![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 8 to 32 of 95. Go back in thread:
Posted by Declan on March 18, 2006, at 23:20:21
In reply to am i allowed to say..., posted by agent858 on March 18, 2006, at 20:37:11
Well it has been said here that torture is not a black and white case, so it isn't immediately clear to me why torturing children would be different. The smoking gun argument applies to them, and the torture may very well be milder in nature than it would have to be with an adult.
I apologise in advance for that. Look, I didn't realise that this board was for support. I assumed, because I only read the posts, that it was for discussing politics. Anyway can you answer my question above about the arguments in Pinter's Nobel acceptance speech. How can we discuss them here? I think the answer is that we can't and that we shouldn't try. Do you agree?
Declan
Posted by Jakeman on March 18, 2006, at 23:55:21
In reply to Re: am i allowed to say... » agent858, posted by Declan on March 18, 2006, at 23:20:21
I got a "please be sensitive" for posting a link to the main page of The Progessive Magazine. I wonder if the NY Times would pass muster. So I'm not clear at all about what we're allowed to say.
Warm regards, Jake
Posted by special_k on March 19, 2006, at 0:19:40
In reply to Re: am i allowed to say... » agent858, posted by Declan on March 18, 2006, at 23:20:21
> Well it has been said here that torture is not a black and white case...
right. it is the 'for fun' clause that is supposed to turn it into a black and white issue. i mean... if you had to choose between torturing one child and torturing 20 children then it is probably acceptable to torture one child. but in that case it isn't (or isn't solely) for fun - it is to prevent the torturing of an additional 19 children.
re: torture... depends on the cost / benefit analysis (perhaps - unless one is Kantian in which case re the children... you are screwed either way).
> Look, I didn't realise that this board was for support.
Ya. Silly me thought it might be for education / discussion...
> Anyway can you answer my question above about the arguments in Pinter's Nobel acceptance speech.
Not really because I don't know what you are talking about...
Sorry.
PS happy canberra day for tomorrow :-)
Posted by special_k on March 19, 2006, at 0:20:34
In reply to Re: am i allowed to say..., posted by Jakeman on March 18, 2006, at 23:55:21
ya. most politicians are uncivil (gee i hope i'm not being uncivil in saying so)
but then...
so are the majority of clinicians.
sigh.
Posted by special_k on March 19, 2006, at 0:21:34
In reply to Re: am i allowed to say..., posted by special_k on March 19, 2006, at 0:20:34
and thus an interesting thought is how civil it is to post a link to an article (for informational purposes) that judges / accuses / puts down people with a certain dx like clinician's tend to do in their academic papers...
Posted by Sobriquet Style on March 19, 2006, at 6:47:44
In reply to Re: am i allowed to say..., posted by special_k on March 19, 2006, at 0:21:34
Dr Bob read this post and redirected it to Politics - its sitting in the archives only from a couple of months ago - and was deemed civil...
> The biggest reason pot won't be prescribed any time soon -- besides the idiot in office here in the states -- is that it's smoked...
>Sorry to interrupt, but I'd like to redirect follow-ups regarding pot being prescribed to Psycho-Babble Politics. Here's a link:
>http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/poli/20051121/msgs/594060.html
>Thanks,
>Bob
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/20051231/msgs/594063.html
>besides the idiot in office here in the states
Besides the word idiot, what other words can we use?
Racer, hope you don't mind me quoting your post, but it was already there in the archives anyway :-)
~
Posted by Dinah on March 19, 2006, at 11:34:09
In reply to am i allowed to say..., posted by agent858 on March 18, 2006, at 20:37:11
I think you're perfectly ok saying that you endorse laws prohibiting the torture of small children. Or that you do not endorse torturing small children. Or that it makes you very angry when small children are tortured. Or that you are sure that most people would not endorse torturing small children.
You're also allowed to present facts and allow others to draw conclusions (or to counter with facts they consider to have been missing from your post).
I can't find your post now, but didn't you say somewhere that if people looked at things without emotion, a consensus would be reached? Doesn't that imply a shared ranking of values? And a shared belief system about unprovables?
I can't share your opinion about consensus being inevitable, because while I think the majority of people value the same things, I think they may rank their values differently. And I also think different people have different world views, beliefs about human nature, etc.
I've often thought the major difference between conservatives and liberals isn't a difference in what they want. It's more a difference in belief systems about the strengths and weaknesses of man. I used to say that conservatives take a more pessimistic view of human nature, while liberals are optimists. But I think I was incorrect. I think they are optimistic and pessimistic about different aspects of human nature.
Now that would be an interesting experiment. Take people who are either self defined, or defined by external factors, as either conservative or liberal. And give them questionnaires that are neutral and not leading, but designed to assess their views on various human traits, strengths, and weaknesses, as they believe the human race as a whole exhibits.
Of course, I also believe that most productive dialog begins with an acknowledgement of shared values and goals.
For example, a discussion on the criminal justice system that begins "I know that we all want policies that enable us to live in harmony with a maximum of respect for the rights of others, and a minimum of violence in our society. And I know that we have differences in how we believe that ideal is best achieved. Now, my belief is that those goals are best met by..... And I'm very interested in how you think the goals are best met, so I'll let you describe those yourself. We can study the evidence, and the probably contradictory studies. And perhaps we can each contribute something that the other can endorse. If we put our minds together, perhaps we can come to a better system than the one we have now." would be better designed to reach consensus than one that starts in the immortal words of Saturday Night Live "Jane, you ignorant slut ...".
Sorry if that was uncivil Dr. Bob. I left the auto asterisking on and even spaced out the ... from the word.
Posted by Racer on March 19, 2006, at 12:35:30
In reply to Re: am i allowed to say..., posted by special_k on March 18, 2006, at 22:27:00
> > or would i be better to say that when people torture small children for fun then i feel sad in response?
>
> because the trouble is... that's just not right. i mean... not only because i'm having a little trouble naming the relevant emotion here...
>
> but also because I REFUSE TO BE AN EMOTIVIST ABOUT ETHICS dammit.
>
> see... emotivists think moral talk (talk of right / wrong; good / bad; should / shouldn't etc etc) is really just a way of expressing ones feelings of approval / disapproval. well that is an interesting theory but i do not believe it is true...Here's where I fall into a well of confusion -- morality and ethics are culturally defined. So, saying that something *is* morally right or wrong runs the risk of offending someone whose cultural norms are different. And to make it so much more difficult, we're not always aware of how deeply we are acculturated to those moral structures.
I agree, saying, "Torturing small children for fun makes me sad" doesn't exactly satisfy what I would want to communicate, either. But I think there are ways to say it within the guidelines for civility on this site. I'm with Dinah, I think there's something between "that makes me sad" and "Jane you ignorant s**t" (<I put the asterisks in, since the autoasterisking didn't seem to want to...)
Politics is a hard topic to discuss. And as someone who gets rather heated about it, and does get very pigheaded about it, I have no clue how to do it well within the guidelines here. It's frustrating, because I really want to write some things that I really don't feel safe posting. (I've got a request in to Dinah that I think she's forgotten, because I don't trust myself to walk that fine line between acceptable, and getting blocked for a year.)
On the other hand, part of me really appreciates the civility guidelines, because it forces me to think about how I express my views. If those guidelines weren't in place, I would blow up on a topic, and I'd be in trouble with other people here. Either I'd have hurt someone's feelings, or lost their respect, neither of which I would want to do.
So, it's a very mixed bag. Good and bad. It's what we've got, so we better learn to live with it -- until one of us starts our own politics board -- and it does have its up side.
And Sobriquet Style? I did cringe a bit over what I wrote, I can't believe that go through. But of course it's your right to link to it, because I did write it, even if it embarrasses me know. (which is different from saying that it's not my belief, of course...)
Posted by Declan on March 19, 2006, at 14:43:59
In reply to Your allowed to say..., posted by Sobriquet Style on March 19, 2006, at 6:47:44
Tell me though, how can we convert that into an I statement?? The Administration has made me feel more stupid, or the Administration has made me feel more intelligent??
Declan
Posted by Dinah on March 19, 2006, at 14:54:29
In reply to I don't know... » special_k, posted by Racer on March 19, 2006, at 12:35:30
There was a period of time where I was actually being productive at work, and let my emails slide.
Could you ask me again?
I promise I didn't forget on purpose.
Posted by zenhussy on March 19, 2006, at 15:29:10
In reply to I don't know... » special_k, posted by Racer on March 19, 2006, at 12:35:30
>>> Politics is a hard topic to discuss. And as someone who gets rather heated about it, and does get very pigheaded about it, I have no clue how to do it well within the guidelines here. It's frustrating, because I really want to write some things that I really don't feel safe posting. (I've got a request in to Dinah that I think she's forgotten, because I don't trust myself to walk that fine line between acceptable, and getting blocked for a year.)<<<
strongly doubt your record is approaching a year in any way, shape or form....(archives show several PBCs in a three month period in 2005 followed by a one week block the next month) you'd have to work very hard to expand that week up to three, then nine then twenty seven and then your maximum of a year. just thought it prudent to counter the "year fear" block as highly likely for those not yet afoul of the civility rules.
if your record differed then perhaps a year time out would be possible..............as it stands now you'd really have to put forth much effort to rack up the PBCs and subsequent blocks.
Posted by special_k on March 19, 2006, at 17:20:48
In reply to Re: I don't know... » Racer, posted by zenhussy on March 19, 2006, at 15:29:10
> as it stands now you'd really have to put forth much effort to rack up the PBCs and subsequent blocks.
((((zen))))
it is easier than it might seem to get blocks stacking up for lengthy periods of time.
i'm sorry you have been hurt :-(
Posted by zenhussy on March 19, 2006, at 17:26:53
In reply to Re: I don't know... » zenhussy, posted by special_k on March 19, 2006, at 17:20:48
Posted by special_k on March 19, 2006, at 17:38:24
In reply to Re: am i allowed to say... » agent858, posted by Dinah on March 19, 2006, at 11:34:09
> I think you're perfectly ok saying that you endorse laws prohibiting the torture of small children.
yup. but... legality is different from morality... (it is illegal to drive on the right side of the road - but not immoral; it is immoral to lie (mostly) - but it is not illegal unless it is done in a court of law).
> Or that you do not endorse torturing small children.
but my claim was stronger than that... besides which: FOR FUN. that bit is really very important.
> Or that it makes you very angry when small children are tortured.
no... i don't think thats quite it either...
> Or that you are sure that most people would not endorse torturing small children.
tag 'for fun' on the end of that and i think you will find... that that is pan-cultural. that is as close to universal as you are going to find (closer than incest would you believe). that is not to say it is universal in the sense that EVERYBODY explicitly believes it is morally wrong... but it is to say that the majority of individuals in every known culture believe it is wrong to torture an innocent child for fun. those who disagree... tend to be the individuals who we regard to be 'lacking' a moral sensibility...
> You're also allowed to present facts and allow others to draw conclusions (or to counter with facts they consider to have been missing from your post).torturing innocent children for fun is wrong is a moral fact.
see... i believe in moral facts. i am not alone. lots of people (philosophers) believe in moral facts. discovering those moral facts... is tricky... and candidates for moral facts are fairly debatable... but i think you will find that torturing an innocent child for fun is morally wrong is not something that is seriously debated...
> I can't find your post now, but didn't you say somewhere that if people looked at things without emotion, a consensus would be reached? Doesn't that imply a shared ranking of values? And a shared belief system about unprovables?
ah... interesting :-)
a 'shared ranking of values'... well... you would need to discuss values and the thought is that in discussing ranking of values... over time... rational people should converge. how do ya mean 'shared belief system about unprovables?'
there might be convergance in the belief that: 'there is .5 probability that phi is finite and a .5 probability that phi is infinite' (not that that is necessarily unprovable... but you get what i mean)
> I can't share your opinion about consensus being inevitable, because while I think the majority of people value the same things, I think they may rank their values differently.well... don't you think the ranking of values could be something that rational people could converge on?
> And I also think different people have different world views, beliefs about human nature, etc.
right. and that is where everybody has something to offer :-) because these rational people who converge... the thought is they get there by sharing their initial knowledge and so they have the same starting base and then they reason from there...
> I've often thought the major difference between conservatives and liberals isn't a difference in what they want. It's more a difference in belief systems about the strengths and weaknesses of man. I used to say that conservatives take a more pessimistic view of human nature, while liberals are optimists. But I think I was incorrect. I think they are optimistic and pessimistic about different aspects of human nature.hmm. but should be be optimistic and pessimistic about different aspects of human nature (or even the same ones)? that would be worth discussing... i guess there may be a difference between the ideal govt given real world constraints on the people who are currently in power (so someone might say taxes should be lowered because they believe current admin doesn't spend it widely) and the ideal govt (so there is no contradiction in that same person saying they believe taxes should be raised and spent on cleaning up the environment and health and welfare etc).
> If we put our minds together, perhaps we can come to a better system than the one we have now."yes.
> would be better designed to reach consensus than one that starts in the immortal words of Saturday Night Live "Jane, you ignorant slut ...".
?
i don't do this... do i?
Posted by special_k on March 19, 2006, at 17:49:36
In reply to I don't know... » special_k, posted by Racer on March 19, 2006, at 12:35:30
> Here's where I fall into a well of confusion -- morality and ethics are culturally defined.
? how do you mean?
> So, saying that something *is* morally right or wrong runs the risk of offending someone whose cultural norms are different.
depends on how abstractly you define the moral laws... lets take one version of utilitarianism as a candidate moral law 'it is morally right to do that which promotes happiness (or greatest utility) for the greatest number of people (or minimises harm for the greatest number of people).
that allows that in different societies / cultures... different acts will hurt and different acts will harm as a function from moral law to culture to mapping a moral tick of approval or moral cross of disapproval onto any token act.
i'm just saying that you can believe in universal moral laws... you can believe in moral facts... and you can be culturally sensitive at the same time.
besides which... there is such a thing as being too culturally sensitive - isn't there?
it was morally wrong for Hitler to attempt to annihilate the Jews.
Despite what he (and the Nazi's) may have thought at the time. It is true some people don't agree... But we tend to say they are lacking moral sensibility (or have come to believe some funny things in their background knowledge)
> I'm with Dinah, I think there's something between "that makes me sad" and "Jane you ignorant s**t"
Yeah, I agree with that too. But it is finding that middle ground. I'd like to try... And... I haven't been resorting to the latter - have I?
> ... I have no clue how to do it well within the guidelines here. It's frustrating, because I really want to write some things that I really don't feel safe posting.
yeah. i think we need to work this out if this board is going to work...
> If those guidelines weren't in place, I would blow up on a topic, and I'd be in trouble with other people here. Either I'd have hurt someone's feelings, or lost their respect, neither of which I would want to do.
Yes. I don't want to hurt people either :-( But finding the middle ground is hard...
Posted by Dinah on March 19, 2006, at 19:48:23
In reply to Re: am i allowed to say... » Dinah, posted by special_k on March 19, 2006, at 17:38:24
no, no. of course i wasn't being personal.
i was just commenting generally on civility in political discourse.
Posted by special_k on March 20, 2006, at 1:32:31
In reply to Re: am i allowed to say... » special_k, posted by Dinah on March 19, 2006, at 19:48:23
do i spy convergence???
'there must be a middle way'
:-)
maybe it is just about figuring it out a little more...
:-)
Posted by Dr. Bob on March 20, 2006, at 2:21:18
In reply to Re: am i allowed to say... » Dinah, posted by special_k on March 19, 2006, at 17:38:24
> I think you're perfectly ok saying that you endorse laws prohibiting the torture of small children. Or that you do not endorse torturing small children. Or that it makes you very angry when small children are tortured. Or that you are sure that most people would not endorse torturing small children.
>
> DinahYes, or that you believe it would be immoral for you yourself to do whatever.
> see... i believe in moral facts. i am not alone. lots of people (philosophers) believe in moral facts. discovering those moral facts... is tricky... and candidates for moral facts are fairly debatable...
>
> special_kIf it's tricky, it might be best not to try it here...
Bob
Posted by special_k on March 20, 2006, at 3:33:34
In reply to Re: am i allowed to say..., posted by Dr. Bob on March 20, 2006, at 2:21:18
> ... or that you believe it would be immoral for you yourself to do whatever.
ah. like the faith board. yeah okay i think i understand that one...
though... still having trouble with genocide etc... i don't want to say that genocide is a bad thing for ME to do i want to say that it is a bad thing for ANYONE to do... but i get how people might feel offended if you proclaim acts to be 'immoral'...
but then you can go one step back to WHY you think it is immoral (and hence just leave the immoral bit out of it altogether)... i'm okay with that...
> > see... i believe in moral facts. i am not alone. lots of people (philosophers) believe in moral facts. discovering those moral facts... is tricky... and candidates for moral facts are fairly debatable...> If it's tricky, it might be best not to try it here...
:-(
it isn't so much about the discovery of moral facts (just like it isn't so much about discovering the essential nature of truth / knowledge / goodness / belief / god etc) as it is about what you learn on the journey...
you don't really find out the essential nature... but you find how how lots of candidates for the essential nature go wrong and hence come to a better understanding of what an adequate theory would look like... the kinds of problem cases it would have to handle etc...
i do believe in moral facts... mostly because if you don't believe in moral facts then you have trouble in saying what makes it true to say 'torturing an innocent child for fun is morally wrong'. assuming it is true of course. but then if you don't think that is true the general idea is that you lack a moral sense (and i don't mean that to be a criticism or put down...)
ethics is supposed to be about something along the lines of 'do unto others as you would have them do unto you' and so i suppose that i can get my head around an egocentric ethics (egocentric not in the sense of 'me first' but egocentric in the sense of this is my moral code and according to my moral code these are the moral facts)... but still the theory goes that if we were ideally rational (ideally in the sense of infinite cognitive powers / resources and perhaps (though not necessarily) had access to all the relevant facts) then there would be convergence. i guess that is a bit controversial... but convergence seems to be the accepted view
(though quine for example thinks that there could be an indefinate number of final sciences (consisting of theorietical entities) that could perfectly explain and predict all the past present and future nerve hits (observations) of mankind... and if he is right... maybe this is true of the ethical laws as well...)
but agreeing to disagree... is like giving up on discussion.
:-(
i guess it is peoples choice...
but isn't it something to aim for?
(and i don't mean that in the sense of aiming to persuade people of your view... i mean it more in the sense of articulating your view clearly and revising the probability of your beliefs downward and finding... convergence)
isn't it something to aim for?
i like to think rational people would agree (once sharing a knowledge base of relevant information).
because otherwise... what hope is there?
wah.
maybe i'm just hopelessly idealistic...
PS on a related note...
do you think there are an indefinate number of mathematical models so that rational people can disagree there? or... convergence once again... why should science / ethics / politics be any different?
Posted by special_k on March 20, 2006, at 4:18:22
In reply to Re: am i allowed to say..., posted by Dr. Bob on March 20, 2006, at 2:21:18
> > I think you're perfectly ok saying that you endorse laws prohibiting the torture of small children. Or that you do not endorse torturing small children. Or that it makes you very angry when small children are tortured. Or that you are sure that most people would not endorse torturing small children.
> Yes, or that you believe it would be immoral for you yourself to do whatever.
okay...
not 'i am opposed to torturing...'
;-)
maybe... we could compile a list of accepted phrasings... kind of like how you have eg's of civility phrasings more generally... maybe we could do something with the politics ones?
like how there is for faith.
so when people are compiling their posts... they can refer to the list for phrasings and phrasings variations that are okay?
might help things along rather...
and as for the torturing small kids for fun eg... that is a good one to use because it really is (to the best of my knowledge) the closest thing to universal you will find.
(apparantly there is a tribe where incest is permitted. the interesting thing about that is that the tribe is so small that if incest was prohibited... the whole tribe would have died out long ago.)
Posted by AuntieMel on March 20, 2006, at 10:43:44
In reply to Re: am i allowed to say..., posted by special_k on March 20, 2006, at 4:18:22
Yes, I also believe there are 'moral facts.'
But, like you said, determining them is tricky. So, in the meantime we're best to stick to "I believe xxx is a moral fact. Does anyone have an argument otherwise?"
My moral compass the only truly imoral thing is that which hurts some else.
But even there we have some grey areas. Should the word 'intentionally' be added? What about 'unless that hurt would save others from more hurt?' Does adding 'for fun' make it more wrong? Is it less wrong if you know (inside yourself) that you are hurting someone and you feel guilt, but you do it anyway?
So - even one simple statement has room for debate.
-----
"but i personally think that someone can act morally (actually act from morality rather than just acting in accordance with morality) even if they lack the requisite (on emotivist theories) emotional responses."
Agreed. Just as I believe a person doesn't have to believe in a god to act morally.
"
Posted by Racer on March 20, 2006, at 11:46:19
In reply to Re: Moral facts » special_k, posted by AuntieMel on March 20, 2006, at 10:43:44
A while back, I was on a jury, and during deliberations one of the members taught us something called a negative concensus. It was a great tool for us, during deliberations, because it kept us from wasting a lot of time on aspects of the case taht we all agreed on.
Basically, it was a case of "Does anyone here NOT agree [with/that] [x]?" Until we got to something someone didn't agree about, we could just keep going. Some was kinda obvious, but still worth asking: "Does anyone here NOT agree that a crime took place?" "Does anyone here NOT agree that the crime in question was murder?" etc. The procedure, though, worked great, overall. Kept us honest, and kept us getting along. Only when we came to a lack of concensus did we have to debate.
Maybe there's a way something like that could help us here, in communicating, without raising blood pressure or bringing down on our heads the wrath of admin? I don't know how -- I'm just the idea-bringer on this...
One thing I do want to say, though, to Special_K, is that while I see what you're saying about moral facts, I disagree with their use because I think it's too easy to slip from something which might be universal, into something which is clearly cultural. Sort of Wittgensteinian boundary issues, you know? While torturing small children for fun might seem pretty universally rejected (I am having a lot of word finding issues these days, try to bear with me), that might lead closer and closer to the edge, until you're saying something like "spanking children for any reason should be illegal." I know -- *you* personally might be able to avoid that classic blunder, but there are other people in the world who might say, "Well, since it's always wrong to torture small children for fun, then it's clearly wrong to give them shots, because they experience that as torture." Yes, that's extreme. But it fits in trying to make my point. Does that make any sense to you?
Keep in mind, I'm one of those who says that it's wrong to judge someone else based on culturally defined measures, if that person is not part of the same culture. It happened to me as a kid, too. "That's close to child abuse, giving those children alcohol!" Uh, no, it's about a spoonful of wine in our water at dinner at family dinners. It was considered appropriate to teach us to eat like the adults we would someday become. Culturally appropriate for us, but others saw it as Morally Wrong. Make sense?
OK. I gotta go. I get to take my mother shopping today...
Posted by special_k on March 21, 2006, at 2:18:45
In reply to Re: Moral facts » special_k, posted by AuntieMel on March 20, 2006, at 10:43:44
> Yes, I also believe there are 'moral facts.'
> But, like you said, determining them is tricky. So, in the meantime we're best to stick to "I believe xxx is a moral fact. Does anyone have an argument otherwise?"Yeah. Though I guess you can just say 'I believe' and leave the 'moral fact' bit out of it. Still having a little trouble with phrasings...
> My moral compass the only truly imoral thing is that which hurts some else.Though there can be counter-examples here (perhaps). If (for example) you were forced to choose between torturing one innocent child and torturing 10 innocent children then on some accounts the morally right thing to do (given the situation is as described) is to torture the one. So here... The morally right thing to do involves hurting someone else...
> But even there we have some grey areas. Should the word 'intentionally' be added?
People aren't typically thought to be morally accountable for accidental acts (unless they failed to take appropriate caution and arguably... stupidity is no defence either)
> What about 'unless that hurt would save others from more hurt?'
yeah :-) Though Kantians would say that you would be doing the wrong thing in torturing one and doing the wrong thing in torturing the 10 so basically you are damned if you do and damned if you don't
it is precisely that kind of case (the one or ten case) that some utilitarians have been led to change their thesis from:
'one should do that which leads to the greatest happiness for the greatest number of people'
to
'one should do that which leads to the least amount of harm for the greatest number of people'.
i'm not too sure on this... but i think some conjoin both claims together...
then the problem for the utilitarian is:
- how to cash out happiness / utility (hedonistic pleasure, high vs low pleasures, preference etc)
-how to cash out 'greatest number' (does every individual count for one and do some people get two preference votes because they are really very unhappy for instance)
- how to work the stats (part of the last problem really...)then there are counter-examples to all utilitarian theories... the case of the lonesome stranger... utility is to frame the stranger so the townspeople don't riot (where many lives will be lost) yet framing an innocent stranger is clearly UNJUST (according to the Kantian) and hence utilitarian considerations aren't adequate for a comprehensive theory of morality...
> Does adding 'for fun' make it more wrong?
'more' wrong... hmm. i guess there is better of worse. better to break your promise than to torture someone for fun...
> Is it less wrong if you know (inside yourself) that you are hurting someone and you feel guilt, but you do it anyway?
yeah. i struggle with that re: whether it is better to be conscious that i believe it is wrong to eat animals yet continue or whether it would be worse to not be conscious that it is wrong (on the assumption that it is in fact) that is a hard one...
> So - even one simple statement has room for debate.plenty. one could write a thesis in fact...
Posted by special_k on March 21, 2006, at 2:30:21
In reply to Something I learned in jury duty, posted by Racer on March 20, 2006, at 11:46:19
> Basically, it was a case of "Does anyone here NOT agree [with/that] [x]?" Until we got to something someone didn't agree about, we could just keep going.
:-)
That is a really terrific idea :-)
I guess the trouble with that here is that some people might be reading along but not posting...> while I see what you're saying about moral facts, I disagree with their use because I think it's too easy to slip from something which might be universal, into something which is clearly cultural.
yeah... can be frightening where you end up at times... i take your point. of course that shouldn't happen upon ideal reflection ;-) but fact is none of us are idealised thinkers ;-)
> While torturing small children for fun might seem pretty universally rejected (I am having a lot of word finding issues these days, try to bear with me), that might lead closer and closer to the edge, until you're saying something like "spanking children for any reason should be illegal."
I would say there is an equivocation in the use of the term 'torture'. it means one thing when we agree it is universal... and then it means another when spanking children gets classified as torture (i dont like the idea of spanking children but i wouldn't try and argue that spanking children is torture...) also... i don't like the idea of spanking children for fun though i appreciate spanking children on discipline grounds is different from spanking them for fun. (and a playful wrestling smack is different from a spank>.)
but... i hear what you are saying.
your point does make sense :-)
> Keep in mind, I'm one of those who says that it's wrong to judge someone else based on culturally defined measures, if that person is not part of the same culture.though genocide? was an accepted part of nazi culture... how about (on some accounts) iran's desire to eradicate the israleis? can we not say that is wrong? i'm not iranian...
> It happened to me as a kid, too. "That's close to child abuse, giving those children alcohol!" Uh, no, it's about a spoonful of wine in our water at dinner at family dinners. It was considered appropriate to teach us to eat like the adults we would someday become. Culturally appropriate for us, but others saw it as Morally Wrong. Make sense?
yeah. makes sense. i agree that the latter eg shows insensitivity to others cultures... also... there is some evidence that teaching sensible alchohol usage (and aclimitising children to it) tends to lead to less problems with alchohol abuse etc later in life...
so... it some ways... it might even be thought to be (objectively) a better thing to be doing...
Posted by Sobriquet Style on March 21, 2006, at 7:09:02
In reply to Re: Your allowed to say... » Sobriquet Style, posted by Declan on March 19, 2006, at 14:43:59
I feel confused by the Admistration? The figures roughly that I've heard of American soldiers killed is 2 or 3,000, UK 1 thousand or so. Iraq soldiers 6 or 8,000 - i'm not too sure but its a fair bit higher than the Americans. But, Iraq civilians is over 38,000 at the last count. The results of the war 3 years on, is that now theres civil war out there.
What makes me feel rather confused though, is that Saddam was said to have tortured his people, but only last week when watching the news I saw and heard accounts of people being strung up, hands tied above their head like in a star postion, whilst American soldiers were torturing the Iraqi's with electrodes attached to their finger nails and genitals. They also had bags over their head, and were then almost passing out through extream exhaustion they would then stamp on their heads. Only to find out they were torturing innocent victims. Other torture methods have been conducted by the British, one was where about 5 soldiers were beating an Iraqi, whilst another was filming it on the video phone.
I'm rather confused, Saddam is the one trial for international crimes, killing 140 people. I'm not saying his inncicent, because I really have no idea.
The following is a description of the case taken from IST documents:
"In July 1982, a small group of villagers attacked Saddam Hussein's convoy as it travelled through the town, located about 60 kilometres north of Baghdad. As a result, several state security forces of Saddam's regime composed of units from the Iraqi Army, Iraqi Intelligence Service and the Baath Party descended upon the Dujail. In the following few days, hundreds of people were arrested, some were executed and others including women, men and children were wrongly arrested and held at Sumawa desert in Lia location for four years. In addition, the fruit groves of the families of those arrested were destroyed."
I wonder what the history books will say in 2003 - 2006....
~
Go forward in thread:
Psycho-Babble Politics | Extras | FAQ
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.org
Script revised: February 4, 2008
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/cgi-bin/pb/mget.pl
Copyright 2006-17 Robert Hsiung.
Owned and operated by Dr. Bob LLC and not the University of Chicago.