CIA Water Boarding is Morally Permissible

Abortion, euthanasia, genetic engineering, Just War theory and other such hot topics.

Moderators: AMod, iMod

User avatar
fiveredapples
Posts: 156
Joined: Sun Oct 31, 2010 10:47 am

Re: CIA Water Boarding is Morally Permissible

Post by fiveredapples »

Londoner wrote:What I meant was whether there was a single general moral argument that covered all cases in which one might inflict pain, whether that meant a slap on the wrist or wartime bombing. If one was a pacifist, the answer would be 'Never' but I think for most people it would be that it had to be proportional to the harm it is intended to prevent.
I've never understood pacifists, frankly. They have always struck me as having visceral reactions against causing others harm. It's not that they subscribe to any ethical theory that dictates as much. Well, they do, but their ethics is only a product of their gut. This is a curious phenomenon among many Japanese people. Many have sincerely answered me that they would sooner let a gunman kill them than kill the gunman in self-defense. I will never understand such thinking, but you would have to be conditioned to be like that (as the Japanese have been after WWII). Beautiful girls though.

I don't know about a "general moral argument" that covers all the cases in which you're morally justified to inflict pain on someone else. I'm not sure I want to even attempt wrapping my head around that. Sounds awfully difficult.

For my purposes, I just know and go by what most people here in America believe: that inflicting pain, even severe pain, even dismembering or killing another human being is sometimes morally permissible, most notably as self-defense. That doesn't mean it's always morally permissible in self-defense, but in many instances it is. So, I think that's enough. And I think CIA water boarding falls directly under the category of self-defense, albeit it's not mano-a-mano self-defense. So, if we can kill in self-defense, it would seem highly unusual if there were any reason why we couldn't (in certain cases) water board someone.
Last edited by fiveredapples on Tue Jan 31, 2017 7:28 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
fiveredapples
Posts: 156
Joined: Sun Oct 31, 2010 10:47 am

Re: CIA Water Boarding is Morally Permissible

Post by fiveredapples »

Londoner wrote:First, a word about Kant. I know the 'Nazi at the door' example is always given and would say that it isn't an accurate account of Kant. The point about the categorical imperative is that it should be universal, but that doesn't mean it has to be simplistic, i.e. it can be more than 'do not tell lies'. I could also have as a universal principle 'try to protect the lives of others', which would allow me to lie to the Nazis. Kant did not tell us; 'Do x and that is ethical'. On the contrary, Kant argued that the morality pertains in the will of the agent, not in the action. It would be quite possible for two people to make different choices but both to be acting morally, i.e. with moral intent.
I didn't mean to suggest Kant was simple. He's probably the least simple philosopher in history. But the Nazi example highlights one thing: Kantian moral principles are universally applicable. So while Kant may allow for ethical principles such as "Try to protect the lives of others", less general principles will remain constant at all times. What I mean is that for Kant, "lying is morally bad" stands always and in every instance, but he might allow for another principle to trump that principle such that we end up lying in order to protect the lives of our Jews. But Kant isn't going to say that lying was morally good in that instance. He's going to say that lying was morally wrong, but that other morally right principles make the overall action morally good. And the objection to Kant remains: we don't think of lying in that case as morally bad -- but Kant does.
Londoner wrote:I certainly did not mean to imply that I thought moral acts had some absolute value in themselves.
Okay, but I do think that is the general view of Kant, although I do not pretend to be a Kant scholar.
Londoner wrote:But I do think we ought to be able to explain how we decide how we should act in particular cases. What general principle we are following (like 'self defence', or 'pacifism' or whatever). And this must make us open to being challenged - whether we really followed our principles.
I agree.
Londoner wrote:And also to hard cases; where following a principle seems to legitimise acts we are instinctively uncomfortable with. I think this is unavoidable - for both sides. After all, those who rule out torture in all circumstances often get challenged with the 'ticking bomb' scenario.
The hard cases are always cases of moral instincts, where we just feel in our heart of hearts that some act X is morally wrong. I take torture to be such an act for many people, likely most people here. Obviously not for me, but that's another debate. And while water boarding is for many here such an act, it isn't as visceral as 'torture' is, which is why I half-bother to post my arguments, as I think some people can be reasoned away from classifying CIA water boarding as torture -- as I clearly think it is not and I provide rather good arguments for my view, if I do say so myself. I could give the best argument in the history of philosophy, though, cogent to anyone with the intellectual integrity to accept it, but I wouldn't budge anyone here or likely anywhere from their false beliefs. It's just too visceral for them, but that doesn't stop me from poking them with a philosophical stick.
Last edited by fiveredapples on Tue Jan 31, 2017 7:30 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
fiveredapples
Posts: 156
Joined: Sun Oct 31, 2010 10:47 am

Re: CIA Water Boarding is Morally Permissible

Post by fiveredapples »

Londoner wrote:Well murder may not be quite the best example, since it is a crime and one could say that it is a technical matter. We do not think all murders are equally immoral. In the UK, although the sentence is always 'life', in practice people are released if the circumstances are considered such that they are unlikely to do it again.

In the Biblical sense, I agree 'murder' means 'immoral killing'. But in that Biblical sense, we might not necessarily agree that any particular killing was murder, i.e. that it was immoral.
My point about murder was simply this: Take three different cases of one human being killing another human being. So, killings X, Y, and Z. Now, which of the these killings is/are murder? Whether you and I disagree about which ones are and aren't murder is immaterial. We will both do the same thing: we will see which were, in our estimation, immoral killings. And the determination of whether the killings were immoral will not invoke the notion of murder, for this is the very thing we are trying to determine in determining which ones are immoral.

But the notion of torture is used assbackwards by my opponents in determining which interrogation methods (X, Y, and Z) are immoral. Isn't that odd? They don't look at water boarding and explain why it's immoral -- because they can't. So, because they can't, they instead insist that water boarding is torture -- they insist that water boarding is an immoral act (torture) without determining why it's immoral. Their only rationale is that it's immoral because it is a case of torture, but "don't ask us to explain how that is" because that would require that they explain how it's immoral, which would take them back to square one. They are spinning around in a vicious circle of question begging. They are dizzy people.
User avatar
fiveredapples
Posts: 156
Joined: Sun Oct 31, 2010 10:47 am

Re: CIA Water Boarding is Morally Permissible

Post by fiveredapples »

Londoner wrote:I certainly do not argue that if I am right is saying that waterboarding falls under a particular definition of 'torture' that 'wins' the moral argument.
It's good to see that at least someone else sees that an argument will be owed.
Londoner wrote:Regarding who has the onus to prove 'that thing the CIA did' was immoral, or otherwise, I assumed that since you had raised the subject you had a position.
I understand why someone might feel this way. Usually, in philosophy, if you invoke something, the onus is on you to define it or argue for it if it needs arguing. In my defense, I was attacking the opposing view, a view which relies on the notion of torture. The reason why it looks like the onus is on me is because they have never bothered to give their argument. They've spent their entire lives simply assuming their conclusion. So, if they were to do their intellectual duty, they would have to invoke torture and then I could take the happy stance I currently take now: they must prove that CIA water boarding is immoral and they must prove that torture is morally impermissible, as they rely on both premises even if they themselves don't realize it.
Londoner wrote:Your earlier point that it is odd to say we must not waterboard people, but it is OK to kill them in war (along with innocent bystanders) using bombs and missiles, needs answering.
Well, I didn't say it was okay to kill them in war (along with innocent bystanders). I haven't said anything about collateral damage in war. I said that in self-defense -- say a gunman attacks you and your family -- you can sometimes be morally justified in taking his life. You understand the point, I know, but I don't want to be held to saying something I didn't say.
Londoner wrote:But as I wrote earlier, it goes the other way too. Even if we argued that 'that thing' is sometimes acceptable, we still have the problem of where we draw the line, and why.
But this is only a theoretical concern. In practical terms, it's not a concern because CIA water boarding works, and it works without causing severe pain or severe suffering. So we'll just keep doing that and that alone. If the terrorists ever become so resistant that they push us to water board to severe pain or severe suffering, then we might have to ask the question of how much further are we going to ramp up the interrogation techniques to get them to talk. But I can't see that this will ever happen because human beings can only condition themselves so much or tolerate so much.
Londoner wrote:As I asked; can we do it to US citizens? Or where we are not certain whether they have any information to give? I think that if someone argues that 'that thing' is sometimes acceptable, then I think there is also an obligation on them to set the limits.
I can't rule out doing it to US citizens. I think in a case where someone abducts your child and has him tied up in some dungeon, incapable of feeding himself, then I think CIA water boarding should be performed provided we have nearly incontrovertible evidence that he's the abductor. This is a case in which if the perpetrator is unwilling to divulge the location of your child, then your child will die in a day or two.

As I see it, I have to weigh on one side some ad hoc moral tenet that says 'criminals shall not be water boarded' versus the innocent human life about to be immorally extinguished. To me, it's an easy decision.
Belinda
Posts: 8034
Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2016 10:13 am

Re: CIA Water Boarding is Morally Permissible

Post by Belinda »

FiveRedApples wrote:
CIA water boarding is more like Marine Corps bootcamp than it is getting punched lightly in the arm in the same spot over and over again, until one punch becomes excruciatingly painful because of your tenderness and bruising. So, CIA water boarding never reaches the point of severe pain or severe suffering, but is still effective because the realization that you have an indefinite number of water dousings ahead of you will make you talk eventually, and some quicker than others.
This information is either true or false. If it's true, waterboarding is less cruel than some other unusual punishments. I don't actually know whether or not 'torture is a legally defined term like 'murder'.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2340 legal definition of torture in the US

http://www.amnestyusa.org/news/multimed ... is-torture video

(Washington) – The United States government during the Bush administration tortured opponents of Muammar Gaddafi, then transferred them to mistreatment in Libya, according to accounts by former detainees and recently uncovered CIA and UK Secret Service documents, Human Rights Watch said in a report released today. One former detainee alleged he was waterboarded and another described a similar form of water torture, contradicting claims by Bush administration officials that only three men in US custody had been waterboarded.
Londoner
Posts: 783
Joined: Sun Sep 11, 2016 8:47 am

Re: CIA Water Boarding is Morally Permissible

Post by Londoner »

fiveredapples wrote: Now, I think I know where you're going. You want to say that each water dousing becomes more and more painful such that eventually we get to a severely painful water dousing, and it's roughly at this point, or not much further beyond, that these known terrorists decided to talk. And, of course, this paints of a picture of us inflicting severe pain on the known terrorists. This story is coherent enough, but it's not reality.
I am only interested in the degree of pain because you think it important.

If we were arguing that inflicting suffering on prisoners is permissible because we do that - and worse - during war, then why would we be bothered about the degree of suffering?

In a later post you write:
But this is only a theoretical concern. In practical terms, it's not a concern because CIA water boarding works, and it works without causing severe pain or severe suffering. So we'll just keep doing that and that alone. If the terrorists ever become so resistant that they push us to water board to severe pain or severe suffering, then we might have to ask the question of how much further are we going to ramp up the interrogation techniques to get them to talk. But I can't see that this will ever happen because human beings can only condition themselves so much or tolerate so much.
Indeed, it would only be a theoretical concern, in that we are discussing the morality rather than the effectiveness. Whether we can really draw a line between the two is something I return to below.

(As a side issue, a US soldier writing in the magazine which runs these boards suggests that the waterboarding was less successful than was claimed because the enemy had adjusted their organistaion to minimise the damage any individual can inflict. The problem is not whether the person will eventually crack, it is whether you can crack them fast enough.)
I don't know about a "general moral argument" that covers all the cases in which you're morally justified to inflict pain on someone else. I'm not sure I want to even attempt wrapping my head around that. Sounds awfully difficult.

For my purposes, I just know and go by what most people here in America believe: that inflicting pain, even severe pain, even dismembering or killing another human being is sometimes morally permissible, most notably as self-defense. That doesn't mean it's always morally permissible in self-defense, but in many instances it is. So, I think that's enough. And I think CIA water boarding falls directly under the category of self-defense, albeit it's not mano-a-mano self-defense.
But surely self-defence is only permitted where there is an immediate threat - and no alternative is available. One isn't allowed to work on a hypothetical; I cannot shoot somebody because I think they might attack me, or somebody else, in the future.

When giving reasons why waterboarding is acceptable, the 'ticking bomb' scenario is the favourite because it most closely resembles an immediate threat, and thus self-defence.

Later you write:
I can't rule out doing it to US citizens. I think in a case where someone abducts your child and has him tied up in some dungeon, incapable of feeding himself, then I think CIA water boarding should be performed provided we have nearly incontrovertible evidence that he's the abductor. This is a case in which if the perpetrator is unwilling to divulge the location of your child, then your child will die in a day or two.
So again, this scenario closely resembles 'self defence'. The question is why stop there? The people waterboarded by the CIA did not know of that sort of 'ticking bomb' plot, yet it was judged their information could still save US lives. So why shouldn't one torture US citizens who use drugs, to make them reveal their suppliers? Wouldn't that also save lives?

We surely have to have some rule about who can be waterboarded, and by whom.

My own position is that nations like the USA are not supposed to be like fascist states, meaning that they believe their values are universal, not just for Americans. You said above that it would be difficult to come up with a 'general moral argument', yet everyone assumed the USA already had one, and it started:

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...

When the US take a prisoner, I think they are obliged to give them the same rights they say should apply to 'all men'. Of course they can still restrain them, just as they can put criminals in prison, even execute them, but it has to be done according to a law which treats all men equally.

It isn't inconceiveable that the USA might enact a law that allowed waterboarding, but it would have to apply to everyone and be subject to law. If the USA is unwilling (for whatever reason) to allow Americans to be waterboarded, then this must apply to everyone.

Nor is this just theoretical. The Declaration of Independence was a formidable weapon; a powerful argument why the USA was not just another nation. The idea that the US military 'liberated' rather than conquered other people really had traction, when those people were deciding whether to resist the USA or not.

I would suggest that the hostility shown towards your view on these boards is fundamentally motivated by disappointment. Nobody imagined the USA was perfect, but (unlike regimes which have done far worse things) the USA represented hope. That is why so many people are so angry with what has happened to it.
User avatar
Hobbes' Choice
Posts: 8364
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 11:45 am

Re: CIA Water Boarding is Morally Permissible

Post by Hobbes' Choice »

fiveredapples wrote:You poor saps. You're getting pummeled so badly in this debate that you're now grasping at anything to cheer. A few days ago someone wrote this......Bwahahaha!
What a fucking narcissistic p**** you are.
You don't know when you have failed.
User avatar
fiveredapples
Posts: 156
Joined: Sun Oct 31, 2010 10:47 am

Re: CIA Water Boarding is Morally Permissible

Post by fiveredapples »

Belinda,

The following is the US definition of torture, which I got from the first link you provided. I clicked it because I thought it would be relevant to our debate.
(1) “torture” means an act committed by a person acting under the color of law specifically intended to inflict severe physical or mental pain or suffering (other than pain or suffering incidental to lawful sanctions) upon another person within his custody or physical control;
The US definition is much more helpful to me than the UN definition, as it states that torture is the intent to inflict severe physical or mental pain or suffering. But the UN's definition, which as I said before is not an authority we should be concerned with, states that it's the causing of severe pain or suffering in the process of trying to get information.

The only reason Liberals prefer the UN definition is because it is a more inclusive definition, a more lax definition. While I can see why non-American Liberals might prefer the UN definition, I will never understand why any American would cede authority to the UN. Then, again, I do know: they have no problem putting us under the legal and moral thumb of the UN when it fits their political agenda. Traitors the lot of them.

The US definition of torture says that the reason why you're performing some act on someone is to inflict severe physical pain. But the reason we water board known terrorists isn't to inflict physical pain, which is why I said way, way back that the Senate Committee that was in charge of investigating this wasn't able to prove that it was torture, because clearly the reason why we water boarded those known terrorists was to extract information. This US definition also allows the inflicting of severe pain because you can cause someone severe pain in the act of trying to extract information. This is more in keeping with commonsense, as we can inflict severe pain in garden-variety self-defense situations too. That is, it's not your purpose to inflict severe pain. It's your purpose to extract information or to save your own life (from an immoral and illegal attack). It just so happens that the way you extract information causes severe pain. This would still not be considered torture under the US definition. So, you see why Liberals clamor for the UN definition to be applied. The sad part is that I can defend my position that CIA water boarding is morally permissible using either definition.

I have been writing reams and reams of responses, defenses, and arguments for my views. Sadly, my opponents, the most ignoble of ignoramuses, have yet to provide an argument. The easiest thing in philosophy is to nitpick an argument, yet here I stand having successfully defended every bit of what I've said. Liberals can't even put forth an argument for the two premises they need: (1) CIA water boarding is morally impermissible, and (2) Torture is morally impermissible. They are ethically derelict in every way. Thank you for the relevant link.
User avatar
fiveredapples
Posts: 156
Joined: Sun Oct 31, 2010 10:47 am

Re: CIA Water Boarding is Morally Permissible

Post by fiveredapples »

Here, since you dunces can't seem to understand why I simply ignored the following comment, I'll spell it out for you so you can stop fellating each other.
Inflicting ever more physical discomfort to another person until they bend to your will is torture, no matter how you rationalise.
So when I'm attacked, I'm held to the UN definition of torture, which all you imbeciles bray in agreement, but now this idiot uses an ad hoc definition and it applies? Bwahahaha!!!

And let's look at this idiotic definition. What is the crux of the definition? What makes an act torture under this definition? It's when a person is willing to spill the beans. It says nothing about severe pain or severe suffering. If a person decides "Ah hell, I might as well talk after these three water dousings because they're going to keep water dousing me," then this definition says that it was torture despite the fact that the known terrorist felt no severe suffering or severe pain. Heck, he likely felt a lot of discomfort three times. And this is torture now? You fail.

Also "ever more physical discomfort....until they bend to your will" suggests that the pain becomes increasingly more severe, but that's contrary to fact. The pain does not become more and more severe, so your definition doesn't even fit the case of CIA water boarding. Another fail.

And, again, then there's the little problem of you simply making up your own definition, which was the wail against me in the beginning (ha ha ha!), as if it's applicable to this debate. At least my definition makes sense. At least my definition, which as I said was better than the UN's terrible definition, is very close to the US definition. A third time you fail.

This is the idiotic comment (which you called an "argument" -- LOL) that was supposed to REVEAL THE WEAKNESS---I can't go on, it's all too silly. I will say this much: You intellectual troglodytes are terrifically entertaining!
User avatar
Hobbes' Choice
Posts: 8364
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 11:45 am

Re: CIA Water Boarding is Morally Permissible

Post by Hobbes' Choice »

fiveredapples wrote:Here, since you dunces can't seem to understand why I simply ignored the following comment, I'll spell it out for you so you can stop fellating each other.
The fact is that none of us think your idea has any legs.

It does not matter how you dress it up, but living in a free world means accepting a minimum standard of behaviour. If we descent to your level then we might just as well live in Saudi Arabia.
User avatar
fiveredapples
Posts: 156
Joined: Sun Oct 31, 2010 10:47 am

Re: CIA Water Boarding is Morally Permissible

Post by fiveredapples »

Londoner wrote:I am only interested in the degree of pain because you think it important.

If we were arguing that inflicting suffering on prisoners is permissible because we do that - and worse - during war, then why would we be bothered about the degree of suffering?
Actually, I don't think it's important. As I said, I think CIA water boarding falls under the title of self-defense, and in the process of self-defense we are sometimes morally permitted to inflict the most gruesome of pain on an individual. Mind you, if we were using the US definition of torture, which Belinda links to, then this discussion would be moot, as it should be, because the US definition says that the purpose of the act must be to inflict severe pain. But the purpose of CIA water boarding is not to inflict pain, so we can inflict as much pain as necessary in order to (<--the purpose) get them to give us the information they have.

My responses about the level of pain are simply to shed some light on what actually is happening during water boarding, and I'm saying it never reaches the level of severe pain. This is in response to those imposing the UN definition of torture, which to me seems inapplicable to US policy, but at least I have been gracious enough to answer their misguided questions.
Londoner wrote:(As a side issue, a US soldier writing in the magazine which runs these boards suggests that the waterboarding was less successful than was claimed because the enemy had adjusted their organistaion to minimise the damage any individual can inflict. The problem is not whether the person will eventually crack, it is whether you can crack them fast enough.)
I actually think this is helpful to my opponents, but it's not enough. We have to remember that the three known terrorists we're discussing were strongly believed to have close ties to the 9/11 plot and the mastermind of the 9/11 plot, which was Khalid Sheik Mohammed. It was through interrogating the first one (maybe the 2nd one) that we were able to capture Khalid Sheik Mohammed. And all gave us valuable information, which was verified. I think we learned of an attack on Heathrow Airport this way and one on Los Angeles. Don't hold me to that right now. I will dig up my sources soon. Let me bet back to you on how quickly these guys talked. I do think this is an important point though.
Londoner wrote:But surely self-defence is only permitted where there is an immediate threat - and no alternative is available. One isn't allowed to work on a hypothetical; I cannot shoot somebody because I think they might attack me, or somebody else, in the future.
Well, I don't think that's the case at all. Most cases of self-defense fall under the 'immediate threat' category, but nothing about self-defense suggests that the threat must be immediate. If someone launches a slow moving rocket at the USA, which will take a month to hit its target, surely we're morally permitted to shoot it down on Day 1, right? Must we wait till Day 29, when the threat is "immediate"? No, that's silly. Terrorist plots are not hypothetical plots. They are real plots, which take sometimes weeks or months to play out, so as long as they've hatched their plot, we can take action against it and that action will fall under the classification of self-defense. Tell me what's problematic with this reasoning?
User avatar
Hobbes' Choice
Posts: 8364
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 11:45 am

Re: CIA Water Boarding is Morally Permissible

Post by Hobbes' Choice »

fiveredapples wrote:. As I said, I think CIA water boarding falls under the title of self-defense, and in the process of self-defense we are sometimes morally permitted to inflict the most gruesome of pain on an individual. Tell me what's problematic with this reasoning?
This is priceless.

A yank invades a foreign country that has never threatened the USA, kidnaps an inhabitant, renditions him to another country, straps him to a gurney and tortures him. This is self defence?
User avatar
fiveredapples
Posts: 156
Joined: Sun Oct 31, 2010 10:47 am

Re: CIA Water Boarding is Morally Permissible

Post by fiveredapples »

So again, this scenario closely resembles 'self defence'. The question is why stop there? The people waterboarded by the CIA did not know of that sort of 'ticking bomb' plot, yet it was judged their information could still save US lives. So why shouldn't one torture US citizens who use drugs, to make them reveal their suppliers? Wouldn't that also save lives?
Well, while I personally have no problem with water boarding US citizens who abduct children and essentially decide to murder them by not revealing their location, I recognize that there's a balance we must reach between our laws and our morality. The American public is nowhere near ready to sanction the water boarding of drug dealers, even after they've been tried and found guilty, so you can't just impose a law on them, as they must sanction such laws, that says we will water board drug dealers. But we don't need the sanction of islamic terrorists to impose water boarding on them, so I think that these will be very different types of arguments.
Londoner wrote:My own position is that nations like the USA are not supposed to be like fascist states, meaning that they believe their values are universal, not just for Americans. You said above that it would be difficult to come up with a 'general moral argument', yet everyone assumed the USA already had one, and it started:

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...
And your objection to the words of our Declaration of Independence is what? That all men don't have "certain unalienable Rights" Or, that men's unalienable Rights don't include Life (don't unjustly kill me) or the pursuit of Happiness (don't persecute me)? Either you agree or disagree. If you disagree, then what's the argument?

You're saying that we're imposing this view of man on everyone. That is how we're supposed to be "fascists." But we don't impose our laws on anyone outside our country. And if we graciously grant the awesome protection of our laws to non-citizens, then it's just benevolence on our part, if not down-right stupidity sometimes, as when Obama wanted to try terrorists in US courts of law, as if these terrorists fell under the protection of the US Constitution, which they do not. The US Constitution is the law of our land. It's an agreement among a group of people (ahem, Americans) to abide by these laws and be held accountable to these laws. Non-Americans, e.g. terrorists, are not part of this agreement, so they don't get the benefit of our laws. No one disputes that -- well, except you and Obama, apparently.
Londoner wrote:When the US take a prisoner, I think they are obliged to give them the same rights they say should apply to 'all men'.
This follows from what? Nothing. The terrorists fall outside the laws of the US Constitution. They don't even fall within the laws of the Geneva Convention, because they are not members. That's the point of agreements: you say you will be held accountable to other members, all who are supposed to follow the rules or laws you've agreed to act under. You want terrorists to have the liberty to blow up innocent people and then be gifted the benefits of our Constitution? This is asinine.
Belinda
Posts: 8034
Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2016 10:13 am

Re: CIA Water Boarding is Morally Permissible

Post by Belinda »

FiveRedApples wrote:
The US definition of torture says that the reason why you're performing some act on someone is to inflict severe physical pain. But the reason we water board known terrorists isn't to inflict physical pain, which is why I said way, way back that the Senate Committee that was in charge of investigating this wasn't able to prove that it was torture, because clearly the reason why we water boarded those known terrorists was to extract information. This US definition also allows the inflicting of severe pain because you can cause someone severe pain in the act of trying to extract information. This is more in keeping with commonsense, as we can inflict severe pain in garden-variety self-defense situations too. That is, it's not your purpose to inflict severe pain. It's your purpose to extract information or to save your own life (from an immoral and illegal attack). It just so happens that the way you extract information causes severe pain. This would still not be considered torture under the US definition.
But the intent to inflict pain is instrumental in the process of extracting information. It is absurd to imply that a consciously aware human agent is unaware that her method of extracting information is or is not painful for the detainee. I invoke the ethical principle that the end does not justify the means.

If you don't agree with the latter you imply that a teacher is justified in beating her pupil with a cane in order to frighten the pupil into obedience. If you believe that the end justifies the means you imply that a profits oriented employer lies to her employees that the contract is for one year when in fact she intends to sack some of them after the Christmas rush. I am sure I need not insult your philosophical acumen FiveRedApples by citing examples but not everyone is experienced in putting to practical use the ethic that the end does not justify the means.
User avatar
fiveredapples
Posts: 156
Joined: Sun Oct 31, 2010 10:47 am

Re: CIA Water Boarding is Morally Permissible

Post by fiveredapples »

Belinda wrote:But the intent to inflict pain is instrumental in the process of extracting information.
That's such sloppy phrasing that it's almost meaningless. What is the purpose of CIA water boarding? To extract information. That's it. It's over. Liberals lose.

Was the purpose of water boarding, as used by the CIA, to inflict severe pain? No, we've already answered that it's to extract information. Does the implementation of water boarding cause pain or suffering? Yes. This is not a problem, as pain or suffering isn't enough. You need severe pain or suffering. Does the implementation of water boarding cause severe pain or suffering? Doubtful. Not enough evidence to say it does. But even if the answer were Yes. Then, again, it wouldn't be a problem under the US definition of torture, because we've already said that the purpose of the CIA water boarding is to extract information. This is why Liberals insist on using the UN definition of torture -- because then they don't need to worry about intent. They would just have to show there was severe pain or suffering, whether intended or not, to claim that CIA water boarding is torture. Unfortunately for them, none of the three known terrorists water boarded by the CIA suffered any severe pain or suffering. In light of no such evidence at least, that's a perfectly reasonable belief. And this takes us to one of the problems in this debate: how to accurately characterize the pain/suffering/discomfort that the person water boarded experiences.

I think in some sense, both sides, me and my opponents, are arguing from ignorance. I don't think either of us have enough empirical evidence to show one way or another just how much pain or suffering is involved. So, we're left to theorize, more or less, and use poor second-hand evidence, a la Christopher Hitchens's testimony (which, frankly, helps me more than it does my opponents).

Those who want to classify CIA water boarding as torture tend to use the UN definition of torture -- which merely requires the causing of severe pain or suffering, as opposed to the intent to cause severe pain or suffering, as the US definition dictates. They state that CIA water boarding causes severe pain or severe suffering. The problem for them is that there is a reasonable story about how CIA water boarding works without inflicting severe pain or suffering. I won't rehash that story, but I've given it once or twice in this thread. It's the plausibility of this story which my opponents must contend with, and in light the of the lack of the proper evidence, they are left insisting that their story is correct and that mine is incorrect. But that's hardly compelling, and so I can philosophically stand my ground. This isn't to suggest that I've proven my case that there's no severe pain or suffering. Again, I'm admitting there isn't a lot of good evidence that there is or that there isn't, but the problem is that I don't need to prove 'severe pain' for my position that CIA water boarding is morally permissible, while my opponents need to prove 'severe pain' for their position that it's morally impermissible. So, they are losing this debate.
Belinda wrote:It is absurd to imply that a consciously aware human agent is unaware that her method of extracting information is or is not painful for the detainee.

Nobody is suggesting that the CIA isn't aware that they're inflicting pain and suffering on the terrorists they water board. The question is how much pain and suffering is being inflicted. So your objection is moot.
Belinda wrote:I invoke the ethical principle that the end does not justify the means.
You can invoke whatever principle you want. It serves no purpose. It's completely meaningless if you can't explain how it's applicable to this debate, and once you start giving that explanation, you'll end up right back to the debate we're currently having. So, "the end doesn't justify the means," "an eye for an eye," "two wrongs don't make a right," etc. ad nauseum are just empty generalizations until you infuse them with specifics, and those specifics are the details we're considering already.
Belinda wrote:If you don't agree with the latter you imply that a teacher is justified in beating her pupil with a cane in order to frighten the pupil into obedience. If you believe that the end justifies the means you imply that a profits oriented employer lies to her employees that the contract is for one year when in fact she intends to sack some of them after the Christmas rush. I am sure I need not insult your philosophical acumen FiveRedApples by citing examples but not everyone is experienced in putting to practical use the ethic that the end does not justify the means.
You do not insult my philosophical acumen with sincere concerns and objections. No matter how wrong I think you are, something sincere comes through in your posts. That said, it's almost pointless to invoke broad ethical principles. This debate is essentially about the moral status of 'the means' (CIA water boarding).

By invoking this principle, you're simply implying that CIA water boarding is unethical, which is what you should be arguing for, not just insisting upon. The saying "The end doesn't justify the means" implies that 'the means' are immoral, and that even if you produce a positive end, that the means remain immoral and aren't absolved or sanctified or changed to 'moral' just because the end product was a good one. So, invoking this principle is question begging.
Locked