Slippery slope

[wushi]

The idea of the slippery slope argument is a very common form of argumentation as to why a particular practice should be avoided. When considering such an argument, the potential gains for the practice, must be weighed against the potential destruction to be wrecked by the implied threat of a slippery slope. Also, one should note any ways of

Comments

[cu_roi]

For instance, in Man on Fire (screenplay by Brian Helgeland, directed by Tony Scott, based on a novel by A.J.Quinnel), I think that the character played by Denzel Washington was justified in torturing those charcacters that stood between him and Pita Amos. If someone is withholding information that could save someone I love, and they have no moral justification in doing so, then if I have the guts, I'm gonna do whatever it takes to hear what I wanna hear.

[wushi]

"Moral Justification" here is a matter entirely of perspective. Perhaps they have kidnapped your loved ones and are going to use them as an object lesson to teach others that about the evils of western culture, or whatever. What you mean to say, I suspect, is an action immoral by an ethical or moral system largely compatible with your own. Which is a decidedly narrower statement

[wushi]

Sorry for the slow response, holiday season...you know.

[cu_roi]

As I said in my original response, I do agree with criticism of the "utilitiarian" argument. I'm not saying that torture could be put to moral use as a fully-sanctioned method of military reconnaissance.
What I'm saying is that in the purely hypothetical circumstances that you knew for sure that person "X" was conciously withholding information which could save the life of "Y" loved one, and doing so out of malicious and selfish intent, then, in those perfect and highly unlikely case, torture would be justified. When I read your original posting it just seemed to me -and correct me if I'm wrong- that you didn't want to admit even the possibility of moral torture, and that you were seeking to escape a decision of either "yes" or "no," by calling to attention the utter implausibility that such a situation as I outlined above would ever occur. Sorry about the wording. The question is: Can you concieve of "right" torture.

[wushi]

In a word, no.

I cannot conceive of morally justifiable torture. I can understand torturing someone because of a purely hypothetical situation as you have laid it out (though I do not believe that such a situation could ever come to pass except in the movies), but while I understand the actions taken, I do not ascribe to the idea that the action is moral or even necessarily justified.

I will note that you seem to have dropped the idea of morality when talking about these actions, and are relying on the weaker argument of justification. But, justification, in and of itself, is not a strong argument. Justification is contextual, and thus can be manipulated. As an example, in a time of war to confine immigrants from the country you are at war with because you believe (on good intelligence) that there are spies and sabateours among them), is a justifiable action, indeed the "good intelligence" is the justification. This does not prevent it from being an abuse of human rights.

[cu_roi]

Yes, justification is contexual, and in the context that I used the word, it was interchangable with the word "moral."

[wushi]

First, justification and morality are decidedly different concepts. A thing may be justified and yet still be immoral