[dvt]

If you're really trying to say that torture is 'bad' (and not illegal -- which it sort-of is), you need to really flex some intellectual muscle and not merely just claim it.

It's a been a pretty hotly-debated issue in (politico-)philosophical circles for the past 400 years; so don't think it'll be easy.

[jobu]

It was my impression that the torture debate was settled after World War II: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geneva_Conventions

Torture is wrong, bad, illegal, and ineffective. In a modern world it shouldn't be supported, even from an "Old Testament" sort of good guy.

[dvt]

Small correction: the Geneva Convention says nothing about the effectiveness of torture, although other sources may.

And the philosophical debate is far from over; it is ongoing: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/torture/ Reading some of the literature can be quite fascinating.

Ouch, the down-votes :(

[snowwrestler]

I'm not sure philosophers debating is a useful signal about whether an issue is settled. I'm having a hard time thinking of a topic on which philosophers would not debate.

[r00fus]

You're getting down voted because, knowingly or not, you're using conversational terrorism [1] techniques.

Wary minds see/hear these words and immediately ignore any of your content. Think of it as a debating equivalent of pulling a godwin.

[1] http://www.vandruff.com/art_converse.html

[dvt]

What conventional terrorism technique have I used? Here's an analogue of what happened.

Bob says: yeah it's pretty easy to see that every even integer greater than 2 can be expressed as the sum of two primes.[1]

I say: not so fast, you can't just claim things like that. I mean it might be intuitive or 'generally accepted' (and even stochastically probable!), but the truth-value of such a statement is difficult to prove.

[1] Goldbach's conjecture.

[Chinjut]

I'm perfectly happy claiming lots of things which have been hotly debated in (politico-)-philosophical circles for a long time. And so, I imagine, are most people, including (politico)-philosophers themselves. That everyone doesn't agree with me on everything doesn't lose me sleep.

[dhaivatpandya]

Why is this post being downvoted so much? Although I don't agree w/ the author's position, torture and its effectiveness are still debated.

[dvt]

Actually, I never even stated my position!

For the record, I'm pretty sure torture is usually morally wrong. But I also think that there are many cases where it may be permissible, e.g. the ticking time-bomb thought experiment.

(Detractors of the ticking time-bomb experiment will argue that it's a fabricated scenario which never happens in real life. I don't think that's true.)

[JoeAltmaier]

How about: torture is always wrong. But sometimes I will sacrifice my immortal soul (torture somebody) to save somebody I love. And its still wrong, and I will be prosecuted for it. But my child will live, or whatever.

[dinkumthinkum]

How about we actually use philosophical argument and not this weak wishy-washy stuff. Perhaps contextualism is true? Perhaps actions themselves have no moral connotation but rather moral decision can only be made within a contextual framework.

I think to say "torture is always wrong" is just something to say to fit in socially. I don't think you can make moral decisions about any action murder, theft, etc; there must be a contextual framework and hierarchy of values.

[tripzilch]

> How about we actually use philosophical argument and not this weak wishy-washy stuff.

His argument is clearly based on the philosophical framework of Virtue Ethics. You can refer to the literature on that, if you want the arguments. Though I can tell you now, contextualism is quite orthogonal to Virtue Ethics.

FWIW, I don't think it's "wishy-washy" at all, definitely less so than stating "I'm against torture mostly, except for <contrived hypothetical situation>".

> I think to say "torture is always wrong" is just something to say to fit in socially.

This is just assuming bad faith. People that base their moral framework on things like Virtue Ethics definitely don't do it for social acceptance.

> I don't think you can make moral decisions about any action murder, theft, etc; there must be a contextual framework and hierarchy of values.

In theory, maybe. In practice, similarly to utilitarianism, it is completely unworkable. It's the wrong way out, morality is not a matter of engineering, fortunately there are other options.

[JoeAltmaier]

That's a way to analyze it. But not all moral frameworks are going to yield to academic dissection. I'm not so worried about finding a chapter in my philosophy text to label it; we can instead explore our existing moral foundations and answer honestly.

If you must rationalize it, go ahead. But you can argue yourself into any number of conclusions. In the end that's a game with no winner.

[dreamfactory2]

'Ticking time bomb' isn't even effective in theory let alone practise. It's just a weak and puerile excuse for sadistic bullying.

This thread speaks volumes about the low moral character found in people like 'Ronco' and much of the SV wannabe culture.

[dinkumthinkum]

All this hatred directed at Ron Conway, whom I don't really have any opinion, in a thread about an article Paul Graham wrote that has nothing to do with torture ...

This smacks of the kind of inane, conversation drowning behavior of PETA. What is theoretically wrong with the "ticking time bomb," since you wrote that specifically? What is the lapse in logic or the shaky philosophical flaw in the "theory?" And then you go and besmirch the whole "SV wannabe culture" because they don't have the same thoughtless moral certainty that you do.

Reasonable people can disagree and it does not mean one side is evil or one is stupid, necessarily. I think it is a bit much to say Ron Conway is despicable or whatever because of this.

[dreamfactory2]

Ticking time bomb covered in other comments.

It's not quite about torture per se (which is actually a clear moral good vs evil issue - after all you don't hear people saying we need to consider both sides of the rape argument to reach a balanced view).

Point here being that PG wrote a feelgood piece about the SV great and good that will be lapped up by many who are engaged in tech. Central to the piece is that Ronco's success was down to his great character so it is entirely on topic to discuss. But (a bit like Google's "don't be evil") when you scratch the surface of the subject there's a quite different story which reveals the article as a bit of a propaganda piece (whether or not unwittingly).

[thaumaturgy]

Wow, a rare sane comment in this whole subthread. What are you still doing on this site?

[dvt]

I don't think you understand the ticking time-bomb thought experiment. It's well-bounded and presents a very compelling argument for the moral permissibility if we're virtue ethicists or requirement, if we're utilitarians, of torture.

The only counter-argument is, does it actually happen in real life? Some say yes, some say no.

[dreamfactory2]

The counter argument is that it's based on a moronic assumption that the person being tortured is guilty and yet will reveal the correct location and instructions on how to disarm the device while the clock is still ticking. That holds water for nobody but a sadist looking for cover or a dimwit who has seen too many episodes of 24.

[dvt]

That exact scenario has occurred many times in real-life.

For example: http://www.nytimes.com/2003/04/10/world/kidnapping-has-germa...

The assumption is not at all moronic.