It also differs to the USA's notion. But why are you still concerned about whether something falls under the description 'torture' or not? As you repeat again below, you do not regard it as wrong to make people suffer.fiveredapples wrote: No, we haven't established that at all. We've established that my notion of torture is different than the UN's notion, but as I have accepted the UN's definition, this is a moot point.
The number of instances does not matter. If I hold that it is wrong to steal, that goes for all stealing. We do not think each act of stealing is governed by a discrete morality. What we are looking for here is the equivalent of your explanation of why it would be wrong to steal. If we knew that, then we could tell if you are applying your morality consistently.There are millions of instances in which it's morally permissible to make people suffer. As you dolts have insisted that the tiniest of acts causes suffering, then since it's morally permissible, in many cases, to kill someone or stab someone in self-defense, then it's morally permissible (in some cases) to make people suffer. Nobody should have to point out the obvious like that, except idiots keep asking for the obvious to be explained to them.
This is what I was asking you about earlier. If 'obviously the severity of our acts are not the issue', I do not see why you are so keen to say that waterboarding is not torture. Surely you would regard any act of torture, killing, whatever, as also acceptable. If that isn't the case, if the treatment that you would inflict is governed by some other consideration, then what is it? For example, would you waterboard a child? Or a US citizen? Or somebody who might have made a false tax return?Obviously we are morally permitted to inflict various level of harm, pain, or suffering on someone in certain cases, so obviously the severity of our acts are not the issue. In other words, how much pain or suffering we inflict is not a point of contention -- unless you're a moron such as yourself. The point is...under which circumstances can we inflict this pain or suffering. And so now we've reached something most people have already understood. Except you have decided to carp. You're a giant waste of time.
If there is any circumstances where you would not waterboard somebody, then that indicates waterboarding is only conditionally moral.
You continue to refer to it as 'morally permitted' but you haven't explained the conditions (if any) that make it so.
They also tied them (and many others) up in stress positions, beat them, confined them in small boxes, threatened to kill their children, sexually humiliated them and so on. You have given several reasons why the waterboarding part was acceptable. Was this other treatment also acceptable, for the same reasons? Would even worse have been acceptable?Idiot. CIA water boarding is a preventative measure, as is self-defense. It's not a moral philosophy about how to treat our fellow law-abiding citizens. You're the biggest idiot of this group because you've mis-read a little philosophy and now you think you have ability....
LOL. Idiocy. The CIA water boarded three KNOWN TERRORISTS. That's it. That's the history we're dealing with. That's a 100% success rate of extracting valuable information from the three known terrorists we water boarded. In light of these FACTS, look at your idiotic question. You're talking about utilitarianism (a repugnant ethical theory) why? Because you've ventured off into irrelevant grand-standing.
I did not mention the CIA. What I asked was if it would be morally acceptable for the US government (I do not mind which agency) to waterboard US citizens.I said CIA water boarding is morally permissible, meaning the method they use, not that it must be done by the CIA. Only a moron would misunderstand what I wrote. We know among whom to count you, now....Irrelevant. We are talking strictly of CIA water boarding. If you wish to go off the reservation, by all means, but don't expect me to follow.
You keep accusing me of going off the subject because I think any moral case for, or against, waterboarding would apply generally, not just to a particular instance. But if the fact it involved the CIA really is important, it could only be because you think morality of waterboarding differs depending on things like which agency is involved. You really are not clear; in the quote above you write: 'meaning the method they use, not that it must be done by the CIA' but also 'We are talking strictly of CIA water boarding'.
Usually a retreat to 'ad hominem' is not seen as a sign of confidence.My argument is spelled out for everyone to see. I even put a basic version with numbered premises for all to hopefully understand. If you aren't attacking those premises, then you shouldn't expect me to address your comments. It's carping, it's a waste of time, and it only serves to squelch real debate. You are incapable of following a simple argument. But, I know, you fancy yourself steeped in philosophical thought. Sorry, buddy, but you've only proven you're incapable of following the simplest of arguments. But do tell us about other ethical theories you misunderstand. It'll impress the crowd.
