This One's For You, Jack
More tortured reasoning from the regressive right
This article addresses Jack Mercer's hypothetical "Would you..?" scenario.
This article addresses Jack Mercer's hypothetical "Would you..?" scenario.
posted by SheaNC at 1:23 AM
4 Comments:
Shea,
I'll read it and get back to you. Although I started it the language is a little "trippy" for me. It may take an old guy like me time to decipher what he is saying :)
-Jack
Shea,
Just a quick impression. Liberals have used the exception to make rules also. Especially in the conditional abortion debate.
Will be back
-Jack
The article presents nothing new. A few observations:
1) The argument (for the ticking time bomb scenario) understands that torture victims do not always tell the truth. However, people like the one who wrote this article would also consider the applications of chemicals like sodium pentathol, or sensory deprivation techniques, to be torture. Hell, even aggressive questioning could be considered torture. So while a person may lie and tell you anything you want to hear to stop the pain, not all "torture" involves that kind of physical pain. And of course the rule is that most, not all, torture victims lie.
2) We've given plenty of plausible scenarios wherein there is a short time to stop a catastrophe. Here's another. We intercept a communication that clearly states a device (bomb, biological, chemical, you pick) has been placed or is en route. We track down one end of that transmission and pick him up. Unfortunately, its the wrong end and the device is either nowhere near the prisoner's pick-up location or is still en route. Clock's ticking ... what do you do? (It is really disconcerting that somebody as supposedly intellectual as this article's author cannot fathom any such situation, as admittedly rare as it might be.)
3) All resources would be out searching for the device anyway. If the prisoner gives a location that was searched already, he's lying and the interrogation methods increase, if the area has not been searched it would not divert all the searchers to check it out. And given that the information would be specific it would not take long to verify. Any lie would quickly be discovered.
Cripes. Disagree with the morality of the situation all you want, but to link to this type of pseudo-intellectual crap and claim it refutes and makes moot the scenario is just dumb.
The bottom line is that the ticking bomb argument is only used to demonstrate a scenario wherein authorities know something is about to happen but do not have enough, or any, information to stop it. You and this author would advocate pretty much bending over and kissing our ass's goodbye. Sorry, call me a moral relativist (I label myself a realist) all you want, but I'd rather our government try everything within its power to stop the incident from occurring.
Of course, this type of scenario becomes less likely with the proper tools in place, like the Patriot Act, and the President's Constitutional authority to permit wiretaps of certain communications. Are you going to support those measures, or tie our government's hands then complain they didn't do enough to stop the next terrorist attack?
Ok, Shea, I am finally getting back to you on the Smirking Chimp article. Sorry it took so long. First, in regards to the article itself, I think that when anyone adopts the tone and methodology that Mr. Snyder uses they demonstrate the weakness of their argument. Such verbiage and emotion usually indicate a lack of substance. Heaping derision on others while pretending to be either morally or intellectually superior is a position of weakness, not strength. Insulting others does not elevate oneself. It may be the case with Mr. Snyder's article.
Most importantly, when writing such an article Mr. Snyder left off something of paramount importance. That is, what he would suggest doing in the circumstances. It is easy to dismiss what others do as wrong, but a little more difficult to suggest alternatives. Mr. Snyder does not offer solutions only criticism.
Ok, lets review his assertions:
His first bulletted point says that the assumption was flawed that torture would reveal truth. John McCain, who was tortured, said that he eventually revealed everything. CIA agents are taught to delay telling the truth with the full understanding that they eventually will under the proper torture techniques. Mr. Snyder makes an assumption that he may know nothing about. Also, as an alternative to torture (doing something) is he suggesting that one get down on hands and knees and plead with the terrorist for the information? Pretzels and beer, Mohammed? Pretty please tell me?
His second point is not a part of the hypothetical scenario, so...he creates another hypothetical to cover or negate it.
His third point is a dodge also. He dismisses the reality of the possibility just as quickly as the "paranoid regressive mind" embraces it. His challenge has already been made, it is a reality (9/11, and 100's of situations that have happened and ARE happening world-wide!). Is Mr. Snyder suggesting that since the scenarios have never happened to him they don't exist?
Forth point is not just utilitarianism, it is a foundation of many philosophies and religions. As a matter of fact, collectivism is a cornerstone of socialism and secular humanism. Now that he kindly points it out, four points into his argument and he has still not suggested what should be done.
Fifth point--I hate to adopt his tone, but his argument kind of loses all of its coherence at this point.
Mr. Snyder fails to point out that this and many scenarios like it happen every day in this world. There are institutions of learning set up to examine such scenarios that are both factual and hypothetical. A basic philosophy class would be more helpful for him in his struggle to understand the complexities of life than an ethics class. The "real world" as he puts it, is much darker, much more complicated, much more dangerous than his dismissive tone communicates. Is this a cover for naivete? I certainly hope Mr. Snyder is wiser than this...
Shea, just a quick note. I have found that the life of ease that the majority of Americans live give them concrete mindsets. The result is that Americans adopt absolutes that help them avoid real questions. It is easier to say "that is absolutely wrong" and "that is absolutely right" or "that should NEVER happen" etc. Many on the left are quick to judge "fundies" who think in such concrete terms, but fail to see it when the do the same thing. Mr. Snyder has done nothing in his article than try to bully others by use of words to adopt a position that he does little to support. Its not that I am not open to good solid debate and a good logical argument, its just that Mr. Snyder's does not qualify. Please don't think that I am speaking in criticism of your perspective. I am always open to a good solid and well founded debate!
Regards,
-Jack
Post a Comment
<< Home