Torture- Never, or sometimes?

[jellyfishannah]

The fact that you're treating them like an animal does not make them an animal- it makes you an animal. There are spectacular examples available to us from history and modern times. In one of my college classes in real life, I have about a half dozen Vietnamese war veterans who were imprisoned for about a dozen years each and tortured. They are modest, humble, kind gentlemen. Other examples I have less contact with personally include many reports I've heard of Christians in China and other parts of the world. Some of them have been tortured, and it makes them the best of people. Suffering can make or break people. Whereas some become like crazy animals, other people are transformed into individuals whose extreme goodness takes your breath away. These are the most dignified of human beings- during and after the torture.

I read one account from Pliny the Younger, as he described his efforts in torturing Christians. He talked about them as terrible animals, people who stood firm by their beliefs. To me, those Christians were incredibly dignified. Their response to evil proved their dignity beyond all question.

So the fact that you are treating someone like an animal does not make that person an animal- it makes you an animal.

It certainly does make you an animal! If that doesn't say enough, I don't know what does. You can't torture someone to get something you want and make it seem better by saying "Oh, they'll probably be better for it anyway." ?! Insanity!

The people who have gone through torture and withstood it are amazingly strong people. But you never know what someone will do under torture. They don't always come out ok.

Thinking about anything I've ever heard, read, or seen about torture makes me truly sick to my stomach. Torture is horrible and it should never happen. Not for the love of country. Not for anything.

Why would it be wrong for a tyrant to murder and terrorize but it's ok for anyone to cause someone pain until they give you what you want?

I do not intend to endorse the use of torture until the evidence that it is morally valid outweighs to me the evidence that it is not.

Did you not just say it makes one an animal?? Evidence to make it morally valid?? Morally valid? A lot of people don't even believe in "morals". And pardon me if I think you are sounding like one of those. People grow up with morals. It's not something you learn in a classroom. It's usually very obvious what is right and what is wrong. Some thing are harder to say (like abortion) but it should be obvious to any decent person that causing someone direct pains for your own gain is wrong. Animal. Brutal. Evil. Whatever you want to call it.

You say you don't want to discuss the technical part but it seems like that's exactly what you're doing. Discussing it in very heartless and technical ways to find out if you should "endorse it".

Sorry if I'm harsh. But you ARE playing the devil's advocate. Your fault!

[Spock]

Originally Posted by jellyfishannah

Why would it be wrong for a tyrant to murder and terrorize but it's ok for anyone to cause someone pain until they give you what you want?

Indeed.

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by Valandil

Here's a question to toss out: If torture DID generally provide information (or other results) which was/were useful and/or helpful - would it THEN be OK?

maybe the problem is that we are trying to say that torture is "justified" when, in the most extreme situations, it might be considered
"understandable" at best

this might sound like pure semantics, but "justfied" implies that the torturer was 100% right in what he did, and can feel free to do so again at his own discretion... but "understandable" accepts the fact that we simply don't know what the "right" solution is... and that an act committed at a certain point in time may have actually been detrimental to the goal at hand, but was done with the best of intentions... and should be approached with a lot of introspection and examination every time it comes up

not quite so black and white a morality, but maybe more realistic one

[jellyfishannah]

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

maybe the problem is that we are trying to say that torture is "justified" when, in the most extreme situations, it might be considered
"understandable" at best

this might sound like pure semantics, but "justfied" implies that the torturer was 100% right in what he did, and can feel free to do so again at his own discretion... but "understandable" accepts the fact that we simply don't know what the "right" solution is... and that an act committed at a certain point in time may have actually been detrimental to the goal at hand, but was done with the best of intentions... and should be approached with a lot of introspection and examination every time it comes up

not quite so black and white a morality, but maybe more realistic one

That makes more sense. It is still damaging to whoever. But it happens. And will happen wether it's "understandable" or just sadistic. It's just not something, IMO, that anyone civilised should ever think to "endorse".

[Insidious Rex]

What do you do with someone after you have tortured them for "good" reasons? Do you kill them? Do you keep them imprisoned forever? Certainly you cant let them go right? What do you do if they give you information and it turns out to be wrong? Do you torture them again to punish them? Do you torture them again to get better information? When does the cycle stop exactly?

[jellyfishannah]

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

What do you do with someone after you have tortured them for "good" reasons? Do you kill them? Do you keep them imprisoned forever? Certainly you cant let them go right? What do you do if they give you information and it turns out to be wrong? Do you torture them again to punish them? Do you torture them again to get better information? When does the cycle stop exactly?

"Here have a cookie. There's a good torture victim. NEXT!!"

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

sure there is... the very reasons you choose to define as "technical" i would call real-world reasons... they make sense and benefit society... peaceful relations and unspoken "rules of war" are beneficial to eveyone, whether or not there is any afterlife or divine being... the non-believer derives his morality from the world we live in... and, in fact, i'd argue that most believers do to

in contrast, one could argue that the only way to make something appear moral that does not make any real-world "technical" sense is via morality derived from a supernatural source... this is what the terrorists do, as do some who oppose them

torture is wrong because of those very technical reasons... there is no need to look any further, and it is wrong to ignore them

Certainly it would be wrong to ignore the technical reasons. Those aren't morality, though.

Originally Posted by Encarta® World English Dictionary

mo·ral·i·ty n
1. standards of conduct that are accepted as right or proper
2. the rightness or wrongness of something as judged by accepted moral standards
3. a lesson in moral behavior

"Right" or "proper", "rightness" or "wrongness". This is not utility vs. damage to me.

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

What do you do with someone after you have tortured them for "good" reasons? Do you kill them? Do you keep them imprisoned forever? Certainly you cant let them go right? What do you do if they give you information and it turns out to be wrong? Do you torture them again to punish them? Do you torture them again to get better information? When does the cycle stop exactly?

As to whether you release your victim, imprison him for life, or kill him, I expect that this would depend on the situation and person. As to the extent and duration of punishment that would be metted out on an individual, this would depend on the direness of the need.

Originally Posted by jellyfishannah

Did you not just say it makes one an animal??

It can make one into an animal. I think it's very possibly inaccurate to say it must. War also can make people into animals, yet not always.

Originally Posted by jellyfishannah

Evidence to make it morally valid?? Morally valid? A lot of people don't even believe in "morals". And pardon me if I think you are sounding like one of those. People grow up with morals. It's not something you learn in a classroom. It's usually very obvious what is right and what is wrong.

Actually, some morals are "learned in a classroom." There have been studies taken that where teachers tell the students to work out morality for themselves, the students usually have fallen back into the dark ages. Drug addiction, premarital sex, violence, theft, and overall self-serving at others' expense behavior has been shown to be far stronger in these settings than in settings where traditional values are assumed and enforced. People are often strongly influenced by their surroundings. Why do you think Saddam Hussein's sons turned out so bad? Because of their surroundings, because of the influence of their father. The same thing is the case in schools. Many students spend a lot of time in the classroom, and thus that environment shapes their moral values. I don't know of any disagreement with the idea that parents have a great impact upon the development of their childrens' opinions, including their moral beliefs. Children raised Christian homes are likely to come out with Christian moral beliefs. People raised in Nazi youth camp are likely to come out with Nazi moral beliefs.

In spite of all this, I do agree with you that morality exists, regardless of whether or not people's opinions of it are on track or off. There is a true standard of behavior in the universe, and actions either conform to that standard of what is right or they do not. If they do not, they are immoral, independent of whether we think they are moral or not. This is one of my religious beliefs.

Originally Posted by jellyfishannah

Some thing are harder to say (like abortion) but it should be obvious to any decent person that causing someone direct pains for your own gain is wrong. Animal. Brutal. Evil. Whatever you want to call it.

Might it depend what that gain is? For example, our involvement in World War 2, in the struggle against Japan. This was fought for our own gain: the gain was survival. What were the means? Causing someone direct pains. It seems to me unrealistic to say that there are no situations where we should cause people some form of pain. Otherwise you have to ban parking tickets and even short term jail sentences as well.

Originally Posted by Eärniel

I disagree. But I think most of us in this discussion consider the moral objection to be a given and therefore don't bring it into the discussion. Hence we automatically move over to the 'technical' objections since they're more variable to situations and opinions, and therefore more discussable.

I hope you won't take the moral objection as a given in this discussion. I am not, because I am not sure that in all cases it is valid. My devilish argument is that the ethical objection also is variable to situations.

However, people here can discuss the technical aspect as well.

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

i think the crux of the matter is what you define as "necessary"... sherman's march was a tactic used to defeat the south, but just because it was successful does not mean that it was the best tactic...

Many historians think that if he had not marched through the South, there would have been greater casualties on both sides. The same opinion holds regarding the A-bombs in Japan. Whether or not these truly were the best possible courses of action, we will never know. However, the principle is what matters. If that is the course of action we think will save the most lives, even though it is horrible (though we think the alternative would be worse), is it justifiable to commit atrocities such as the destructions of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and Sherman's March?

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

when we speak of "violence to avoid greater violence", it is usually from the pov of the lives on your side... saving union soldier's lives, or saving american lives... not necessary saving lives in terms of both sides

Yet this is not always the case. The Hiroshima and Nagaski bombs on two cities made it unnecessary for us to continue butchering many Japanese cities with our firebombs. Also, I believe it is thought that if Sherman's March had not occurred, the casualties on both sides would have been higher. This is the case with the use of torture as well. If it is used to get useful information, it sometimes will allow us to accomplish strikes that are more surgical, thus keeping down the number of enemies we kill.

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

and if you look at the bigger picture of the civil war, which was not about slavery,

President Lincoln said it was, in his Second Inaugural Address. I agree with him, as it's clear that there would have been no need for the states to separate in the first place if there wasn't the disagreement over slavery.

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

but about keeping us together as a single country... one could very easily argue that it was simply not worth it... was it "necessary" to keep us as one nation? was it worth 600,000 lives?

this may be an easy question from a nationalistic standpoint, but it is a tough question from a purely moral standpoint... the people of the south were not "evil", and the slavery issue would eventually have taken care of itself, as it did in the rest of the free world...

Not according to Martin Luther King Jr. He said that peacefully "waiting" for segregation to pass us by would simply cause the evil to become more firmly entrenched. I know, segregation is not slavery, but the issues are connected, so I thought I'd mention this.

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

can one say without a shadow of a doubt that two separate countries living along side each other to this very day would have necessarily been a worse outcome if it spared 600,000 lives?

Well, I disagree with you about the reason for the Civil War. This wasn't simply nationalism. It was morality, as a matter of a fact, that spurred the North to prepare for war.

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

we even see this moral dilemma today when we conduct war via bombing... a technique that is much safer in terms of preserving the lives of american servicemen, but much more costly when it comes to civilian lives lost on the opposing side

You're thinking of the Persian Gulf War. Operation Enduring Freedom is not the same. The strikes have been far more surgical, and the civilian casualties FAR smaller in number than they have been in just about all previous wars we've fought.

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

and when you speak of "enemies not holding guns", you have to remember that their motivations may simply be self-preservation of their way of life, their families and their own lives... in situations like the southern rebellion during the civil war or germany/japan during ww2, the average civilian had very little choice over whether or not to go to war... they were forced into the situation by a relatively small group of individuals and responded the only way they could... self-defense

Actually, Japan and Germany were strongly united behind their leader. If the people of the southern states had not in large number supported their cause, they would also never have successfully voted to leave the Union. Many of these people really were enemies who weren't holding guns. Sure, this is not unanimous in any of those countries. There were people who weren't in favor of war who died on all these sides. I expect that there never has been (or almost never) a war that didn't have that cost.

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

which, in turn, goes back to torture... the "technicalities" are the most important aspects... does it work? is it the best course of action? and, even if it does work, does it set a precedent or create a situation that is ultimately even more dangerous than the one we were trying to avoid in the first place by employing torture?

I strongly disagree with you here. The practicalities certainly should be taken into account, but they should be second to the ethics.

Technicalities Are The Most Important Aspects

Was the United States' expulsion of North America's native Americans from their land acceptable?

#1 "Does it work?" Yes! Beyond doubt!
#2 "Does it create a situation that is ultimately even more dangerous than the one we were seeking to avoid in the first place?" No! The situation in the end was only positive for our people.
#3 "Does it set a precedent we don't want?" No! No one to any other state cared what we did with a bunch of savages, except Britain, for a very little while. The precedent was also one that was only positive for us. There have been no negative repercussions.

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

Do you think they dropped the bomb in hopes of torturing people? Or killing? This was a device of death that atomized skin and flesh and bone in miliseconds. And as youll recall they still didnt have a great grasp on the secondary effects of radiation long term. They were still drinking "plutonium water" in the 50s to show how harmless it was...

They knew that they would be leaving people alive and in states of severe suffering. There always are wounded. Bomb blasts leave terrible burns, or loss of limbs. People have many times been mutilated beyond recognition in bomb blasts. Whether they guessed the full consequences of the bomb or not, this was in no way merciful killing. Of course the suffering was not the point of the bomb. The suffering was not the point- the destruction was. Nonetheless, a device that caused terrible suffering was a means to an end.

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

Youre not understanding what I mean by “fair game”. I put it in quotes for a reason. Combatants purposefully seeking to capture or kill the other or take out his resources by violent means is “fair game” to me. Even if its high tech M-16 wielding marines versus natives with spears its still technically fair game. Because they are BOTH on the field of battle willing to fight and/or committed to opposing the other by means of arms. When you capture someone they are no longer in this position. So binding them so they are helpless and unarmed and then doing violent things to them is cruel and not at all an act of war.

That's absurd. A native with a spear has no chance whatsoever against an M-16. No more at all than a person strapped down in a chair does. They are exactly as vulnerable. Also, I don't understand why you say, "Combatants purposefully seeking to capture or kill the other or take out his resources by violent means is 'fair game' to me," and you don't add to that list, "extracting information to help your war effort." I really don't understand why you're drawing the line there, aside from the technical reasons.

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

Which brings up yet another good reason NOT to torture. Because of the precedent it sets. If you are the most powerful force on earth and you resort to cruelly torturing your prisoners then you are giving others the impetus and the right to torture your captured soldiers or innocents. If we are to speak about following the rules of war and promoting democracy and fairness and decency toward our fellow humans then we do ourselves a great disservice by turning around and doing exactly what we condemn others for doing. After all isn’t that part of the argument the administration used against Sadam Hussain? That he cruelly tortured his own citizens so he needed to be brought to justice for this? And what means do we use to do that? Why torture of course. Now does that make any sense to you whatsoever? If you want to be known as the pillar of “morality” and a shining example to other “lesser civilized” folks then you cant have it both ways.

President Bush never publicly advocated torture. Quite the reverse. Of course we can't have it both ways. Or at the very least, we need to define exactly when torture is acceptable and when it isn't. If we accepted torture, it would only be in cases where it is necessary to save lives. Saddam's henchmen used it for virtually anything that pleased them. However, if there is going to be a discussion about the torture issues involving the US or other states, there should be another thread made for that.

[Butterbeer]

Was the United States' expulsion of North America's native Americans from their land acceptable?

#1 "Does it work?" Yes! Beyond doubt!
#2 "Does it create a situation that is ultimately even more dangerous than the one we were seeking to avoid in the first place?" No! The situation in the end was only positive for our people.
#3 "Does it set a precedent we don't want?" No! No one to any other state cared what we did with a bunch of savages, except Britain, for a very little while. The precedent was also one that was only positive for us. There have been no negative repercussions.

Genocide is genocide whichever way you pitch it, and hardly a moral good when it's motives were greed.

but, i am curious Lief, why you want a discussion if your views are already set?

You state that you have a strong belief in a universal morality and that all must "conform' to this.

I would like you, not to challenge your belief in christianity, but to look at it with open eyes and open mind ... consistently i perceive from you, here and elsewhere this need to conform to a rigid mindset or approach. And that your answers to difficult moral questions tend to be defensive, finding an example either from scripture or posing a hypothetical counter question, that often misses the underlying point.

now that's all fine if that's what you want, of course, but why bother to debate it?

very best to you though BB

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

I strongly disagree with you here. The practicalities certainly should be taken into account, but they should be second to the ethics.

on most of your last post i'd suggest again that you read the article i linked about hiroshima... it is not about 20-20 hindsight, it is about many facts that were known at the time, or could have been, had the situation been better addressed

and also take a deeper look into the motivations behind the civil war... largely nationalistic, largely economic and very little about slavery when the war began... this is not even a matter of debate... if you don't understand these facts, we can not even begin to discuss it

as far as native americans go, there were many negative aspects... some which remain to this very day... the numbers of lives lost the number one negative, on both sides... the social and economic circumstances that still exist among many native american indian populations another that effects not only them, but us

this sheads light on another key part about war, and torture for that matter... it is NOT about us and them, it's about humanity as a whole... each and every inhabitant of this planet no matter what their flavor of government or religion

the only way you can justify violence towards another human being is by categorizing individuals universally as "the enemy"... this is what one does when they torture... they forget about the individual and only think about the greater goal and illusions of some universal morality that they personally hold the key to... in my mind, that mode of thought is unethical

in the words of gandalf

Many that live deserve death, and some that die deserve life. Can you give it to them, Frodo? Do not be too eager to deal out death in judgment. Even the very wise cannot see all ends.

[Butterbeer]

brownjenkins:

this sheads light on another key part about war, and torture for that matter... it is NOT about us and them, it's about humanity as a whole... each and every inhabitant of this planet no matter what their flavor of government or religion

well said.

And surely a christian precept if there ever was one.

"our people"???

are we not all brothers?

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

which, in turn, goes back to torture... the "technicalities" are the most important aspects... does it work? is it the best course of action? and, even if it does work, does it set a precedent or create a situation that is ultimately even more dangerous than the one we were trying to avoid in the first place by employing torture?

My philosophy completely diverges from yours and IR's on this point. Ethics first, practicalities later. Should I steal from my fellow students at college? First come ethics: No, it is wrong to steal. I should do unto others as I would have them do unto me. To me, the issue stops there. If I want to continue the thought process, I could go into the practicalities, the dangers and perks, of stealing from my fellow students.

I do not go into the technicalities alone. "Does it work? Does it set a precedent (No, for no one sees me steal but me )? Is it too risky?" Those practicalities are completely separate from my thought processes. The ethics alone are enough. If the ethics clear me, however, (this student stole my book; I'm just "stealing" it back) then the practicalities come in.

Originally Posted by jellyfishannah

It certainly does make you an animal! If that doesn't say enough, I don't know what does. You can't torture someone to get something you want and make it seem better by saying "Oh, they'll probably be better for it anyway." ?! Insanity!

I agree. Saying they'll probably get better for it is no excuse at all that justifies torture.

Originally Posted by jellyfishannah

The people who have gone through torture and withstood it are amazingly strong people. But you never know what someone will do under torture. They don't always come out ok.

True.

Originally Posted by jellyfishannah

Thinking about anything I've ever heard, read, or seen about torture makes me truly sick to my stomach.

Good. I'm sure that seeing the photographs of the suicide bombing scenes in Iraq makes you sick as well. These are horrible things. War is utterly horrible. Torture is utterly horrible. Sometimes, we agree, the former is necessary. Might the latter sometimes be necessary too?

Originally Posted by jellyfishannah

Why would it be wrong for a tyrant to murder and terrorize but it's ok for anyone to cause someone pain until they give you what you want?

It's partly a matter of reasons. Saddam Hussein's sons tortured the Iraqi Olympic athletes in an attempt to make them compete better. One of Saddam's sons, wanting a man's car, murdered him in broad daylight in order to take it. This is utterly different from good people torturing others in order to get information that could save lives.

Originally Posted by jellyfishannah

You say you don't want to discuss the technical part but it seems like that's exactly what you're doing. Discussing it in very heartless and technical ways to find out if you should "endorse it".

Sorry if I'm harsh. But you ARE playing the devil's advocate. Your fault!

All I ask is that when forming your opinion about my personality, you don't be hasty in coming to conclusions.

[Butterbeer]

Lief:

First come ethics: No, it is wrong to steal. I should do unto others as I would have them do unto me. To me, the issue stops there.

then genocide is clearly wrong, and we do not take "our people" sides.
The issue stops right there!
dead.

best BB

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by Butterbeer

but, i am curious Lief, why you want a discussion if your views are already set?

My views on whether or not torture is ethical or practical are not already set. On the matter I created a thread about, my mind is open, and I am here to learn. This can be to learn from other people as well as to learn through arguing with them.

Originally Posted by Butterbeer

You state that you have a strong belief in a universal morality and that all must "conform' to this.

I would like you, not to challenge your belief in christianity, but to look at it with open eyes and open mind ... consistently i perceive from you, here and elsewhere this need to conform to a rigid mindset or approach.

Well, first of all, I haven't seen any arguments yet that I think are strong enough to sway me from most of the positions I have taken. Secondly, my own experience of encountering Christ, coupled with a few powerful arguments, have convinced me that a certain approach to scripture (that it is true and literal) is the only correct approach. These experiences with Christ that I have in my daily life, combined with the arguments regarding scripture, shape the way I view reality. Hence, when someone claims that, "abortion should be legal," and the scripture comes against that, then, if I am sure of my interpretation of scripture, to me the scripture alone will be a very powerful argument against abortion. Even if there are no arguments against abortion aside from the scripture, my experiences with Christ and those arguments that I have never heard refuted, which perport that the scripture is true and literal, will serve to me as a powerful evidence that abortion is wrong. The scripture alone will be an argument with sufficient power to convince me, because of these experiences I have had and the arguments regarding the scripture's being literal.

So constantly when I debate, Christianity is a very powerful argument in my mind. Everything I see or experience comes to me through the lens of who I am, as it does with everyone. Who I am is an individual who is convinced that he has encountered Christ, because of the strength and depth of those experiences he has had with the object of his belief. So this relationship with Christ is always there in my mind, and the reliability of scripture is also there. These are mighty arguments to me, and they shape my responses to arguments on other issues.

So yes, I do have a pretty rigid mindset and approach. However, I do learn a great deal from these debates, about other people, about other ways of thinking, and about my own thoughts.

Originally Posted by Butterbeer

And that your answers to difficult moral questions tend to be defensive, finding an example either from scripture or posing a hypothetical counter question, that often misses the underlying point.

Let me tell you why I respond that way . It's because I'm arguing against generalizations! You argue from the Ten Commandments that we should never kill. You say that we should never kill. Hence, all it takes is one counter-example, hypothetical or real, to defeat your statement. The same with torture. People here argue that we should never torture. In that case, all it takes is one counter-example, hypothetical or real, to defeat that statement. I hope I'm not missing people's main points, when I do this. I don't think I am. If I'm missing your main points, I hope you'll explain them again, perhaps a bit more clearly for me.

Originally Posted by Butterbeer

now that's all fine if that's what you want, of course, but why bother to debate it?

very best to you though BB

I debate because:
a) I enjoy the discussion and like the people!
b) I learn from the discussion and from the people.

It is possible to silence me. If someone finds a particularly good argument, it has in the past defeated me. Not often , but I have one incident in particular in mind. I was debating on the matter of abortion, advocating the stance that we have no right to destroy potential life, and someone hit me with such a good argument that I was convinced that I was wrong and he/she was right. I don't remember who that was anymore . . . oh! I find myself now doing exactly what you were accusing me of- posing a counter-example . I really do do that a lot, don't I? Amusing.

Anyway! I'm glad you felt the freedom to comment on a possible flaw in my debating style. I hope that my response seems pretty reasonable to you. If it doesn't, I'll be glad to know why.

I'll get back to the torture debate later.

~Lief

[Butterbeer]

You argue from the Ten Commandments that we should never kill. You say that we should never kill.

Actually i never went that far in practicality .. never say never .. but my points were always in principle how is this squared away? You just (to my mind) cannot do so too easily or blithely ... i always wondered how christians dealt with this thorny issue...

Hence, all it takes is one counter-example, hypothetical or real, to defeat your statement.

you mean allegedly?

hardly, one single statement of counter example hardly proves a point ... as a battle doe not win a whole war ...

I debate because:
a) I enjoy the discussion and like the people!
b) I learn from the discussion and from the people.

Good!

It is possible to silence me.

well, we could try torture!
but then, why would we want to?

Anyway! I'm glad you felt the freedom to comment on a possible flaw in my debating style. I hope that my response seems pretty reasonable to you. If it doesn't, I'll be glad to know why.

oh no worries, mate, i always feel that particular freedom!

I'll get back to the torture debate later.

yes, we should, though of course this a part of it, though more the debate behind the debate in a way ...

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by Butterbeer

Lief:


then genocide is clearly wrong, and we do not take "our people" sides.
The issue stops right there!
dead.

best BB

How did "genocide" get into this? If you mean war, though, or any kind of defensive combat, the ethics to me look like this:

Indeed, I should do unto others what I would have them do unto me. However, would I have others stand by while I am attacked or abused? Usually no. I would have them stand up in my defense. If someone is maligning my character, I would prefer for someone who knows me to stand up for me. If someone is physically assaulting me, I in most circumstances would prefer for others to step in and stop this evil. Thus, if I see the people unjustly attacked or abused, I have the same duty in almost all cases to stand up in their defense. Thus, war can at times not only be justified- but abstaining from fighting in a war at times can be evil.

Originally Posted by Butterbeer

You just (to my mind) cannot do so too easily or blithely ... i always wondered how christians dealt with this thorny issue...

I agree.

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

this sheads light on another key part about war, and torture for that matter... it is NOT about us and them, it's about humanity as a whole... each and every inhabitant of this planet no matter what their flavor of government or religion

Agreed.

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

the only way you can justify violence towards another human being is by categorizing individuals universally as "the enemy"... this is what one does when they torture... they forget about the individual and only think about the greater goal and illusions of some universal morality that they personally hold the key to... in my mind, that mode of thought is unethical

I am not convinced that one must "forget the individual" to torture. Might one simply see the individual as well as the larger picture you just mentioned? This, yes, is a "greater goal", as you mention. One certainly should not torture without a darn good reason. Yet I don't see any argument here that the goal is not great enough.

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

in the words of gandalf


Quote:
Many that live deserve death, and some that die deserve life. Can you give it to them, Frodo? Do not be too eager to deal out death in judgment. Even the very wise cannot see all ends.

"Do not be too eager to deal out death in judgment." Do not be too eager. I agree that one should not be eager. One should look hard for an alternative.

[Butterbeer]

well, i don't know what you amercicans are taught about the systematic wiping out of the indiginent Red indians, but for the rest of the world, historically its pretty much agreed to be genocide.

[rohirrim TR]

Originally Posted by Butterbeer

well, i don't know what you amercicans are taught about the systematic wiping out of the indiginent Red indians, but for the rest of the world, historically its pretty much agreed to be genocide.

What??? are you talking about? not, little big horn thats for sure. Now granted there was some messed up stuff on americas part, but the atrocities no one talks about is what the indians did to settlers, and their prisoners. Talk about torture, pure sadistical torture, read up on what the Apache for example would do to a prisoner for fun. the indian war was way messed up on both sides, America is by no means innocent, but neither were native americans blamesless.

[Butterbeer]

i'm not saying anyone is blameless ... for sure the red indians are not saints ... but then i never said they were ...

but the facts are they were systematically driven and forced off their lands, killed, wiped out and driven out of their land (again!! ) .. there were effective pogroms to wipe them out ... which makes it genocide.

heres some stuff:

ARE NATIVE AMERICANS BUILDING CONSENSUS FOR A CLASS ACTION LAW SUIT AGAINST NATIVE AMERICAN TRIBES AND FEDERAL GOVERNMENT?

Look at your own child. You can pass on all your knowledge, your religion and its symbols, all your possessions everything that is legally and morally yours.
This you can do legally, morally and justifiably.

THAT IS UNLESS YOU ARE NATIVE AMERICAN!

For the federal government to recognize the rights of any person as being Native American with a tibal heritage, they must be examined, registered and enrolled. Registration of Native Americans by Degree of Pure Blood, commonly called enrollment, is the certification of human flesh in a racial based system of ethnic segregation. It is described as pedigreed blood quantum, percentages of "pure Indian blood". The same system is used by breeders to certify dogs, horses, show and feedlot animals.

It is a law of genocide because it is a law which makes a culture of people into a breed of animals so it can guarantee their extinction.

some more stuff:

Under Lemkin's definition, genocide was the coordinated and planned annihilation of a national, religious, or racial group by a variety of actions aimed at undermining the foundations essential to the survival of the group as a group. Lemkin conceived of genocide as 'a composite of different acts of persecution or destruction.' His definition included attack on political and social institutions, culture, language, national feelings, religion, and the economic existence of the group. Even nonlethal acts that undermined the liberty, dignity, and personal security of members of a group constituted genocide if they contributed to weakening the vitality of the group. Under Lemkin's definition, acts of ethnocide- a term coined by the French after the war to cover the destruction of a culture without the killing of its bearers-also qualified as genocide.

Lemkin stated that "Genocide has two phases: one, destruction of the national pattern of the oppressed group: the other, the imposition of the national pattern of the oppressor." This has most certainly been the case as regards the First Nations.

[Butterbeer]

More ...

The Genocide Still Goes On

Ultimately, the conflict and displacement by the settlers reduced the population and power of the tribes. Genocide is a term coined to describe the crime of destroying or conspiring to destroy a group of people by direct murder and indirect means because of their ethnic, national, racial, or religious identity.

The annihilation of the indigenous Red Indians population covers all types of genocide. The perpetrators believe that they do not have to account for or protect the victims, who are seen as inferiors or sub humans. The Europeans driven by the superior race theory, instituted policies that led to mass deaths directly or indirectly as part of a plan to achieve a country based on a certain racial or ethnic group.

Retributive genocide is undertaken to eliminate a real or potential threat. This occurred when the Europeans dominated Native Americans and feared their rebellion. The attempted extermination of Native Americans was also undertaken for economic gain.


even more stuff!!
Genocide or the deliberate extermination of one ethnic group by another is not new, for example in 1637 the Pequot Indians were exterminated by the Colonists when they burned their villages in Mystic, Connecticut, and then shot all the other people -- including women and children -- who tried to escape. The United States Government has refused to ratify the U.N. convention on genocide. There are many facets of genocide which have been implemented upon indigenous peoples of North America. The list of American genocidal policies includes: Mass-execution, Biological warfare, Forced Removal from homelands, Incarceration, Indoctrination of non-indigenous values, forced surgical sterilization of native women, Prevention of religious practices, just to name a few.

Not exactly columbo:

By mass-execution prior to the arrival of Columbus the land defined as the 48 contiguous states of America numbered in excess of 12 million. Four centuries later, it had been reduced by 95% (237 thousand). How? When Columbus returned in 1493 he brought a force of 17 ships. He began to implement slavery and mass-extermination of the Taino population of the Caribbean. Within three years five million were dead. Fifty years later the Spanish census recorded only 200 living! Las Casas, the primary historian of the Columbian era, writes of numerous accounts of the horrendous acts that the Spanish colonists inflicted upon the indigenous people, which included hanging them en masse, roasting them on spits, hacking their children into pieces to be used as dog food, and the list continues.


This did not end with Columbus' departure, the European colonies and the newly declared United States continued similar conquests. Massacres occurred across the land such as the Wounded Knee Massacre. Not only was the method of massacre used, other methods for "Indian Removal" and "clearing" included military slaughter of tribal villages, bounties on native scalps, and biological warfare. Agents intentionally gave Tribes blankets that were intentionally contaminated with smallpox. Over 100 thousand died among the Mingo, Delaware, Shawnee and other Ohio River nations. The U.S. army followed suit and used the same method on the Plains tribal populations with similar success.