Philosophy Now Forum

The Existential Imperative
President Trump states that he is in favour of torture. Under what exact circumstances is an essential question.
We all understand that torture may be employed in extreme authoritarian societies, or tyrannies, as a matter of course. For altruist society it is an undoubted evil. For anarchist society a matter of more indifference.
But for any stable society the priority will be the preservation of the 'state' against chaos and war. If altruism does not survive then 'evil' must flourish. In the event that a country, as probably with Britain in WW2, is under an existential threat then survival is the prime consideration.
Altruist society may however decide that it would rather cease to exist, than commit an extreme evil. Such Christians as believe their reward is in heaven may agree. But self-sacrifice that has no objective for altruism in this world, is barely credible.
If Britain found itself about to be destroyed, and only some information in the hands of a spy could help to save the country, it is barely to be conceived that torture would not be employed as necessary. The need for this may one day be obviated by the use of drugs that reduce a person's ability to resist questions. The end of torture. A heyday for tyrannies.

As a principle, making war acceptable is the error.
True war has no rules of engagement.

In true war there are no red lines,
and to the primal ears of calculating savages
talk of such in terms of calculus is the tell of weakness, and ineptitude.

War is, and should be, a monstrous horror show.
War is a sucker punch in a street fight, then boot kicks to the head.

Institutionalized savagery on the scale of nuclear horror is a proven deterrent that comes closer to insuring “never again” than anything else yet dreamed up by man.

That is why war went nuclear only once, and that was in the beginning of the capability.
The alternative is too horrible to consider as a possibility,
As was learned in the war without rules.

However, prolonged war for political purposes, or as a lifestyle, has many rules of engagement.
This is also why there is no mandatory military service in the US.
In Vietnam the powers learned that the draft angers the populace, and war that is made unacceptable to the populace because of anger’s impartial energy, becomes unsustainable.

If one side in a war breaks all the rules of humanity and commits any imaginable atrocity of torture,
while at the same time the other side claims moral superiority through
The Rhetorical Pronouncements of the Rules
(regardless of what’s actually happening in reality)

Then exactly what is going on, hmmm?

Obviously what has become acceptable in the past eight years is war as a lifestyle that must be sustained through the manufacture and sale of implements of destruction, which is exactly what Ike warned against.

war is fun and games...

computer games and media desensitize future combatants...

yolo

-Imp

Impenitent wrote:war is fun and games...

computer games and media desensitize future combatants...

yolo

-Imp

Since the mind interprets viddy violence literally, violent gaming input is creating a demand for deconditioning clinics, like in A Clockwork Orange. Technology permits both text and postal reminders for mandatory eye checkups.