My KSM hypo was really stupid, according to some, because it was so obviously designed to elicit a “yes” answer that anyone would answer yes. So what was the point of asking a question that anyone would answer yes?
Also, the answer is “no” because torture is always wrong.
Pronounced "Patter-EE-koh"
E-mail: Just use my moniker Patterico, followed by the @ symbol, followed by gmail.com
Disclaimer: Simpsons avatar may resemble a younger Patterico...
The statements made on this web site reflect the personal opinions of the author. They are not made in any official capacity, and do not represent the opinions of the author's employer.
| M | T | W | T | F | S | S |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | |||
| 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 |
| 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 |
| 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 |
| 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | ||
Powered by WordPress.
If the answer was so obviously yes, why were there so damn many no’s?
JD (33beff) — 11/15/2007 @ 11:52 pmI’m late to the party. So just curious, did any of your questions cover if it is appropriate to torture American citizens?
Dave (e39a45) — 11/16/2007 @ 2:02 amWhat about someone an “undoubtedly evil terrorist and mass murderer”.
Is that always a no? I do hope citizenship doesn’t change your answer, based on the previous “common sense” you talked about.
In the hypothetical situation, I would probably have shot him in the kneecap and proceeded to other joints until I got the answer… realizing fully well that I would be prosecuted for this, but also realizing I saved innocent lives. Innocent lives vs. a scumbag, I’ll pick the innocents every time. Same situation and anyone else, including a fellow American, same answer.
Lurkin_no_mo (e83663) — 11/16/2007 @ 2:51 amBetter to be tried by 12 than carried by 6, or have many people being carried by six because I made a politically correct decision.
So for a question that is flawed due to the fact that anyone and everyone would answer yes…
They answer no.
Pardon, but allow me to ask one question about that…
“The fuck…?”
Scott Jacobs (a1de9d) — 11/16/2007 @ 4:47 amDave,
Citizenship doesn’t change my asnwer. If you’re trying to actively kill people who just want to live in peace, then I’m going to try and stop you.
That doesn’t mean a suspect in a murder gets waterboarded, but it does mean the guy who know hangs out with a terrorist we know is gonna blow something up tomorrow is going to have a very bad night…
Scott Jacobs (a1de9d) — 11/16/2007 @ 4:49 amPatterico-
“Also, the answer is “no” because torture is always wrong.”
Unless it’s your daughter, right?
Sean (49e525) — 11/16/2007 @ 5:00 amPatterico, when you corner Liberals and make them uncomfortable, you are a bad person and should be punished, … in their eyes.
PCD (b7be44) — 11/16/2007 @ 5:03 amLurkin,
I appreciate your position – someone who is planning to mass murder innocents deserves to be shot in the kneecap. But doing so is worse than waterboarding in two aspects. First and most importantly, it is not as effective. There is a level of panic involved in simulated drowning that is more effective pain. Also, shooing the kneecap is real torture because it causes pain and leaves permanent damage. So the US government can’t do it.
Mike S (d3f5fd) — 11/16/2007 @ 5:06 am” Why the KSM Hypo Was Stupid, According to Liberals”
You were pointed to this already:
http://crookedtimber.org/2004/06/18/by-the-power-of-stipulation-i-have-the-power
Its a few years old. Thanks for your contribution.
whitd (10527e) — 11/16/2007 @ 5:15 amWhitd,
It is not stupid to talk about this stipulation because it shows that we cannot just talk about absolutes. Yes, torture is wrong, just as murder is wrong. In fact, torture may be wrong in more situations than killing (torture can’t be justified as self defense.) But it is important to admit that the torrorists, who don’t follow the rules of civilized society, put us in positions where coercive techniques are necessary. I wouldn’t go so far as to torture the terrorists (defined as inflicting intentional pain and permanent damage) because I think we have coersion techniques that are more effective than torture.
Mike S (d3f5fd) — 11/16/2007 @ 5:37 amWhitd’s Crooked Timber link reminds me of this one: link
Pious Agnostic (291f9a) — 11/16/2007 @ 6:18 amSean sez:
Unless it’s your daughter, right?
I think the entire post went sailing right over your head, my friend.
Patterico (bad89b) — 11/16/2007 @ 6:24 amAll of Patterico’s hypos conveniently ignore the fact that, in reality we can neither read minds nor see the future, and torture isn’t a sure thing. It’s a way to try to tear into someone’s brain with brute force.
And, ultimately, I’m going to stand by my belief that the government shouldn’t have the power to tear into my brain with brute force. No matter how many terrifying “sure-thing” scenarios you wave in my face to try and persuade me that I should give the government that power, so it can “protect” me.
And just so you don’t say I won’t address the hypo — yes, patterico, if we could read minds, and see the future (so we would know the torture would work and be worth it), then of course torture wouldn’t be a big deal.
Of course, we wouldn’t need torture then anyway.
Phil (6d9f2f) — 11/16/2007 @ 7:08 amSo actually, Phil, your answer to the actual hypothetical is no. Maybe it is yes to the one that you formulated, but not to Patterico’s.
Just sayin’
JD (33beff) — 11/16/2007 @ 7:11 amNo, my answer to Patterico’s hypos is “yes.” Patterico’s hypotheticals always remove the real problem with torture, which is that it guesses about what is inside a person’s mind, and then tries to scoop out what the torturer guesses is there, with brute force.
If we knew what was inside a person’s mind, and knew that what was there would save lives, then the torture would be justifiable. But we never know. It’s that whole “well, I’m pretty darn sure it’s in there, let me just go looking for it with this pair of pliers” scenario that Patterico eliminates in his hypos.
If we could know (1) that the information we needed was there, and (2) that it would save lives, then would the torture itself really be worth it? Of course.
But when we have those two pieces of information, torture is almost always not necessary. It’s when we don’t have one or the other (or both) peices of information, that the government starts torturing.
If there is a situation where both peieces of information are already known (and I’ve never seen such a situation, except in pro-torture propaganda hypos), then I will approve THAT torture, and only that torture.
And you can’t use situations where torture turned out to get good information, and save lives. That doesn’t change the fact that at the time the torture was done, the torturers didn’t know they were right to torture. They just went rooting around in someone’s mind hoping to get lucky.
Phil (6d9f2f) — 11/16/2007 @ 7:26 amPhil – You said :
We cannot read minds or see into the future. Therefore, the yes, if construction defaults back to a no since the if was negative.
Never mind. You don’t care.
JD (33beff) — 11/16/2007 @ 7:32 amOf course I care, or I wouldn’t be responding. You don’t care to listen to me.
Phil (6d9f2f) — 11/16/2007 @ 7:33 amIf somebody asks me to do something, and I say yes IF you give me $1,000,000 and the new Aston Martin, I really did not say yes, did I Phil?
JD (33beff) — 11/16/2007 @ 7:42 amActually, they don’t “conveniently” ignore that fact, they explicitly ignore it. I thought he mentioned he was trying to isolate some moral principles, so he’d made some assumptions, assumptions you obviously disagree with.
Linus (cc24db) — 11/16/2007 @ 7:47 amLinus, how about they explicitly and conveniently ignore the fact?
And I’m trying to point out why Patterico’s hypotheticals don’t isolate moral principles at all. Because moral principles depend on the fact that we are not gods. We cannot see the future or read people’s minds, and therefor we do things we later regret.
Patterico’s hypos assume we are gods, and can see the future and read minds. I’m trying to, tactfully, point out that is isn’t “isolating moral principles” but rather eliminating the need for morality by giving us hypothetical omnipotence.
Phil (6d9f2f) — 11/16/2007 @ 7:53 amActually, Phil, Patterico’s original hypothetical didn’t assume we could see the future at all. He was asking to judge the morality of an act after the fact, not before it. It’s hardly assuming godlike qualities to look at a past action and judge its morality.
Steverino (e00589) — 11/16/2007 @ 7:56 amPatterico’s hypo actually asks for, he “was it worth it?” And as his hypo is told, of course it was “worth it,” looking backward, into the past.
Morality, however, cannot be applied to the past. Morality is a guide for making decisions in the future.
Looking backward into the past, everything is “worth it,” as long as you assume that this present moment is “worth it.” Because everything led up to this present moment.
That’s why religion is able to conceive of an omnipotent God, and resolve him with all of the apparent “evil” in the world. We can say, looking back, that has a purpose, even pain, suffering, and death.
That’s why I can easily agree with Patterico that, looking back, knowing everything, I can say that the torture in his particular hypo was “worth it.”
But on the other hand, I cannot say that the torturers who did the torture were being “moral” unless I assume they were gods, who could read minds and see the future.
Phil (6d9f2f) — 11/16/2007 @ 8:04 amThat’s an absurd statement. How else do you know what’s moral in the future if you can’t look to past actions and judge their morality?
You were wrong about Pat’s hypothetical, and now you’re digging hard to bail yourself out.
Steverino (e00589) — 11/16/2007 @ 8:10 amPerhaps I should use a different word than “apply.”
You can’t make moral decisions in the past, how’s that? You can’t make moral choices in the past. You can’t change the past. That’s what I mean by applying morality.
I don’t really care if you think you’ve outsmarted me. Good for you. What I care about is that the pro-torture brigade wants to ignore the fact that looking back at part torture and saying it was worth it, based on hindsight, is not the same as looking at proposed torture, now.
My point is that you can’t use the same perspective that allows us to cherry pick acts of torture that were “worth it” in the past, to determine whether torture now is “worth it.”
And that’s why, while Patterico can come up with past hypotheticals all day where torture was worth it, in order to do the same thing with torture in the present, he has to give the torturer some kind of special godlike powers.
Which, unfortunately, is what we do when we let our government torture. We say “go ahead, play God.”
It’s mysterious to me why so many so-called “conservatives” like this idea.
Phil (6d9f2f) — 11/16/2007 @ 8:30 amin the above post, “part torture” should be “past torture”
Phil (6d9f2f) — 11/16/2007 @ 8:31 amI agree. It’s a trait much more frequently observed in Lefties…
Scott Jacobs (425810) — 11/16/2007 @ 8:36 amI am going to throw a flag here, on Phil.
15 yards and a loss of down for flagrant mischaracterization and over-generalization of others position.
Calling people pro-torture and the idea that conservatives like torture is nuts. Nobody is expressing that.
JD (33beff) — 11/16/2007 @ 8:36 amWell sure there is JD.
Pretty much every leftie so far has expressed exactly those thoughts.
Scott Jacobs (425810) — 11/16/2007 @ 8:37 amI don’t think this has anything to do with “out smarting” anybody. Many difficult decisions need to be made in keeping the public safe. One has to gather up a lot of evidence and information before making such a decision for real. I think to rule it out all together is a terrible decision. For me, the way I look at is fairly simple. I don’t like torture one bit, I also don’t view waterboarding as torture, with that said… if somebody were to threaten my family I would use any means possible to protect them and thats the bottom line.
G (722480) — 11/16/2007 @ 8:41 amWhat the Western Societies have lost began in earnest in the l960’s, and because of it, the ability to discern as individuals what is wrong and right in the world is almost completely lost for our cousins on the Left and certainly for the tinfoil hatted leftist loons. That that view comes to us through the Judeo-Christian philosophy developed over several millennium makes it very sad because what took thousands of years to formulate took less than 50 years to undo. That we are now reduced to putting forth hypotheticals so that people can make a choice is truly scary.
Sue (861973) — 11/16/2007 @ 8:48 amSue said: “the ability to discern as individuals what is wrong and right in the world is almost completely lost for our cousins on the Left and certainly for the tinfoil hatted leftist loons.”
Whereas, Sue knows what is right and wrong, and can easily distinguish between the two.
That’s why she supports letting the government torture people.
Phil (6d9f2f) — 11/16/2007 @ 8:52 amPhil – If I were you I wouldn’t be too concerned about the government tearing into your brain, it’s obvious that the bugs got there a long time ago.
Just sayin’.
daleyrocks (906622) — 11/16/2007 @ 9:12 amI think Sue realizes the need for government to protect its citizens.
G (722480) — 11/16/2007 @ 9:12 am“the ability to discern as individuals what is wrong and right in the world is almost completely lost for our cousins on the Left and certainly for the tinfoil hatted leftist loons.”
That’s the basis of Pat’s simplistic theory of law: that there’s always a right and wrong answer. But of course especially when we get higher up the ladder, dispute the only thing inevitable. The same with torture. Again and again he collapses moral necessity for morality as such. He wants to make the exception the rule because if exceptions exist there can be no rule. So the result is to institutionalize torture. And of coursr he want’s permission to feel fine after the fact. If it’s “moral” then there’s no sin. It seems all very Catholic.
For all his education Pat’s logic is as childish as Sue’s. And the hypo in its previous incarnations was responded to years ago.
blah (fb88b3) — 11/16/2007 @ 9:55 amPhil’s doing a good job in trying to explain the “was it worth it” line though.
I’ve had some arguments with a fellow who claims to be a professional interrogator with the Army. He would call your hypothetical absurd (and you evil for posing it) because:
“Torture doesn’t work”.
Torture absolutely doesn’t work, ever, in any way, shape or form. It only gives bad information, or at best, it’s never possible to distinguish between good information and bad. Anyone who offers evidence to the contrary is stupid, lying, and evil. There is no evidence to the contrary, ever, because Torture Doesn’t Work.
Furthremore, he defines torture as “any form of mental or physical coercion – any“.
(I’m at work where web access is filtered, otherwise, I’d provide links. There is an open letter to the fellow on my blog, with links to his posts on Live Journal.
Enjoy, you evil poser of stupid and absurd hypothetical cases!
Karl Lembke (ff486c) — 11/16/2007 @ 2:13 pmWhich, unfortunately, is what we do when we let our government torture. We say “go ahead, play God.”
It’s mysterious to me why so many so-called “conservatives” like this idea.
Phil would rather that 10,000 Americans die horribly in a terrorist attack than waterboard someone for 2 1/2 minutes.
Phil, I’m sure the 10,000 Americans and their famiies and loved ones wil appreciate your moral stance.
Paul (ec9716) — 11/17/2007 @ 3:30 am