OrthodoxChristianity.net
July 23, 2014, 02:09:12 AM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: Reminder: No political discussions in the public fora.  If you do not have access to the private Politics Forum, please send a PM to Fr. George.
 
   Home   Help Calendar Contact Treasury Tags Login Register  
Pages: « 1 2 3  All   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: To Torture or Not to Torture...that is the essay question.  (Read 2464 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Justin Kissel
Formerly Asteriktos
Protospatharios
****************
Offline Offline

Faith: BZZT
Posts: 29,224


« Reply #90 on: June 10, 2013, 11:40:52 AM »

╔══════════════╗
║   ◄ J Michael ►   ║
╚══════════════╝
Logged
vamrat
Vamratoraptor
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Serbian Orthodox
Jurisdiction: New Gracanica
Posts: 7,439



« Reply #91 on: June 10, 2013, 11:46:16 AM »

╔══════════════╗
║   ◄ J Michael ►   ║
╚══════════════╝

What is that witchcraft you are doing there?  Not only triangles but also angles in the box corners? 

Tell me how you did that or I will invoke Exodus 22:18.
Logged
Justin Kissel
Formerly Asteriktos
Protospatharios
****************
Offline Offline

Faith: BZZT
Posts: 29,224


« Reply #92 on: June 10, 2013, 11:51:15 AM »

▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄
■ I SHALL NOT YIELD! ■
▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄
Logged
Justin Kissel
Formerly Asteriktos
Protospatharios
****************
Offline Offline

Faith: BZZT
Posts: 29,224


« Reply #93 on: June 10, 2013, 11:58:03 AM »

╔══╤══╗
║ o │ o ║
╚══╧══╝
     ∞
\______/
Logged
J Michael
Older than dirt; dumber than a box of rocks; colossally ignorant; a little crazy ;-)
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine
Posts: 10,015


Lord, have mercy! I live under a rock. Alleluia!


« Reply #94 on: June 10, 2013, 12:15:35 PM »

╔══╤══╗
║ o │ o ║
╚══╧══╝
     ∞
\______/

Now, THAT ^ is torture!!

Take that \/ , you villain!










(Sorry...it's the best I can do in the time I have left.... Sad Sad Sad)
Logged

"May Thy Cross, O Lord, in which I seek refuge, be for me a bridge across the great river of fire.  May I pass along it to the habitation of life." ~St. Ephraim the Syrian
Justin Kissel
Formerly Asteriktos
Protospatharios
****************
Offline Offline

Faith: BZZT
Posts: 29,224


« Reply #95 on: June 10, 2013, 12:24:26 PM »

Villain? Me? Impossible! In fact I repay your comment with a gift!

Logged
J Michael
Older than dirt; dumber than a box of rocks; colossally ignorant; a little crazy ;-)
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine
Posts: 10,015


Lord, have mercy! I live under a rock. Alleluia!


« Reply #96 on: June 10, 2013, 12:27:38 PM »

Villain? Me? Impossible! In fact I repay your comment with a gift!



EEeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeek!






(Unfair and illegal use of wmd's, you devil!)

















But...how DO you do that?HuhHuhHuhHuhHuhHuhHuhHuhHuh
« Last Edit: June 10, 2013, 12:29:30 PM by J Michael » Logged

"May Thy Cross, O Lord, in which I seek refuge, be for me a bridge across the great river of fire.  May I pass along it to the habitation of life." ~St. Ephraim the Syrian
Sinful Hypocrite
Everyday I am critical of others. Every day I make similar mistakes. Every day I am a hypocrite.
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Greek Orthodox
Jurisdiction: "The Orthodox Church" by Bishop Kallistos Ware: "We know where the Church is but we cannot be sure where it is not; and so we must refrain from passing judgment on non-Orthodox Christians."
Posts: 1,595


Great googly moogly!


« Reply #97 on: June 10, 2013, 07:21:29 PM »

Jesus when confronted with the question of whether they should stone the whore, he said to them the one without sin cast the first stone, he did not specify the sin.

In your definition , the one who did no more than tell white lies all his life, should then feel free to stone her.

◄  James 2:10  ►

New International Version (©2011)
For whoever keeps the whole law and yet stumbles at just one point is guilty of breaking all of it.


Still not following your logic. My definition does not say that at all and does not contradict what Christ said.  Scripture even states that a sin can be so great as to be unforgivable (i.e. blasphemy against the Holy Spirit).  The only time I have heard what you are arguing is in evangelical circles, not in Orthodoxy.

Christ was telling them that all who sin no matter which sin were just as guilty as the prostitute. Otherwise he could not just say, "he without sin", he would have to qualify it, as you claimed the good judge God has too.

I have been told by many Greek Orthodox Priests about these things, some who are bishops now, one time at a Bible class with our priest he said exactly what I have said about the mass murderer in heaven, and used the passage where Christ tells the disciples there are many rooms in God's mansion , which he explained as they are not all equal in heaven, as Jesus also taught those who are great on earth will be less in heaven.

Look at what he said about the prodigal son, he did not treat him as his older son thought he deserved, he treated him better than even his faithful son. Such is God's mercy to a repentant sinner, no matter what the sin.

When Jesus was crucified for our sins, he said "forgive them for they know not what they do". He was murdered for our sins! if God was as you say they all would have been struck down for killing God's son. And we would still be guilty of our sins.

Jesus said God desires mercy above all .

The parable of the workers is also about this ,
Matthew 20
The Parable of the Workers in the Vineyard

1“For the kingdom of heaven is like a landowner who went out early in the morning to hire workers for his vineyard. 2He agreed to pay them a denariusa for the day and sent them into his vineyard.

3“About nine in the morning he went out and saw others standing in the marketplace doing nothing. 4He told them, ‘You also go and work in my vineyard, and I will pay you whatever is right.’ 5So they went.

“He went out again about noon and about three in the afternoon and did the same thing. 6About five in the afternoon he went out and found still others standing around. He asked them, ‘Why have you been standing here all day long doing nothing?’

7“ ‘Because no one has hired us,’ they answered.

“He said to them, ‘You also go and work in my vineyard.’

8“When evening came, the owner of the vineyard said to his foreman, ‘Call the workers and pay them their wages, beginning with the last ones hired and going on to the first.’

9“The workers who were hired about five in the afternoon came and each received a denarius. 10So when those came who were hired first, they expected to receive more. But each one of them also received a denarius. 11When they received it, they began to grumble against the landowner. 12‘These who were hired last worked only one hour,’ they said, ‘and you have made them equal to us who have borne the burden of the work and the heat of the day.’

13“But he answered one of them, ‘I am not being unfair to you, friend. Didn’t you agree to work for a denarius? 14Take your pay and go. I want to give the one who was hired last the same as I gave you. 15Don’t I have the right to do what I want with my own money? Or are you envious because I am generous?’

16“So the last will be first, and the first will be last.”

So God is saying he will pay those who have done little or sinned less the same as those who have kept every law and worked from the start. And he is telling us it is not ours to decide.
Logged

The Lord gathers his sheep, I fear I am a goat. Lord have mercy.

"A Christian is someone who follows and worships a perfectly good God who revealed his true face through the life, death and resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth.“
Justin Kissel
Formerly Asteriktos
Protospatharios
****************
Offline Offline

Faith: BZZT
Posts: 29,224


« Reply #98 on: June 10, 2013, 07:36:21 PM »

"'He who delivers me unto you has the greater sin" (John 19:11)

--Jesus
Logged
stanley123
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Roman Catholic
Posts: 3,809


« Reply #99 on: June 24, 2013, 12:52:57 AM »

Getting back to the original question of whether or not it is justified to torture one person in order to save the lives of thousands or hundreds of thousands of  people  - the scenario is that the criminal has hidden a bomb which, when it goes off, will kill tens  of thousands of people and injure and maim even more.  The question is whether or not it would be justified to torture this criminal so as to get him to talk and reveal where the bomb is hidden and thereby avert the killing of tens  of thousands of innocent people.  Of course, if it were a nuclear bomb, it could result in even more deaths.
I noticed that one argument given in this particular case, seems to be  that it would be all right to torture the criminal because we are choosing the lesser of two evils. We live in an imperfect world, and we don't always have good choices to make, so we do the right thing by choosing the lesser of two evils. However, it seems to me that this is not right and that there is a serious problem if you are going to go by choosing the lesser of two evils.  Here is why I see it so. Suppose that the criminal did not confess, even when subject to torture. However, he had a little girl age seven years old. Suppose then that if you tortured the girl (and here I mean very severe and extreme  torture  in front of the criminal) then the criminal would confess. Now if it were only a matter of numbers, or the lesser of two evils, if you take one girl aged seven, versus tens of thousands of innocent people, then it would be justified to torture this poor little girl. How many people would want to torture this little girl to achieve the good end of saving thousands of American lives?  But of course politicians have in the past used a variant of this  lesser of two evils argument to justify questionable attacks which resulted in large civilian casualties. 
Logged
orthonorm
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Sola Gratia
Jurisdiction: Outside
Posts: 16,343



« Reply #100 on: June 24, 2013, 04:02:24 AM »

Getting back to the original question of whether or not it is justified to torture one person in order to save the lives of thousands or hundreds of thousands of  people  - the scenario is that the criminal has hidden a bomb which, when it goes off, will kill tens  of thousands of people and injure and maim even more.  The question is whether or not it would be justified to torture this criminal so as to get him to talk and reveal where the bomb is hidden and thereby avert the killing of tens  of thousands of innocent people.  Of course, if it were a nuclear bomb, it could result in even more deaths.
I noticed that one argument given in this particular case, seems to be  that it would be all right to torture the criminal because we are choosing the lesser of two evils. We live in an imperfect world, and we don't always have good choices to make, so we do the right thing by choosing the lesser of two evils. However, it seems to me that this is not right and that there is a serious problem if you are going to go by choosing the lesser of two evils.  Here is why I see it so. Suppose that the criminal did not confess, even when subject to torture. However, he had a little girl age seven years old. Suppose then that if you tortured the girl (and here I mean very severe and extreme  torture  in front of the criminal) then the criminal would confess. Now if it were only a matter of numbers, or the lesser of two evils, if you take one girl aged seven, versus tens of thousands of innocent people, then it would be justified to torture this poor little girl. How many people would want to torture this little girl to achieve the good end of saving thousands of American lives?  But of course politicians have in the past used a variant of this  lesser of two evils argument to justify questionable attacks which resulted in large civilian casualties.  


We do this all the time. I am not sure the point of your post. If you have a child, I can assure you, you do so because you've decided others should die or suffer.

The real problem in this thread is that it suggests hypotheticals that will never happen and that torture is ineffective except in feeling a little better about the world for some people.

Under certain circumstances, I would be one of those persons. I can easily imagine circumstances under which I would gladly and without much difficulty do some monstrous stuff to people, I am just not sure I want to enshrine this part of myself into law.
« Last Edit: June 24, 2013, 04:02:45 AM by orthonorm » Logged

Ignorance is not a lack, but a passion.
mabsoota
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Coptic
Posts: 2,408


Kyrie eleison


« Reply #101 on: June 24, 2013, 05:04:20 AM »

maybe i missed it from earlier in the thread, but i think the 'orthodox answer' is this:
1. find holy person who has good spiritual life and the gift of prophecy.
2. ask him / her where the bomb is.
3. find bomb diffusing person person to diffuse bomb.
4. fast and pray during bomb diffusal.
5. meanwhile holy person talks to bad bomber about God.
6. bad bomber repents / or is consumed by fire from heaven (if not repentant)
7. go to church to pray and thank God, inviting grateful people saved from bomb who now turn to God.
8. (optional) have party with gyros / falafel (depending if fasting period) where bomb diffusing person decides to become catechumen.
 angel

as for the answer the nephew needs to give, it is to say whatever he discovers in his research, adding at the beginning (or end, whichever is appropriate) that he is arguing his point according to his research, not according to his personal opinion.
in higher education, extra points are given for being able to argue a case from a point of view which is not your own.

lizasymonenko, has he had the class yet? how did it go?
Logged
stanley123
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Roman Catholic
Posts: 3,809


« Reply #102 on: June 24, 2013, 05:56:44 AM »

maybe i missed it from earlier in the thread, but i think the 'orthodox answer' is this:
1. find holy person who has good spiritual life and the gift of prophecy.
2. ask him / her where the bomb is.
3. find bomb diffusing person person to diffuse bomb.
4. fast and pray during bomb diffusal.
5. meanwhile holy person talks to bad bomber about God.
6. bad bomber repents / or is consumed by fire from heaven (if not repentant)
7. go to church to pray and thank God, inviting grateful people saved from bomb who now turn to God.
8. (optional) have party with gyros / falafel (depending if fasting period) where bomb diffusing person decides to become catechumen.
 angel

as for the answer the nephew needs to give, it is to say whatever he discovers in his research, adding at the beginning (or end, whichever is appropriate) that he is arguing his point according to his research, not according to his personal opinion.
in higher education, extra points are given for being able to argue a case from a point of view which is not your own.

lizasymonenko, has he had the class yet? how did it go?
But the hypothesis is what if you cannot find a "holy person who has good spiritual life and the gift of prophecy". Only the criminal knows where the bomb is hidden. No one else can tell you that.
Logged
mabsoota
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Coptic
Posts: 2,408


Kyrie eleison


« Reply #103 on: June 24, 2013, 08:43:49 AM »

God knows.
if it His will, He will reveal it. if we bring our lives in line with His will, He will speak to us.
Logged
vamrat
Vamratoraptor
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Serbian Orthodox
Jurisdiction: New Gracanica
Posts: 7,439



« Reply #104 on: June 24, 2013, 09:23:26 AM »

maybe i missed it from earlier in the thread, but i think the 'orthodox answer' is this:
1. find holy person who has good spiritual life and the gift of prophecy.
2. ask him / her where the bomb is.
3. find bomb diffusing person person to diffuse bomb.
4. fast and pray during bomb diffusal.
5. meanwhile holy person talks to bad bomber about God.
6. bad bomber repents / or is consumed by fire from heaven (if not repentant)
7. go to church to pray and thank God, inviting grateful people saved from bomb who now turn to God.
8. (optional) have party with gyros / falafel (depending if fasting period) where bomb diffusing person decides to become catechumen.
 angel

as for the answer the nephew needs to give, it is to say whatever he discovers in his research, adding at the beginning (or end, whichever is appropriate) that he is arguing his point according to his research, not according to his personal opinion.
in higher education, extra points are given for being able to argue a case from a point of view which is not your own.

lizasymonenko, has he had the class yet? how did it go?
But the hypothesis is what if you cannot find a "holy person who has good spiritual life and the gift of prophecy". Only the criminal knows where the bomb is hidden. No one else can tell you that.


What is the criminal has hidden the holy person in a separate hiding place from the bomb?  Which do you look for first?  If you decide to torture him, do you ask for the location of the holy person first or the bomb??

These are important details.
Logged
vamrat
Vamratoraptor
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Serbian Orthodox
Jurisdiction: New Gracanica
Posts: 7,439



« Reply #105 on: June 24, 2013, 09:25:31 AM »

Getting back to the original question of whether or not it is justified to torture one person in order to save the lives of thousands or hundreds of thousands of  people  - the scenario is that the criminal has hidden a bomb which, when it goes off, will kill tens  of thousands of people and injure and maim even more.  The question is whether or not it would be justified to torture this criminal so as to get him to talk and reveal where the bomb is hidden and thereby avert the killing of tens  of thousands of innocent people.  Of course, if it were a nuclear bomb, it could result in even more deaths.
I noticed that one argument given in this particular case, seems to be  that it would be all right to torture the criminal because we are choosing the lesser of two evils. We live in an imperfect world, and we don't always have good choices to make, so we do the right thing by choosing the lesser of two evils. However, it seems to me that this is not right and that there is a serious problem if you are going to go by choosing the lesser of two evils.  Here is why I see it so. Suppose that the criminal did not confess, even when subject to torture. However, he had a little girl age seven years old. Suppose then that if you tortured the girl (and here I mean very severe and extreme  torture  in front of the criminal) then the criminal would confess. Now if it were only a matter of numbers, or the lesser of two evils, if you take one girl aged seven, versus tens of thousands of innocent people, then it would be justified to torture this poor little girl. How many people would want to torture this little girl to achieve the good end of saving thousands of American lives?  But of course politicians have in the past used a variant of this  lesser of two evils argument to justify questionable attacks which resulted in large civilian casualties. 


This isn't such a hard question.  Children have less discipline and a lower pain tolerance.  Let the little girl see you take one of daddy's fingernails.  If she knows, she'll tell you.  Or if worse comes to worse, take a few teeth from her and perhaps daddy will tell you?  Could work.  Not like he's going to get revenge as you are going to have to shoot both of them afterwards.  Can't let the press get a hold of anything like this.
Logged
stanley123
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Roman Catholic
Posts: 3,809


« Reply #106 on: June 24, 2013, 03:51:10 PM »

Getting back to the original question of whether or not it is justified to torture one person in order to save the lives of thousands or hundreds of thousands of  people  - the scenario is that the criminal has hidden a bomb which, when it goes off, will kill tens  of thousands of people and injure and maim even more.  The question is whether or not it would be justified to torture this criminal so as to get him to talk and reveal where the bomb is hidden and thereby avert the killing of tens  of thousands of innocent people.  Of course, if it were a nuclear bomb, it could result in even more deaths.
I noticed that one argument given in this particular case, seems to be  that it would be all right to torture the criminal because we are choosing the lesser of two evils. We live in an imperfect world, and we don't always have good choices to make, so we do the right thing by choosing the lesser of two evils. However, it seems to me that this is not right and that there is a serious problem if you are going to go by choosing the lesser of two evils.  Here is why I see it so. Suppose that the criminal did not confess, even when subject to torture. However, he had a little girl age seven years old. Suppose then that if you tortured the girl (and here I mean very severe and extreme  torture  in front of the criminal) then the criminal would confess. Now if it were only a matter of numbers, or the lesser of two evils, if you take one girl aged seven, versus tens of thousands of innocent people, then it would be justified to torture this poor little girl. How many people would want to torture this little girl to achieve the good end of saving thousands of American lives?  But of course politicians have in the past used a variant of this  lesser of two evils argument to justify questionable attacks which resulted in large civilian casualties. 


This isn't such a hard question.  Children have less discipline and a lower pain tolerance.  Let the little girl see you take one of daddy's fingernails.  If she knows, she'll tell you.  Or if worse comes to worse, take a few teeth from her and perhaps daddy will tell you?  Could work.  Not like he's going to get revenge as you are going to have to shoot both of them afterwards.  Can't let the press get a hold of anything like this.
No one likes the question, so everyone goes for workarounds.
Logged
orthonorm
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Sola Gratia
Jurisdiction: Outside
Posts: 16,343



« Reply #107 on: June 24, 2013, 03:53:57 PM »

Getting back to the original question of whether or not it is justified to torture one person in order to save the lives of thousands or hundreds of thousands of  people  - the scenario is that the criminal has hidden a bomb which, when it goes off, will kill tens  of thousands of people and injure and maim even more.  The question is whether or not it would be justified to torture this criminal so as to get him to talk and reveal where the bomb is hidden and thereby avert the killing of tens  of thousands of innocent people.  Of course, if it were a nuclear bomb, it could result in even more deaths.
I noticed that one argument given in this particular case, seems to be  that it would be all right to torture the criminal because we are choosing the lesser of two evils. We live in an imperfect world, and we don't always have good choices to make, so we do the right thing by choosing the lesser of two evils. However, it seems to me that this is not right and that there is a serious problem if you are going to go by choosing the lesser of two evils.  Here is why I see it so. Suppose that the criminal did not confess, even when subject to torture. However, he had a little girl age seven years old. Suppose then that if you tortured the girl (and here I mean very severe and extreme  torture  in front of the criminal) then the criminal would confess. Now if it were only a matter of numbers, or the lesser of two evils, if you take one girl aged seven, versus tens of thousands of innocent people, then it would be justified to torture this poor little girl. How many people would want to torture this little girl to achieve the good end of saving thousands of American lives?  But of course politicians have in the past used a variant of this  lesser of two evils argument to justify questionable attacks which resulted in large civilian casualties. 


This isn't such a hard question.  Children have less discipline and a lower pain tolerance.  Let the little girl see you take one of daddy's fingernails.  If she knows, she'll tell you.  Or if worse comes to worse, take a few teeth from her and perhaps daddy will tell you?  Could work.  Not like he's going to get revenge as you are going to have to shoot both of them afterwards.  Can't let the press get a hold of anything like this.
No one likes the question, so everyone goes for workarounds.

I answered you. The question is rhetorical navel gazing. When we stop living off the lives of others we can get serious about your attempt to expand the moral context of the situation.

See this is the problem with moralists, it's not that they moralize too much, rather it is that they do not moralize enough. I believe the affliction is one of lack of imagination.
Logged

Ignorance is not a lack, but a passion.
stanley123
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Roman Catholic
Posts: 3,809


« Reply #108 on: June 24, 2013, 07:41:45 PM »

Getting back to the original question of whether or not it is justified to torture one person in order to save the lives of thousands or hundreds of thousands of  people  - the scenario is that the criminal has hidden a bomb which, when it goes off, will kill tens  of thousands of people and injure and maim even more.  The question is whether or not it would be justified to torture this criminal so as to get him to talk and reveal where the bomb is hidden and thereby avert the killing of tens  of thousands of innocent people.  Of course, if it were a nuclear bomb, it could result in even more deaths.
I noticed that one argument given in this particular case, seems to be  that it would be all right to torture the criminal because we are choosing the lesser of two evils. We live in an imperfect world, and we don't always have good choices to make, so we do the right thing by choosing the lesser of two evils. However, it seems to me that this is not right and that there is a serious problem if you are going to go by choosing the lesser of two evils.  Here is why I see it so. Suppose that the criminal did not confess, even when subject to torture. However, he had a little girl age seven years old. Suppose then that if you tortured the girl (and here I mean very severe and extreme  torture  in front of the criminal) then the criminal would confess. Now if it were only a matter of numbers, or the lesser of two evils, if you take one girl aged seven, versus tens of thousands of innocent people, then it would be justified to torture this poor little girl. How many people would want to torture this little girl to achieve the good end of saving thousands of American lives?  But of course politicians have in the past used a variant of this  lesser of two evils argument to justify questionable attacks which resulted in large civilian casualties. 


This isn't such a hard question.  Children have less discipline and a lower pain tolerance.  Let the little girl see you take one of daddy's fingernails.  If she knows, she'll tell you.  Or if worse comes to worse, take a few teeth from her and perhaps daddy will tell you?  Could work.  Not like he's going to get revenge as you are going to have to shoot both of them afterwards.  Can't let the press get a hold of anything like this.
No one likes the question, so everyone goes for workarounds.

I answered you. The question is rhetorical navel gazing. When we stop living off the lives of others we can get serious about your attempt to expand the moral context of the situation.

See this is the problem with moralists, it's not that they moralize too much, rather it is that they do not moralize enough. I believe the affliction is one of lack of imagination.
Well, I see at least three ways of answering the posed question:
1. You can say: Why are you asking this question?  Are you trying to be a troublemaker?  The question involves an unrealistic hypothetical and as such the question is a waste of time and rhetorical naval gazing. You should ask better questions than this, but you don't don't  because you are afflicted with a lack of imagination.
2. You can avoid the hypothetical of the question by proposing a workaround.  You don't torture the person, but instead you think of various ways of getting around this while at the same time finding out where the bomb is hidden.  For example, you consult a religious and holy seer who will tell you where the bomb is in time to disable it. You then convert the criminal  and he repents of his sin and leads a holy life thereafter, devoting his time and energy to charitable enterprises, helping the poor, and bringing many  people to the true Church. That way no one is hurt and everyone is pleased as punch.
3. You can try to answer the question straightforwardly and honestly and explore the morality of choosing the lesser of two evils. Of course, in this case, you open yourself up to ad hominem insults especially from those who do not like difficult questions. 
Logged
Jonathan Gress
Warned
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: GOC/HOTCA
Posts: 3,011


« Reply #109 on: June 24, 2013, 08:04:53 PM »

I don't think it's just about numbers. If you have good reason to suspect someone actually has information and is withholding it, I think it's not unreasonable to say that this person earns the torture in some way. The same can't be said for his daughter.
Logged
vamrat
Vamratoraptor
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Serbian Orthodox
Jurisdiction: New Gracanica
Posts: 7,439



« Reply #110 on: June 25, 2013, 09:21:25 AM »

Getting back to the original question of whether or not it is justified to torture one person in order to save the lives of thousands or hundreds of thousands of  people  - the scenario is that the criminal has hidden a bomb which, when it goes off, will kill tens  of thousands of people and injure and maim even more.  The question is whether or not it would be justified to torture this criminal so as to get him to talk and reveal where the bomb is hidden and thereby avert the killing of tens  of thousands of innocent people.  Of course, if it were a nuclear bomb, it could result in even more deaths.
I noticed that one argument given in this particular case, seems to be  that it would be all right to torture the criminal because we are choosing the lesser of two evils. We live in an imperfect world, and we don't always have good choices to make, so we do the right thing by choosing the lesser of two evils. However, it seems to me that this is not right and that there is a serious problem if you are going to go by choosing the lesser of two evils.  Here is why I see it so. Suppose that the criminal did not confess, even when subject to torture. However, he had a little girl age seven years old. Suppose then that if you tortured the girl (and here I mean very severe and extreme  torture  in front of the criminal) then the criminal would confess. Now if it were only a matter of numbers, or the lesser of two evils, if you take one girl aged seven, versus tens of thousands of innocent people, then it would be justified to torture this poor little girl. How many people would want to torture this little girl to achieve the good end of saving thousands of American lives?  But of course politicians have in the past used a variant of this  lesser of two evils argument to justify questionable attacks which resulted in large civilian casualties. 


This isn't such a hard question.  Children have less discipline and a lower pain tolerance.  Let the little girl see you take one of daddy's fingernails.  If she knows, she'll tell you.  Or if worse comes to worse, take a few teeth from her and perhaps daddy will tell you?  Could work.  Not like he's going to get revenge as you are going to have to shoot both of them afterwards.  Can't let the press get a hold of anything like this.
No one likes the question, so everyone goes for workarounds.

I answered you. The question is rhetorical navel gazing. When we stop living off the lives of others we can get serious about your attempt to expand the moral context of the situation.

See this is the problem with moralists, it's not that they moralize too much, rather it is that they do not moralize enough. I believe the affliction is one of lack of imagination.
Well, I see at least three ways of answering the posed question:
1. You can say: Why are you asking this question?  Are you trying to be a troublemaker?  The question involves an unrealistic hypothetical and as such the question is a waste of time and rhetorical naval gazing. You should ask better questions than this, but you don't don't  because you are afflicted with a lack of imagination.
2. You can avoid the hypothetical of the question by proposing a workaround.  You don't torture the person, but instead you think of various ways of getting around this while at the same time finding out where the bomb is hidden.  For example, you consult a religious and holy seer who will tell you where the bomb is in time to disable it. You then convert the criminal  and he repents of his sin and leads a holy life thereafter, devoting his time and energy to charitable enterprises, helping the poor, and bringing many  people to the true Church. That way no one is hurt and everyone is pleased as punch.
3. You can try to answer the question straightforwardly and honestly and explore the morality of choosing the lesser of two evils. Of course, in this case, you open yourself up to ad hominem insults especially from those who do not like difficult questions. 


How, then, is what I said a workaround?  You presented me with a situation and I answered it honestly looking for the most efficient answer.  Those people about to be bombed didn't want to be part of this situation.  They have a right to be free from getting blowed up.  Homeboy, on the other hand, potentially planted a bomb and is not being forthcoming.  I think it is important to have other evidence before taking bits off of him, but if there is compelling evidence that he did it (such as bragging about it, being recorded discussing it...something very convincing) I think taking him apart to get the info is acceptable. 

As for the daughter...nits become lice.  If there is any possibility that she knows she is open game, as far as I'm concerned.  But I don't think you need to go all out on her.  See how he reacts to threats against her.  Let her see some nasty things and perhaps she'll help out daddy by giving you some info.  The likelihood of a little girl just being obstinate for "the cause", though, is highly unlikely.   
Logged
stanley123
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Roman Catholic
Posts: 3,809


« Reply #111 on: June 26, 2013, 02:55:45 AM »

Getting back to the original question of whether or not it is justified to torture one person in order to save the lives of thousands or hundreds of thousands of  people  - the scenario is that the criminal has hidden a bomb which, when it goes off, will kill tens  of thousands of people and injure and maim even more.  The question is whether or not it would be justified to torture this criminal so as to get him to talk and reveal where the bomb is hidden and thereby avert the killing of tens  of thousands of innocent people.  Of course, if it were a nuclear bomb, it could result in even more deaths.
I noticed that one argument given in this particular case, seems to be  that it would be all right to torture the criminal because we are choosing the lesser of two evils. We live in an imperfect world, and we don't always have good choices to make, so we do the right thing by choosing the lesser of two evils. However, it seems to me that this is not right and that there is a serious problem if you are going to go by choosing the lesser of two evils.  Here is why I see it so. Suppose that the criminal did not confess, even when subject to torture. However, he had a little girl age seven years old. Suppose then that if you tortured the girl (and here I mean very severe and extreme  torture  in front of the criminal) then the criminal would confess. Now if it were only a matter of numbers, or the lesser of two evils, if you take one girl aged seven, versus tens of thousands of innocent people, then it would be justified to torture this poor little girl. How many people would want to torture this little girl to achieve the good end of saving thousands of American lives?  But of course politicians have in the past used a variant of this  lesser of two evils argument to justify questionable attacks which resulted in large civilian casualties. 


This isn't such a hard question.  Children have less discipline and a lower pain tolerance.  Let the little girl see you take one of daddy's fingernails.  If she knows, she'll tell you.  Or if worse comes to worse, take a few teeth from her and perhaps daddy will tell you?  Could work.  Not like he's going to get revenge as you are going to have to shoot both of them afterwards.  Can't let the press get a hold of anything like this.
No one likes the question, so everyone goes for workarounds.

I answered you. The question is rhetorical navel gazing. When we stop living off the lives of others we can get serious about your attempt to expand the moral context of the situation.

See this is the problem with moralists, it's not that they moralize too much, rather it is that they do not moralize enough. I believe the affliction is one of lack of imagination.
Well, I see at least three ways of answering the posed question:
1. You can say: Why are you asking this question?  Are you trying to be a troublemaker?  The question involves an unrealistic hypothetical and as such the question is a waste of time and rhetorical naval gazing. You should ask better questions than this, but you don't don't  because you are afflicted with a lack of imagination.
2. You can avoid the hypothetical of the question by proposing a workaround.  You don't torture the person, but instead you think of various ways of getting around this while at the same time finding out where the bomb is hidden.  For example, you consult a religious and holy seer who will tell you where the bomb is in time to disable it. You then convert the criminal  and he repents of his sin and leads a holy life thereafter, devoting his time and energy to charitable enterprises, helping the poor, and bringing many  people to the true Church. That way no one is hurt and everyone is pleased as punch.
3. You can try to answer the question straightforwardly and honestly and explore the morality of choosing the lesser of two evils. Of course, in this case, you open yourself up to ad hominem insults especially from those who do not like difficult questions. 


How, then, is what I said a workaround?  You presented me with a situation and I answered it honestly looking for the most efficient answer.  Those people about to be bombed didn't want to be part of this situation.  They have a right to be free from getting blowed up.  Homeboy, on the other hand, potentially planted a bomb and is not being forthcoming.  I think it is important to have other evidence before taking bits off of him, but if there is compelling evidence that he did it (such as bragging about it, being recorded discussing it...something very convincing) I think taking him apart to get the info is acceptable. 

As for the daughter...nits become lice.  If there is any possibility that she knows she is open game, as far as I'm concerned.  But I don't think you need to go all out on her.  See how he reacts to threats against her.  Let her see some nasty things and perhaps she'll help out daddy by giving you some info.  The likelihood of a little girl just being obstinate for "the cause", though, is highly unlikely.   
I had someone else in mind about the workaround thing. However, did you mention that you are going to have to shoot both of them? It seems like it is unfair to shoot a seven year old girl who knows nothing and has done nothing wrong.  Perhaps you were thinking of the case where she did know where the bomb was hidden and would not tell. While a 7 year old does have some sense of right and wrong, because of her age, she may not have the capability to grasp the seriousness of the crime.   
Logged
vamrat
Vamratoraptor
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Serbian Orthodox
Jurisdiction: New Gracanica
Posts: 7,439



« Reply #112 on: June 26, 2013, 09:36:47 AM »

Getting back to the original question of whether or not it is justified to torture one person in order to save the lives of thousands or hundreds of thousands of  people  - the scenario is that the criminal has hidden a bomb which, when it goes off, will kill tens  of thousands of people and injure and maim even more.  The question is whether or not it would be justified to torture this criminal so as to get him to talk and reveal where the bomb is hidden and thereby avert the killing of tens  of thousands of innocent people.  Of course, if it were a nuclear bomb, it could result in even more deaths.
I noticed that one argument given in this particular case, seems to be  that it would be all right to torture the criminal because we are choosing the lesser of two evils. We live in an imperfect world, and we don't always have good choices to make, so we do the right thing by choosing the lesser of two evils. However, it seems to me that this is not right and that there is a serious problem if you are going to go by choosing the lesser of two evils.  Here is why I see it so. Suppose that the criminal did not confess, even when subject to torture. However, he had a little girl age seven years old. Suppose then that if you tortured the girl (and here I mean very severe and extreme  torture  in front of the criminal) then the criminal would confess. Now if it were only a matter of numbers, or the lesser of two evils, if you take one girl aged seven, versus tens of thousands of innocent people, then it would be justified to torture this poor little girl. How many people would want to torture this little girl to achieve the good end of saving thousands of American lives?  But of course politicians have in the past used a variant of this  lesser of two evils argument to justify questionable attacks which resulted in large civilian casualties. 


This isn't such a hard question.  Children have less discipline and a lower pain tolerance.  Let the little girl see you take one of daddy's fingernails.  If she knows, she'll tell you.  Or if worse comes to worse, take a few teeth from her and perhaps daddy will tell you?  Could work.  Not like he's going to get revenge as you are going to have to shoot both of them afterwards.  Can't let the press get a hold of anything like this.
No one likes the question, so everyone goes for workarounds.

I answered you. The question is rhetorical navel gazing. When we stop living off the lives of others we can get serious about your attempt to expand the moral context of the situation.

See this is the problem with moralists, it's not that they moralize too much, rather it is that they do not moralize enough. I believe the affliction is one of lack of imagination.
Well, I see at least three ways of answering the posed question:
1. You can say: Why are you asking this question?  Are you trying to be a troublemaker?  The question involves an unrealistic hypothetical and as such the question is a waste of time and rhetorical naval gazing. You should ask better questions than this, but you don't don't  because you are afflicted with a lack of imagination.
2. You can avoid the hypothetical of the question by proposing a workaround.  You don't torture the person, but instead you think of various ways of getting around this while at the same time finding out where the bomb is hidden.  For example, you consult a religious and holy seer who will tell you where the bomb is in time to disable it. You then convert the criminal  and he repents of his sin and leads a holy life thereafter, devoting his time and energy to charitable enterprises, helping the poor, and bringing many  people to the true Church. That way no one is hurt and everyone is pleased as punch.
3. You can try to answer the question straightforwardly and honestly and explore the morality of choosing the lesser of two evils. Of course, in this case, you open yourself up to ad hominem insults especially from those who do not like difficult questions. 


How, then, is what I said a workaround?  You presented me with a situation and I answered it honestly looking for the most efficient answer.  Those people about to be bombed didn't want to be part of this situation.  They have a right to be free from getting blowed up.  Homeboy, on the other hand, potentially planted a bomb and is not being forthcoming.  I think it is important to have other evidence before taking bits off of him, but if there is compelling evidence that he did it (such as bragging about it, being recorded discussing it...something very convincing) I think taking him apart to get the info is acceptable. 

As for the daughter...nits become lice.  If there is any possibility that she knows she is open game, as far as I'm concerned.  But I don't think you need to go all out on her.  See how he reacts to threats against her.  Let her see some nasty things and perhaps she'll help out daddy by giving you some info.  The likelihood of a little girl just being obstinate for "the cause", though, is highly unlikely.   
I had someone else in mind about the workaround thing. However, did you mention that you are going to have to shoot both of them? It seems like it is unfair to shoot a seven year old girl who knows nothing and has done nothing wrong.  Perhaps you were thinking of the case where she did know where the bomb was hidden and would not tell. While a 7 year old does have some sense of right and wrong, because of her age, she may not have the capability to grasp the seriousness of the crime.   

Ah.  No, the shooting is not a punishment.  It's a matter of convenience.  The media would go into a frenzy over what I was proposing. You'd shoot her and daddy so that they cannot be witnesses against you after the threat has been dealt with.
Logged
J Michael
Older than dirt; dumber than a box of rocks; colossally ignorant; a little crazy ;-)
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine
Posts: 10,015


Lord, have mercy! I live under a rock. Alleluia!


« Reply #113 on: June 26, 2013, 09:43:36 AM »

Getting back to the original question of whether or not it is justified to torture one person in order to save the lives of thousands or hundreds of thousands of  people  - the scenario is that the criminal has hidden a bomb which, when it goes off, will kill tens  of thousands of people and injure and maim even more.  The question is whether or not it would be justified to torture this criminal so as to get him to talk and reveal where the bomb is hidden and thereby avert the killing of tens  of thousands of innocent people.  Of course, if it were a nuclear bomb, it could result in even more deaths.
I noticed that one argument given in this particular case, seems to be  that it would be all right to torture the criminal because we are choosing the lesser of two evils. We live in an imperfect world, and we don't always have good choices to make, so we do the right thing by choosing the lesser of two evils. However, it seems to me that this is not right and that there is a serious problem if you are going to go by choosing the lesser of two evils.  Here is why I see it so. Suppose that the criminal did not confess, even when subject to torture. However, he had a little girl age seven years old. Suppose then that if you tortured the girl (and here I mean very severe and extreme  torture  in front of the criminal) then the criminal would confess. Now if it were only a matter of numbers, or the lesser of two evils, if you take one girl aged seven, versus tens of thousands of innocent people, then it would be justified to torture this poor little girl. How many people would want to torture this little girl to achieve the good end of saving thousands of American lives?  But of course politicians have in the past used a variant of this  lesser of two evils argument to justify questionable attacks which resulted in large civilian casualties. 


This isn't such a hard question.  Children have less discipline and a lower pain tolerance.  Let the little girl see you take one of daddy's fingernails.  If she knows, she'll tell you.  Or if worse comes to worse, take a few teeth from her and perhaps daddy will tell you?  Could work.  Not like he's going to get revenge as you are going to have to shoot both of them afterwards.  Can't let the press get a hold of anything like this.
No one likes the question, so everyone goes for workarounds.

I answered you. The question is rhetorical navel gazing. When we stop living off the lives of others we can get serious about your attempt to expand the moral context of the situation.

See this is the problem with moralists, it's not that they moralize too much, rather it is that they do not moralize enough. I believe the affliction is one of lack of imagination.
Well, I see at least three ways of answering the posed question:
1. You can say: Why are you asking this question?  Are you trying to be a troublemaker?  The question involves an unrealistic hypothetical and as such the question is a waste of time and rhetorical naval gazing. You should ask better questions than this, but you don't don't  because you are afflicted with a lack of imagination.
2. You can avoid the hypothetical of the question by proposing a workaround.  You don't torture the person, but instead you think of various ways of getting around this while at the same time finding out where the bomb is hidden.  For example, you consult a religious and holy seer who will tell you where the bomb is in time to disable it. You then convert the criminal  and he repents of his sin and leads a holy life thereafter, devoting his time and energy to charitable enterprises, helping the poor, and bringing many  people to the true Church. That way no one is hurt and everyone is pleased as punch.
3. You can try to answer the question straightforwardly and honestly and explore the morality of choosing the lesser of two evils. Of course, in this case, you open yourself up to ad hominem insults especially from those who do not like difficult questions. 


How, then, is what I said a workaround?  You presented me with a situation and I answered it honestly looking for the most efficient answer.  Those people about to be bombed didn't want to be part of this situation.  They have a right to be free from getting blowed up.  Homeboy, on the other hand, potentially planted a bomb and is not being forthcoming.  I think it is important to have other evidence before taking bits off of him, but if there is compelling evidence that he did it (such as bragging about it, being recorded discussing it...something very convincing) I think taking him apart to get the info is acceptable. 

As for the daughter...nits become lice.  If there is any possibility that she knows she is open game, as far as I'm concerned.  But I don't think you need to go all out on her.  See how he reacts to threats against her.  Let her see some nasty things and perhaps she'll help out daddy by giving you some info.  The likelihood of a little girl just being obstinate for "the cause", though, is highly unlikely.   
I had someone else in mind about the workaround thing. However, did you mention that you are going to have to shoot both of them? It seems like it is unfair to shoot a seven year old girl who knows nothing and has done nothing wrong.  Perhaps you were thinking of the case where she did know where the bomb was hidden and would not tell. While a 7 year old does have some sense of right and wrong, because of her age, she may not have the capability to grasp the seriousness of the crime.   

Ah.  No, the shooting is not a punishment.  It's a matter of convenience.  The media would go into a frenzy over what I was proposing. You'd shoot her and daddy so that they cannot be witnesses against you after the threat has been dealt with.

LOL!

This thread's almost as entertaining as the obese one.  Who needs daytime t.v.? Grin
Logged

"May Thy Cross, O Lord, in which I seek refuge, be for me a bridge across the great river of fire.  May I pass along it to the habitation of life." ~St. Ephraim the Syrian
Sinful Hypocrite
Everyday I am critical of others. Every day I make similar mistakes. Every day I am a hypocrite.
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Greek Orthodox
Jurisdiction: "The Orthodox Church" by Bishop Kallistos Ware: "We know where the Church is but we cannot be sure where it is not; and so we must refrain from passing judgment on non-Orthodox Christians."
Posts: 1,595


Great googly moogly!


« Reply #114 on: June 30, 2013, 06:05:46 PM »

The real problem with this issue is that when you allow torture, then you have lowered your previous standards that have been fought and died for previously. The majority of industrialized countries all agreed upon certain moral limits and they were signed by all the leaders.

If then later, when it is convenient for you , you decide to ignore that then you open the door for chaos, that we stood for the human rights of all before means nothing now,you can never point at others and accuse them of being morally bankrupt . 
Logged

The Lord gathers his sheep, I fear I am a goat. Lord have mercy.

"A Christian is someone who follows and worships a perfectly good God who revealed his true face through the life, death and resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth.“
Tags:
Pages: « 1 2 3  All   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.18 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.128 seconds with 52 queries.