When Is Torture 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: When Is Torture Morally Permissible?

Post by fiveredapples »

Ha ha ha...I did say we wouldn't get any philosophy from the peanut gallery.
Torture is never morally permissible. Suffering is permissible for learning.
Pronouncements. No argument.
Well first lets get it straight that 'intellectually' I realize that anyone that murders is mentally disturbed in some way.
Pronouncement. No argument.
Rules for torture are rules for a contest.
Idiocy. No argument.
Torturing someone in order to extract information from them that is better known than unknown as per utilitarianism for example
Not treating morality as a choice between the twin absolutes of black and white but a more complex one between shades of grey
Incoherent ramblings of the morally deranged. No argument.

Nobody in this PHILOSOPHY FORUM can do philosophy. Heck, they can't even string together enough premises to contribute a half-ass argument. Instead, we're treated to PRONOUNCEMENTS FROM UP HIGH. Accept their pronouncements, you simpletons, for they have spoken, they who have no need or use for arguments, for reason, for cogency or clarity. They have feelings and opinions, dammit, and they will share them as gospel. So sayeth the priests of the Cult of Pronouncements!
Last edited by fiveredapples on Thu Mar 02, 2017 4:59 pm, edited 1 time in total.
ken
Posts: 2075
Joined: Mon May 09, 2016 4:14 am

Re: When Is Torture Morally Permissible?

Post by ken »

fiveredapples wrote:Ha ha ha...I did say we wouldn't get any philosophy from the peanut gallery.
Torture is never morally permissible. Suffering is permissible for learning.
Pronouncements. No argument.
Well first lets get it straight that 'intellectually' I realize that anyone that murders is mentally disturbed in some way.
Pronouncement. No argument.
Rules for torture are rules for a contest.
Idiocy. No argument.
Torturing someone in order to extract information from them that is better known than unknown as per utilitarianism for example
Not treating morality as a choice between the twin absolutes of black and white but a more complex one between shades of grey
Incoherent ramblings of the morally deranged. No argument.

Nobody in this PHILOSOPHY FORUM can do philosophy. Heck, they can't even string together enough premises to contribute a half-ass argument. Instead, we're treated to PRONOUNCEMENTS FROM UP HIGH. Accept their pronouncements, you simpletons, for they have spoken, they who have no need or use for arguments, for reason, for cogency or clarity -- they have feelings and opinions, dammit, and they will share them as gospel.

MOAR PRONOUNCEMENTS, please.
fiveredapples you do know you yourself have only made pronouncements here? You have NOT made one argument yet.
User avatar
fiveredapples
Posts: 156
Joined: Sun Oct 31, 2010 10:47 am

Re: When Is Torture Morally Permissible?

Post by fiveredapples »

You don't know what an argument is, so I'm not worried that you can't spot one.
ken
Posts: 2075
Joined: Mon May 09, 2016 4:14 am

Re: When Is Torture Morally Permissible?

Post by ken »

fiveredapples wrote:You don't know what an argument is, so I'm not worried that you can't spot one.
Why would you even expect an imbecile, nincompoop, and numbskull, like Me, to be able to spot an argument?

You say that you are not worried, so why do you not just clearly and distinctly write your argument for Me here and now, so that I can take a look at it? I will then be able to comment on it. If, however, you do NOT produce one for Me, then I will take that as plainly obvious that you are very worried and very scared.
User avatar
fiveredapples
Posts: 156
Joined: Sun Oct 31, 2010 10:47 am

Re: When Is Torture Morally Permissible?

Post by fiveredapples »

ken wrote:Why would you even expect an imbecile, nincompoop, and numbskull, like Me, to be able to spot an argument?
Because you keep using the word "argument" like you know what it means, and you're a member of a PHILOSOPHY FORUM -- you know, just the place where people go to give arguments.
ken wrote:You say that you are not worried, so why do you not just clearly and distinctly write your argument for Me here and now, so that I can take a look at it? I will then be able to comment on it. If, however, you do NOT produce one for Me, then I will take that as plainly obvious that you are very worried and very scared.
I will present my thoughts as I see fit. This thread is about unpacking the general conception of torture, a conception that does not include the notion of moral impermissibility. Look in any dictionary -- none will say that torture is inherently morally impermissible. So I have no idea what country or planet people are from who are claiming that torture is by definition morally impermissible. You don't get to make up your own language out of convenience. Maybe on Bizarro Earth 'torture' is inherently morally impermissible, but here on Earth it's not inherently morally impermissible. So, those Bizarro Philosophers owe us an argument, or they should keep their idiocy holes closed.

I have no interest in you judging my arguments. That's pretty preposterous. You're not qualified to judge arguments, let alone my arguments. What hubris to think that someone of your intelligence, of your obvious philosophical ineptitude, or your ignorance slathered in arrogance, could objectively weigh my arguments. Nobody is awaiting your judgment. I will post my comments, my explanation, my reasoning, my arguments, and then I will weigh in on what I've said. That's really the only reasonable way this thread can develop intelligently. All you will do is make 10 pronouncements and wait for me to spend 3 days undermining your pronouncements with arguments. I'm sorry, that doesn't seem like a fair exchange. You rattle off stupidity in a minute and I explain your assumptions, your fallacies, your poor reasoning, and for what? Just to show that you are littering this thread? Uhm...no thanks. Your opinions are worthless at this point.

So, up, up, and away you go, back to Bizarro Earth, where you're "good" at philosophy, where you provide "arguments", and where you're not a clown.
User avatar
SpheresOfBalance
Posts: 5688
Joined: Sat Sep 10, 2011 4:27 pm
Location: On a Star Dust Metamorphosis

Re: When Is Torture Morally Permissible?

Post by SpheresOfBalance »

The brain dead fiveredapples wrote:Ha ha ha...I did say we wouldn't get any philosophy from the peanut gallery.
<snip>
Well first lets get it straight that 'intellectually' I realize that anyone that murders is mentally disturbed in some way.
Pronouncement. No argument.
<snip>
I addressed this last bit of yours to the T:
The brain dead fiveredapples had previously wrote:I haven't put much more thought into this thread other than we'll have to think up some extreme and obvious cases in which torture would be morally permissible, and then analyze what about the particular conditions of those cases make torture morally permissible. This is how we can better understand our conception of torture.
that you're too lazy to sift through it is your problem. If you wanted a format more suited to a logic student then you should have said so, you specified no format. So put up or shut up.

Nobody in this PHILOSOPHY FORUM can do philosophy. Heck, they can't even string together enough premises to contribute a half-ass argument. Instead, we're treated to PRONOUNCEMENTS FROM UP HIGH. Accept their pronouncements, you simpletons, for they have spoken, they who have no need or use for arguments, for reason, for cogency or clarity. They have feelings and opinions, dammit, and they will share them as gospel. So sayeth the priests of the Cult of Pronouncements!
You surely seem to be a child, how physically old are you? I want to compare your expressed maturity level with your physical age. I want to start considering what it was that stunted your maturity, unless you are indeed physically a young one.

You seem to be a megalomaniacal troll. You fail to state a preferred format, then when those kind enough to honestly try an add to your thread, don't guess what your self centered expectations are, you scream like a immature girly-boy, complete with childish insults/condescension. Yea, the typical troll modus operandi.

I mean are you really too dumb to realize that everyone fears death, it's the reason for culture, and most of human erratic behavior, and while torture isn't necessarily death, it's a close cousin. So obviously people are going to shy away from a topic so ingrained in their fear structure. Most can't address such a potentially final topic. So boy, show us an example of the format you're looking for, so you can amaze us with your brilliance (hic).

You gonna man-up or what? I mean can you only find strength behind that keyboard of yours?
One more thing, The wise treat others with the same respect they expect, else in this medium they're in fact cowards! It would seem you already have, but, take your pick.
Last edited by SpheresOfBalance on Thu Mar 02, 2017 10:19 pm, edited 3 times in total.
User avatar
Harbal
Posts: 9559
Joined: Thu Jun 20, 2013 10:03 pm
Location: Yorkshire
Contact:

Re: When Is Torture Morally Permissible?

Post by Harbal »

fiveredapples wrote: I have no interest in you judging my arguments. That's pretty preposterous. You're not qualified to judge arguments, let alone my arguments. What hubris to think that someone of your intelligence, of your obvious philosophical ineptitude, or your ignorance slathered in arrogance, could objectively weigh my arguments. Nobody is awaiting your judgment. I will post my comments, my explanation, my reasoning, my arguments, and then I will weigh in on what I've said. That's really the only reasonable way this thread can develop intelligently. All you will do is make 10 pronouncements and wait for me to spend 3 days undermining your pronouncements with arguments. I'm sorry, that doesn't seem like a fair exchange. You rattle off stupidity in a minute and I explain your assumptions, your fallacies, your poor reasoning, and for what? Just to show that you are littering this thread? Uhm...no thanks. Your opinions are worthless at this point.
I don't know if you're any good at philosophy but you'd sure make a first rate pantomime villain.
fiveredapples wrote:Ha ha ha...
You've even got the wicked laugh. Do you take bookings for kid's parties?
uwot
Posts: 6093
Joined: Mon Jul 23, 2012 7:21 am

Re: When Is Torture Morally Permissible?

Post by uwot »

Can't be arsed to read the whole thread; I've already made the point that christianity is a torture cult, the logo for which is a crude device on which thousands of people have died horribly. So what's this all about, five?
fiveredapples wrote:In the 'UN Definition' thread we saw that the UN, by its own rationale, conceded that some acts of intentionally inflicting severe pain on someone were not acts of torture...
I realize that some of you believe that torture logically implies moral impermissibility, so your answer to the topic question will be 'never.'...
This thread is only going to be fruitful for those who leave open the possibility that some acts of torture are morally permissible. I think that possibility exists simply because torture does not imply moral impermissibility.
The problem is the word 'torture'. I suspect that for many people, it has the same moral baggage that 'murder' has, so one person's euthanasia or abortion is another religious nut's murder.
fiveredapples wrote:I haven't put much more thought into this thread other than we'll have to think up some extreme and obvious cases in which torture would be morally permissible, and then analyze what about the particular conditions of those cases make torture morally permissible.
Well indeed. You can get into some utilitarian calculus and justify torture by the numbers. I also imagine that in an obvious case involving a psychopath that has your child chained up in a basement, few parents would morally object to the psycho's arm being twisted to discover the location.
One bit of the thread caught my eye, because it is so manifestly bollocks:
fiveredapples wrote:Morality may be relative (to a degree), but it's clearly objective. Morality, like language, is a social phenomenon, so the objective standard for morality -- what's right and wrong -- is determined by the group.
That's more yer Tractatus than later Wittgenstein; if morality is like language, it is that it is contextual, and the fact that one speaks the same language, or shares some moral opinions with a group, doesn't make either objective. Personally, I think it is morally disgusting that war is perceived by some as a gentlemanly pursuit, with rules of fair play, but this is what the UN would have us believe.


[Edited by iMod]
ken
Posts: 2075
Joined: Mon May 09, 2016 4:14 am

Re: When Is Torture Morally Permissible?

Post by ken »

I could say that was a good attempt at side stepping the issue of you not yet providing an argument, but I will not. As it is plainly obvious that you still can not provide an argument for your belief. I can feel your worry and fear from here.
fiveredapples wrote:
ken wrote:Why would you even expect an imbecile, nincompoop, and numbskull, like Me, to be able to spot an argument?
Because you keep using the word "argument" like you know what it means, and you're a member of a PHILOSOPHY FORUM -- you know, just the place where people go to give arguments.
So why do YOU not give arguments here?

You might say you have given an argument here, but if you look again and more closely you will see the truth.

I do not have a view either way here on this issue. I have just been trying to gain a perspective of HOW you believe torture is morally permissible, but your consistincy in side stepping this is showing us that you have nothing to support your own belief.
fiveredapples wrote:
ken wrote:You say that you are not worried, so why do you not just clearly and distinctly write your argument for Me here and now, so that I can take a look at it? I will then be able to comment on it. If, however, you do NOT produce one for Me, then I will take that as plainly obvious that you are very worried and very scared.
I will present my thoughts as I see fit.
Yes that is what I am asking you to do. Present your thoughts, as you see fit, but do not expect us to wait around for much longer.
fiveredapples wrote:This thread is about unpacking the general conception of torture, a conception that does not include the notion of moral impermissibility.
I will ask again, what is your conception of 'torture' that does not include the notion of moral impermissibility, which by the way you believe is the "general" conception, right?
fiveredapples wrote:Look in any dictionary -- none will say that torture is inherently morally impermissible.
.

Are you trying to say the only reason you have for torture being morally permissible is because no dictionary states torture is inherently morally impermissible? If so, then your line of reasoning does not sound to cogent at all. If you also take a look NO dictionary will say that torture is inherently morally permissible
fiveredapples wrote:So I have no idea what country or planet people are from who are claiming that torture is by definition morally impermissible.
Who is claiming that? I do not and have not done that anywhere. Can we just get on with what you want to say?

fiveredapples wrote:You don't get to make up your own language out of convenience. Maybe on Bizarro Earth 'torture' is inherently morally impermissible, but here on Earth it's not inherently morally impermissible. So, those Bizarro Philosophers owe us an argument, or they should keep their idiocy holes closed.
Why do you not have to owe an argument when it is YOU who states torture is morally permissible, but you expect an argument from others who state otherwise?
fiveredapples wrote: Ihave no interest in you judging my arguments. That's pretty preposterous. You're not qualified to judge arguments, let alone my arguments.


Until you provide an argument you will never know if I am qualified or not. With you speaking like this and trying to side step providing an argument is just more obvious proof of your incapabilities.

fiveredapples wrote:What hubris to think that someone of your intelligence, of your obvious philosophical ineptitude, or your ignorance slathered in arrogance, could objectively weigh my arguments.
Again, awaiting your "arguments".
fiveredapples wrote:Nobody is awaiting your judgment.
.

Are you absolutely of this?

fiveredapples wrote:I will post my comments, my explanation, my reasoning, my arguments, and then I will weigh in on what I've said. That's really the only reasonable way this thread can develop intelligently
.

And the only reasonable response is with the question, 'When will you post your explanation, your reasoning and your arguments?'
fiveredapples wrote:All you will do is make 10 pronouncements and wait for me to spend 3 days undermining your pronouncements with arguments.
How are you so sure of this? And how sure are you of your belief here?
fiveredapples wrote:I'm sorry, that doesn't seem like a fair exchange. You rattle off stupidity in a minute and I explain your assumptions, your fallacies, your poor reasoning, and for what? Just to show that you are littering this thread? Uhm...no thanks. Your opinions are worthless at this point.
Are you still unaware that I have not provided any assumptions nor any opinion yet. All I have done here is try to get out of you what it is that you keep alluding to here, that is you believe torture is morally permissible. I am still waiting for some examples of how torture is morally permissible, and still waiting for your reasoning of how torture is morally permissible.
fiveredapples wrote:So, up, up, and away you go, back to Bizarro Earth, where you're "good" at philosophy, where you provide "arguments", and where you're not a clown.
Okay all mighty one.
User avatar
fiveredapples
Posts: 156
Joined: Sun Oct 31, 2010 10:47 am

Re: When Is Torture Morally Permissible?

Post by fiveredapples »

Now that the trolls' comments have mostly been purged, I will soon return to this thread. It's truly sad and pathetic that a placed named "Philosophy Now" would attract so many anti-intellectuals, dogmatists, trolls, and troglodytes -- all those antithetical to human reason and honest debate. I think I have a sense of what Copernicus faced when trying to argue for the heliocentric model of our solar system, a hint of what Marcelino Sanz de Sautuola must have gone through when arguing for the authenticity of the cave paintings of Altamira, what it must have felt to be surrounded by flat-Earthers. The Enlightenment's work continues. The fight against small minds continues. The fake news disciples bring pitchforks and torches -- but no arguments.

I will continue to lay bare all my assumptions, premises, inferences, and conclusions. I hide nothing. I take nothing for granted that isn't obviously true. But, most of all, I explain all of my inferences (freshly won premises) so that my reasoning can be judged and attacked. I present arguments. My opponents attack me, use pop psychology to "diagnose" my motivations for this thread, use the most blatant and embarrassing fallacies, and ignore my arguments so as to avoid honest debate. What we have here are morons of the highest order. They vaguely recognize that my arguments are powerful, so helpless to defeat them, they do everything but challenge me philosophically. They have their dogmas and I threaten their religion. So, they are on a witch hunt. That's all this is. A majority of imbeciles are very wrong and one intelligent person is exposing their idiocy, their lifetime of idiocy, so that person must be destroyed at all costs. These are the enemies of truth and reason. So, prepare for more pronouncements from the Lobotomy Left. Be prepared for more pop psychology from the propaganda machine. Be prepared for more carping and constant changing of the topic. It's all meant to deflect from the obvious: they cannot undermine my arguments. What they want is for the person who puts forth arguments that they cannot defeat or slightly undermine to not be believed, to be discredited, to be ignored, while their dogma passes off as truth.
ken
Posts: 2075
Joined: Mon May 09, 2016 4:14 am

Re: When Is Torture Morally Permissible?

Post by ken »

fiveredapples wrote:Now that the trolls' comments have mostly been purged, I will soon return to this thread. It's truly sad and pathetic that a placed named "Philosophy Now" would attract so many anti-intellectuals, dogmatists, trolls, and troglodytes -- all those antithetical to human reason and honest debate. I think I have a sense of what Copernicus faced when trying to argue for the heliocentric model of our solar system, a hint of what Marcelino Sanz de Sautuola must have gone through when arguing for the authenticity of the cave paintings of Altamira, what it must have felt to be surrounded by flat-Earthers. The Enlightenment's work continues. The fight against small minds continues. The fake news disciples bring pitchforks and torches -- but no arguments.

I will continue to lay bare all my assumptions, premises, inferences, and conclusions. I hide nothing. I take nothing for granted that isn't obviously true. But, most of all, I explain all of my inferences (freshly won premises) so that my reasoning can be judged and attacked. I present arguments. My opponents attack me, use pop psychology to "diagnose" my motivations for this thread, use the most blatant and embarrassing fallacies, and ignore my arguments so as to avoid honest debate. What we have here are morons of the highest order. They vaguely recognize that my arguments are powerful, so helpless to defeat them, they do everything but challenge me philosophically. They have their dogmas and I threaten their religion. So, they are on a witch hunt. That's all this is. A majority of imbeciles are very wrong and one intelligent person is exposing their idiocy, their lifetime of idiocy, so that person must be destroyed at all costs. These are the enemies of truth and reason. So, prepare for more pronouncements from the Lobotomy Left. Be prepared for more pop psychology from the propaganda machine. Be prepared for more carping and constant changing of the topic. It's all meant to deflect from the obvious: they cannot undermine my arguments. What they want is for the person who puts forth arguments that they cannot defeat or slightly undermine to not be believed, to be discredited, to be ignored, while their dogma passes off as truth.
BUT you are yet to provide one argument.
uwot
Posts: 6093
Joined: Mon Jul 23, 2012 7:21 am

Re: When Is Torture Morally Permissible?

Post by uwot »

iMod wrote:[Edited by iMod]
Really? I can't see the join.
Anyway: fiveredapples, is your exhortation to "Look in any dictionary" ironic?
(For those unfamiliar with Wittgenstein, 'five reds apples' is a thought experiment in Wittgenstein's Philosophical Investigations, in which he argues that meaning is related to use rather than any dictionary definition.)
User avatar
Greta
Posts: 4389
Joined: Sat Aug 08, 2015 8:10 am

Re: When Is Torture Morally Permissible?

Post by Greta »

It is a shame that spiteful pseudo intellectual ideologues should be able to stomp around philosophy forums, abusing and pouring scorn on others with complete impunity, and then even have attempts to call their actions to account removed.

The entire premise of the tread is a crock - an unqualified person for whom the issue is none of his business trying to convince other unqualified people who also have almost zero stake in the issue. Ideological bias renders opinions on this thread largely meaningless. We know FiveRedApples is a right wing warrior who regularly finds ways of insulting those he identified as "lefties". How can a balanced or trustworthy view be expected from such a driven "cultural warrior"?

Unless one has been directly involved in torture I see little grounds for useful debate here, just another opportunity for those on either side of the political spectrum to disparage each other. If the topic had been presented objectively rather than as a polemic with combative follow-up, perhaps a useful discussion may have been possible.
User avatar
Hobbes' Choice
Posts: 8364
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 11:45 am

Re: When Is Torture Morally Permissible?

Post by Hobbes' Choice »

There is a most basic and fundamental moral idea which is for the most part the rock upon which all morality rests, and that is the idea that you should not do to others anything that you yourself ought not to suffer. It's expressed as the golden rule or the categorical imperative and is possibly to closest you can get to a universal idea in morality.

There are some that expect rights for themselves that they do not think others deserve. Such a person is FiveRedApples. As such he can have no place in any community that I am a part of.

If this makes my a 'leftie" then I am proud to be that.
User avatar
vegetariantaxidermy
Posts: 13983
Joined: Thu Aug 09, 2012 6:45 am
Location: Narniabiznus

Re: When Is Torture Morally Permissible?

Post by vegetariantaxidermy »

Even unimaginative, sadistic, immoral fascists like 5re have a vested interest in torture not being an acceptable and legal practice. He could find himself on the receiving end at some point, as could anyone. The same applies to the death penalty in the US. It would seem that it's more likely to be the innocent who receive it because an innocent person is unlikely to admit to something they haven't done, and the immoral 'plea bargaining' enables many of the guilty to escape execution. A similar anomaly exists here, where someone must remain in prison until they give an acceptable show of 'remorse'. How can you feel remorse for something you haven't done? There are a few rotting in prison here under those circumstances.
Post Reply