[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.

[dreamfactory2]

That's a completely different scenario with different motivations and no bearing on the ticking time bomb one. (And even in that case note the information came too late to save the victim.)

In a ticking time bomb scenario, a suspected terrorist might or might not give up the correct location of the device in many circumstances - could be a lead pipe, asking nicely, bribery, being attractive, making a convincing moral argument, or they may be unwilling, or unable in the event that they are innocent. Clearly none of those can be assumed and it won't be the same each time.

So even if one were to look at it from a purely amoral utilitarian viewpoint - even on those kind of sociopathic terms it is still absurd and very telling for an individual to seize on torture as a magic bullet for obtaining success. When we also consider that torture is widely documented as ineffective for gathering information, we are left with sadists, stupids, and immature creeps whose understanding of the world is based on action movies.

[dinkumthinkum]

It is documented by people trying to make an emotional point that it is ineffective. It is so obvious that I cannot believe intellectual people fall for the idea that because we find torture morally disgusting that is must be "ineffective." That is purely an emotional argument to make us feel better about our emotional decision. When does torture become ineffective? Why is it that threatening a child with going to bed early or a criminal with jail time to give up co-conspirators can be effective but "torture" cannot? Where on the spectrum does it become ineffective? Such a delineation does not exist and we all know it. If we want to ban it on moral grounds then fine but let's not delude ourselves. It makes us feel nice to say it doesn't work. No one argues it is this perfect mechanism, neither is sending your kid to bed early, but to say it wholly does not work is spurious.