>>These things can always be reduced to a personal emotional level (imagine it was you, or imagine it was your...), but it's worth asking if a supposedly civilised society should be operated on the basis of every individual's personal emotions? It would be chaos. At some point a society must decide collectively on what it considers to be a civilised culture, and then it must live by that decision, or collectively change it. The decision about torture not belonging in a civilised society was made long ago in western society, and the general consensus has not changed as far as I can tell.
>>
>>Now, as to the point of threatening torture, well, I have no qualms at all about lying to a suspect to get information.
>
>In order for a threat to have any value it has to have credibility. By explicitly stating up front what you will never do and where the boundries are you give a tremendous advantage to the other side. this is true in military confrontation, business, pretty much anything.
>
>the whole point of not explicitly banning anything is to make those threats credible.
>
>As to 'society deciding collectively' ... I think it is more important that an individual decide personally what is important and what isn't. I am not convinced consensus is, per-se, wisdom.
It may not be. But isn't the notion of everyone deciding individually what justice is a step in the direction of anarchy? Collective laws came about because individual ones weren't working.
Previous
Next
Reply
View the map of this thread
View the map of this thread starting from this message only
View all messages of this thread
View all messages of this thread starting from this message only