Reply to post: Re: "Doc"James Endorses torture, too!



Re: "Doc"James Endorses torture, too!

I think I might start by saying that when Matt Bryant disagrees, it's obvious you're on the right track.

But seeing as he's answered my points, it's polite to answer his: ethics is dependent on values, not science. That's why it's debatable. Broadly we share the same values (human life is good, freedom is good) but the specifics are where people differ (is euthanasia a good thing? Well, it's debatable). These values create assumptions and interpretation of facts, not the other way around. Hence, an ethical debate is a good thing as it allows people to explain their values. They are also rare as usually there is a slanging match attacking others' assumptions and interpretations. See: US primaries at present.

It doesn't work: the US senate report says so. There are plenty of other examples from history of torture being ineffective. A rant doesn't make you right. I suspect you're right that the CIA believed that it was useful; this is not the same as it being useful. You are right that I'm not a psychologist but as a doctor of medicine I (like most of my colleagues) routinely use psychology to get patients better health so it is a daily part of my working life. This may also explain my values (see above) in opposition to torture.

I describe why I consider the argument a straw man. If you are so enraged you can't follow, I'm sorry I didn't make the sentence shorter and easier for you.

POST COMMENT House rules


  • Enter your comment

  • Add an icon

Anonymous cowards cannot choose their icon

Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2019