I don't think that what I see as moral relativism is antithetical to taking a position. One's position would tend to be flexible depending on the circumstances. An example would be Jesus not allowing the men to stone the "fallen woman", He could have been hardcore and followed the letter of the law, but instead he looked at the intent of the law and tempered the law with mercy. That is a perfect example of moral relativism, it doesn't prevent a person from making a decision, it just requires that a person THINK and decide for themselves rather than look it up in an old book and follow whatever is written there.
Do me a favor and don't use non-existent people in fabricated tales as examples. Of course I don't hold that view, but since you do, it sets up a situation where I need to respond to a basis you don't believe in to begin with. Which makes the discussion pointless.
For example, the teaching of Christ was turn to repentance. Repentance is the changing away from immoral activity. Jesus never suggested what the woman did was not wrong, which is why he said to go and sin no more, indicating she had sinned. In a Biblical view, adultery and fornication is wrong, all the time, every time, without exception. This is no where near moral relativism that would say she didn't do anything wrong.
Are you familiar with the concept of a "social contract"? The idea that if one agrees to participate in the game, then one agrees to obey the rules of the game. When you studied, practiced, and took a test to get a driver's license you were signing up to play a social game, you studied and memorized the rules and took a test to prove that you had learned them. Implicit in playing the game is acceptance of the coercion that the rules of the game apply to you. You cannot sign-up for the game, pay your money, enjoy the fun of the game, and then shout "FOUL!" when the rules of the game are applied to you.
As far as you being tased and beaten and gang raped, well, we live in an imperfect world and some people break the rules but justify it with the MIGHT IS RIGHT argument. Is it wrong? Yes, is it my fault? No, I play by the rules.
I never agreed to any social contract. Even if it is implied, I can change my mind. Isn't that free-will? For example, I never agreed to not steal from the guy next door, or not to sleep with some ones 15-year old daughter. So why should my free-will be abridged, and be coerced into following these man-made social rules?
Wrong? Based on what? How do you know that "might is right" is wrong? In fact, what makes the social contract morally binding? Isn't it because the government has might, and therefore is right? It still boils down to a group of people making up man made morals that are no more valid than any other man's morals. It's just that the government can enforce their morals... so might is right, is it not?
Assuming that we know for certain that the person is guilty, then death, or better yet placing that person on an island along with all the others of their kind and allowing them to prey on each other--great learing experience that.
File that under "cruel and unusual punishment". I see little difference between your suggestion and waterboarding. In fact, waterboarding is a mercy compared to what you suggest.
You have gone from "knowing" to "not knowing" and therein lies the problem. The person has not done what YOU suspect they intend to do. So you are torturing that person in the hope that they really intend to do what you think they intend to do, you hope that they have made definite enough plans that they can tell you what the plan is, and you hope that if all your other hopes are fruitful that this person actually knows the plans so they can tell you about them, and finally you hope that by suspending your humanity you can hurt this person enough to make them tell you what you hope they know. That's a lot of hoping, Andy.
If that was the case, then I would not support waterboarding for this purpose. But that is not the case. There is none of the 'hoping' that you claim.
For example, Zubaydah. Zubaydah already has the death penalty in Jordan. Zubaydah was fingered a number of times by other Al Qaeda members captured before 9/11. He was said to be the attack planner for a terrorist attack that was supposed to happen in LA during the New Years eve party. Zubaydah was an Afganistan AQ recruiter that ran terrorist training camps. He has over 37 different aliases in a dozen countries. His resume boasts 15 years of experience in AQ, and his honors and accomplishments includes over 30 different terrorist events, not including those that failed. Finely the CIA captured him after taping a phone call in which he himself directly relayed a newly planned attack. He was captured in the very process of setting up a terrorist attack.
We waterboarded a person we
knew intended to do what we heard them openly say they were going to do, and
knew he had done other plans before, and
knew he had explicit knowledge of other plans and other people. After getting the information we
knew he had, we captured a few more AQ people, and stopped several other terrorist attacks.
False choice, as far as we know there has never been a case like this in human history. What would it take to convince you that the poor bastard you have chained to the table really is guilty, really knows what you wish to find out? It's already been fairly clearly established that you are willing to believe some pretty unbelievable things on the basis of little or no evidence: walking on water, rising from the dead, God demanding blood payment, etc.
You are wasting my time, and yours. If you want to talk about God, that's fine, but why bring it here? Are we talking about 'torture' or walking on the water? Stick to one subject. You would expect no less from me, yes?
Interrogation of any kind is not supportable for the purpose of determining guilt. You can break anyone in order to agree to confess to anything given enough time and discomfort. So it's pointless here. Making someone talk only works when you know for certain that they have the required information.
Like Zubaydah, that I detailed above. Is it possible a guy can be a key member of AQ for 15 years, have 30 terrorist attacks in his belt, already have the death penalty in another country, and somehow not have any information of any kind that we could find useful??
Of course that is ridiculous. Which is why when he refused to talk, we convinced him otherwise, and it did save lives. Many lives.
Now you are setting up this scenario where MILLIONS of lives hang in the balance if we don't resort to torture. Are you willing to go two different directions with this? We can look at it from two perspectives if you are willing and this should be fun for you because you get the chance to make me look like a fool both ways. Sound fun?
1. Let's look at the evidence/justification for torturing someone (or more than one) on the basis of our susicion that they are going to kill millions of people.
2. Let's look at what you, Andy, are willing to do to get the information from these people.
No one can make someone else look like a fool. They either are, or are not. I'm just responding to the points made with whatever information I have. If it's wrong I'll change my mind. If it's right, I'll keep it.
If not millions of lives.. how about 3000 lives? Not including the dozens of terror attacks world wide.
Ok... someone kills hundreds of people in terrorist attacks. Plans more. Is caught planning an attack. Has a 15 year history in a terrorist network. Has terrorist recruiter in his resume. Knows the whole network of terrorist inside and out. Is recorded in a phone conversation directing a terrorist event. Has 37 different aliases in a dozen countries and already managed to get the death penalty in Jordan.
Based on this, as irrational as it sounds... I do in fact suspect him of being a terrorist, and oddly, I actually suspect he does have information about other terrorists and terror plots.
Now thankfully I am not in the position to make the choice of how to get him to talk. But I can see why someone might be willing to strap him down on a flat board and pour water over his head to make him talk, in order to save (thousands) of lives. A better question is, would be happy to sacrifice 3000 of our fellow citizens to feel better about not doing anything? Or what would you suggest we do? Serve him bacon every day till he talks?
See I'm open to being against waterboarding. I'd be first in line to vote against it... but there has to be an alternative. Right now the other options I'm getting is... do nothing and watch people die.
