any situation, even one such as this", I think it is easy to understand what I ment, but obviously you do not.

Now, to understand your point, you believe that torture in this situation should be allowed, but we should not have a law to allow it, because of the potential for abuse. Is this correct?

Re: Torture
 

I'd use game theory to save the kids! Then I would play the kidnapper in seven-card showdown

Re: Torture
 

[ QUOTE ]
My question, reworded, was "Do you think the majority of people would support a law condoning torture, in any situation, even one such as this", I think it is easy to understand what I ment, but obviously you do not.

[/ QUOTE ]

That is more comprehensible, but not what you wrote. I think that people would not support a law that legalizes torture in any way because of the fear of abuse. However, I think that most people would support torture in cases like these.

[ QUOTE ]
I like how you can't engage in a debate without smear tactics.

[/ QUOTE ]

No smear tactics. I was just pointing out the fact that you are not understanding what I was writing, and that I believed it was because you were either ignoring, or not understanding the clauses I was using.

[ QUOTE ]
By the way, look into capitals. Investigate the shift key.


[/ QUOTE ]

Wow, such a pointless comeback, but I will play along.

[ QUOTE ]
Now, to understand your point, you believe that torture in this situation should be allowed, but we should not have a law to allow it, because of the potential for abuse. Is this correct?

[/ QUOTE ]

In a nutshell, yes. That is what I think. I know that its contradictory, but there is no other option given how i feel.

Re: Torture
 

I'm trying to address your point, but in doing so I think I need to create yet another example. I hope this does not violate what you meant by taking the examples to far. I assume you only meant that we shouldn't nit pick everything in your example to death, but focus more on the point you are trying to drive home.

Suppose that at some point in your life you are confronted in a situation in which you must kill in order to survive. If you choose to live, the result is that you inadvertantly destroy the human race later in life (pretend some horrible virus mutated within you and wiped out the human race, or you worked as a janitor at some nuclear silo and accidently pushed the button). Would defending your life in this situation be considered immoral? According to what understanding I have gathered about utilitarian morality, this would be wrong. That is absurd, in my opinion.

Time for a poker analogy! This is an easy one. You got pocket rockets; your opponent, AK suited. You bet, your opponen raises, you go all-in, your opponent calls. Your opponent wins with the nut flush. Was your play wrong?

Lacking imperfect information about the future, we make decisions which in the long run have a positive outcome.

The positive outcome of saving lives has far more value, in my opinion, than any possibility of wrongdoing by those whose lives are saved.

P.S. I do not think it is morally reprehensible to not murder in order to save someone's life. I think one can stand on either side of this issue, and present excellent arguments for why they are not morally wrong.

Re: Torture
 

jaxmike, the sentence you pointed out

[ QUOTE ]
Do you think the majority of people would allow a law to be passed allowing torture, even in cases like this?


[/ QUOTE ]
is grammatically sound. You could say the style is awful, but the grammar is just fine.

clauses and relationships...

Re: Torture
 

You got the gist of my hope, which was that you (or anyone else) would not nit pick my example but go straight for the heart of the matter. Get down to brass tacks if you will.

I had the grenade conversation the other day, on the way to a poker game with a friend. If you're in a foxhole, and a grenade lands which will kill ten of your comrades, would you jump on it, or dive out of the way? While I told my friend "I'm not sure", I think in my heart I know the answer. I would jump out of the way.

On the other hand, I am fairly confidant that if a similiar thing happened with the entire human race, I would jump on the grendade, in that I would sacrifice my life to save everyone. Thus, whether I would sacrifice myself to save another is a matter of scale.

Is this moral? Is morality anything more than what we agree it to be? Is this why religion is so appealing, because it gives us a solid foundation of morality, one that is real and unchangeable?

If a man came at me with a knife in an alleyway, I'd shoot him. I wouldn't try to disable him, I'd try to remove the threat of harm from me in the most effective way I knew how, however that may be.

If a man came at a stranger in an alleyway, would I shoot him? I know instantly the answer is yes. So I would kill for someone else.

I suppose the only conclusion I can draw from these contradictions in thought is that morality is a very sticky issue, and I am happy I do not believe in freewill.

Wish I had something more concrete or structured for you, but I don't : )