On Apr 24, 2009, at 12:04 PM, Jordan Hayes wrote:
> Chris Doss writes:
>
>> I questioned the claim that it is always ineffective.
>
> This is precisely the question that leads you to Cheney's position,
> spelled out clearly in Suskind's "The One Percent Doctrine" -- if
> there's a chance, even a small one, that it could be a threat, you
> must presume it is; if there's a chance, even a small one, that
> torture could lead to an intel win, you must do "whatever it
> takes" ...
>
There is one other very important thing that leads Cheney&Co to their actions: their utter lack of interest in universal moral justification and total comfort in reasoning based on an individual or particular group's self-interest. This is the same logic, AFAICT, of "shock and awe" or "broken windows" etc.
> To say that it "works" sometimes means that you believe that
> sometimes, as Colbert said the other night, the ends justify the
> screams. You can't take the position that "it works sometimes" and
> not be firmly in the camp of Cheney and Yoo.
I don't think so. You need to share their moral emptiness to be in their camp. You may join the mushier camp of the general populace, which as per this title is held to weigh the pros and cons in arriving at an answer, but even that's not necessarily so.
The argument is not new. Even recently, Dawkins, Lewontin, others have argued that we need not mix up questions of fact with questions of value. I like Carrol's simple dismissal, though he is no doubt horrified by my labelling it a moral stance.
On Apr 24, 2009, at 9:55 PM, Bill Bartlett wrote:
> At 11:27 AM -0400 24/4/09, ravi wrote:
>>
>> there are independent (of results of torture) reasons to (a)
>> believe that witches do not exist and (b) terrorists and their
>> plans of mayhem do.
>
> You miss the point, which is that there is no evidence that torture
> works to get reliable information.
>
Yes, I agree. I was only pointing out that the reasoning regarding witches is a different one. Anyway, it might not be your lack of humour, but my density, so don't hold back on the wittiness (and attempts). This place can use some levity! Heck, I am even enjoying you and Chris calling each other names ;-).
On Apr 24, 2009, at 11:49 AM, Chris Doss wrote:
>
> I made no claim about the moral permissibility or the desirability
> of engaging in torture. I questioned the claim that it is always
> ineffective.
Yes, yes. I didn't mean to cast your position as anything but the above.
--ravi