Torture as punishment

[Dante]

"Because it's cheaper" doesn't seem like a good reason to put aside morals, no? And while everyone's is different, the state's should do its best to be "right." If, that is, it actually claims to be moral. A state that didn't claim that would be able to do what it liked.

The state can be guilty of murder. All it needs to do is kill someone. QED.

[Dunenewt]

People personifying the state is what causes bureaucracy to grow.  Okay, I'll put it another way; what is more moral, spending X amount of money on keeping a prisoner locked up for the rest of their life, or spending that same money rehabilitating a criminal who was convicted of burglary, and trying to mend their ways, or spending that same money on cancer detecting equipment for a hospital.

[Dragoon Knight]

Morals can be put aside or made subjective, based on certain circumstances, I agree.  But those circumstances would have to be dire, leaving no room for normal morality to apply.

- Kill or be killed.

- Sacrifice one to save a million.

- Personal gain / society's gain.

Those sorts of situation can give rise to moral dilemmas, and you'd be right to question your beliefs when encountering them.  However, civilised society does not have the luxury of setting aside morals.  Do you think that the UK government could get away with saying that they will begin the process of executing terrorists?  That's murder, and that's the state doing it, but you can be damned sure they would be held accountable.

Forced labour would be a part of any "Serious Crimes" facility, in my view - giving something back to the society you sacrificed your membership to.

And the unemployed may be unemployed by choice, too.  Should we stop paying for them as well?

...what is more moral, spending X amount of money on keeping a prisoner locked up for the rest of their life, or spending that same money rehabilitating a criminal who was convicted of burglary, and trying to mend their ways, or spending that same money on cancer detecting equipment for a hospital.

That's not a question of morality, that's a question of finances.  The moral thing to do would be all three of them, equally.

[Dunenewt]

However, civilised society does not have the luxury of setting aside morals.  Do you think that the UK government could get away with saying that they will begin the process of executing terrorists?  That's murder, and that's the state doing it, but you can be damned sure they would be held accountable.

And the unemployed may be unemployed by choice, too.  Should we stop paying for them as well?

That's not a question of morality, that's a question of finances.  The moral thing to do would be all three of them, equally.

Who is to say what the morals are though?  If the majority of the people in this country believe it to be moral for murderers to be killed, then does that make it moral?  I do believe the Gov't could get away with executing terrorists, and in fact I believe it would have popular support.

I do believe we shouldn't pay those who chose to be unemployed, but that is another matter.

Perhaps the moral thing to do would be to do them all equally, but then why should taxpayers have to pay more to cover all of it, as such an increase in taxes could force people into poverty, or force people into a life of crime, etc.

[Savageman]

well honestly the world is over populated as is...

it needs cleansed....

how that happens is up to us as people...

now the real question is how can we do that and enjoy it at the same time?

[Dunenewt]

Your vision sounds to me like if Hitler grew up playing Unreal Tournament.

[Dante]

Fire. Lots of fire. >:D

Who is to say what the morals are though?  If the majority of the people in this country believe it to be moral for murderers to be killed, then does that make it moral?  I do believe the Gov't could get away with executing terrorists, and in fact I believe it would have popular support.

Just because lots of idiots believe something does not make it right. *Glares at Evangelical America*

[Dunenewt]

But if the vast majority of people vote for it, does that not mean it should become law?

[Dante]

Haven't we already covered the point about law vs morals?

Law is even more subjective than morality or justice. Would anyone here care to live under the laws of Iran? Or China?

[Dunenewt]

Citizens have to abide by the laws of a state, no?

[Dante]

The laws have to be moral, no?

[Dragoon Knight]

Who is to say what the morals are though?  If the majority of the people in this country believe it to be moral for murderers to be killed, then does that make it moral?

The morals I'm speaking of aren't just specific to this country, but to the entity known as "civilised society".  While it's true that even these morals are subject to change, it usually occurs over periods of hundreds of years.  Right now, it is classed as immoral to murder someone, and the recent abolotion of death sentences in most of the civilised world means that we're finally twigging that this means all murder.  The morals of society are a result of the collective wills of the majority of the population of said society.  Until these morals change, then inhumane acts like torture and murder can never be condoned.

I do believe we shouldn't pay those who chose to be unemployed, but that is another matter.

But but but I need money to live. :(

Perhaps the moral thing to do would be to do them all equally, but then why should taxpayers have to pay more to cover all of it, as such an increase in taxes could force people into poverty, or force people into a life of crime, etc.

Morality is about doing the "right thing", as dictated by the ethical beliefs of society.  Doing the right thing is often a lot more troublesome, expensive and time-consuming than taking a shortcut.  Just because it seems easier to me to rob someone of their cash, rather than getting a job and working all the time, doesn't mean I'm about to up and ignore the laws and morals instilled by society.  You have to realise that taxes are not something that should decide whether we act morally or not. :P

[Dunenewt]

What's moral?  I can see this argument going round in circles, mainly because I'm too tired to think up any more arguments, because you've stumped me for the moment. 

[Andrew]

The laws have to be moral, no?

Who determines morality?

;)

[Dragoon Knight]

The majority of a society determines what is moral.  It's less of a conscious choice, and more of a general feeling towards a specific act.

In this case, civilised society decrees that inhumane acts are wrong.

[Dante]

I don't actually believe that morals exist, and am assuming for the purposes of argument that they just do, independent of society or indeed people at all.

[Savageman]

yeah... well i'm thinkin america would be more likely to support torture...

not bc we are mean...

i just think we are more open to the fact that times are changing...

i vote pro torture...

[Dante]

Changing? Torture chambers are a thing of the past, my friend. America would support (and indeed if the rumours are to be believed, already does support) torture simply because it's big and can afford to break a few eggs to make an omlette.

[Dragoon Knight]

I don't actually believe that morals exist, and am assuming for the purposes of argument that they just do, independent of society or indeed people at all.

But people are the source of morals.  Individual morality is something completely different to the morals of society as a whole.  Individual morality is entirely subjective, but adhering to the rules of society requires acceptance of an altogether more objective outlook on ethics.

[Dante]

Not the time or the place, boyo.  :P 

[Dragoon Knight]

Agreed.  For the purposes of this discussion, it is better to accept that morals exist on all scales.

[Savageman]

but does that mean in a group of 5 people... 3 support torture on a moral level... that they could gang up on the other 2 ?

i mean you said society was the majority... represented by the evil 3 right?

[Dragoon Knight]

Like Dante said, this isn't the place for discussing the existence of morality.  That's a separate debate, and one that's occurred many times.  For the purposes of this discussion, it is best to assume the existence of morality on a societal level at the very least.

Since societies tend to consist of hundreds of thousands of people at a bare miniumum (in this case, civilised society is several hundred million people), then it's not really relevant to question whether Tom, Dick and Harry could gang up on Bill and Ben. :)

[Khan]

But surely you're argument relies on an impossible assumption? If you think Dunenewt is wrong because torture is immoral surely you need to know what society as a whole thinks. This discussion have surely proven that there is a clear division in the (albeit small) society of FED2K, and that must inevitably translate on to 'civilized' society (that's another debate ;)). If society can't decide what is and isn't morally right the idea of a common social morality entirely collapses.

[Savageman]

well shit... take the numers and multiply them by a billion and you'd have a more realistic question

but still

is the majority right?

or is it your own personal opinion ?