I want to say that, with my limited time, I have skipped over some earlier comments which looked like legitimate objections that deserve responses, so if you've made good objections -- which may be right or wrong -- I will go back and address those comments in a day or two. For now, let me address the latest comments.
Here's a little advice. You should always be charitable to your opponent; otherwise, it makes your position look weaker.
My position is that CIA water boarding is morally permissible. And part of the reason why I think that is because the severity of the act is immaterial. That might sound strange to many, but the reasoning is quite simple. CIA water boarding is a preventative measure. It is done to thwart terrorist plots underway. And since we have millions of examples of much more severe actions which are morally permissible when done as preventative measures, I see no reason why water boarding, which is relatively benign, should be an exception. So, as far as I see it, it's easily morally permissible.
Consider that in many cases we are morally permitted to chop off someone's arm, shoot them with an arrow in the head, or push them off a cliff, if those actions are done as a preventative measure against someone who has immorally or illegally attacked you such that the only way to preserve your life -- or that of other innocents -- is to do any of those acts. So, if it's morally permissible to chop off someone's arm under certain circumstances, then obviously doing something much less severe (namely water boarding him) isn't problematic morally. That's just common sense.
Now, a full-blown argument will require some nuance and more to be said, but I don't see how the severity of an act will play much, if any, role in determining whether it's morally permissible or not. Let me stop there, or I'll end up giving the whole argument in a response-post, and I'd rather give it as a separate post.
My original argument was not in fact an argument for the moral permissibility of CIA water boarding. Strictly speaking, I gave an argument for why CIA water boarding is not torture. This is a premise which almost everyone takes for granted, but if I deny it, then the onus is on those who insist it's true to give an argument. Nobody here has, or likely can, give a cogent argument for this premise. If you believe that CIA water boarding is morally impermissible, then you're likely going to need the premise that it's torture. Where is that argument? You can't just simply insist that it is, because to many people quite the opposite seems obvious. So the onus is on you to show that CIA water boarding involves severe pain or severe suffering, which will require more than "it's obvious" as an argument. And Christopher Hitchens does nothing for you, as explained.
FRA is a toxic time-wasting troll who lacks the character and intellectual chops to debate a topic without denigration.
Calling me names works against you when I -- and no one else -- is giving clear, forceful arguments for his views. You can say I'm arrogant or vulgar (you guys are too), but you cannot say that I don't give arguments. And, please, reference a post where someone else lays out an argument the way I have several times in this thread. If you're looking for pats on the back from your fellow travelers, then you'll have them. But if you're looking for respect from reasonable people, you are failing sorely.
