| WIKI | FAQ | Tech FAQ | |
 http://csua.com/feed/ | |
| ||||||
| 11/23 |
| 2004/5/11 [Politics/Domestic/RepublicanMedia, Health/Eyes] UID:30147 Activity:insanely high 50%like:12375 |
5/10 Work safe. Humiliation cartoon.
http://www.lucianne.com/routine/images/05-11-04.jpg
\_ While not denying your cartoon has a point, I'm shocked by the
apologists coming out of the woodwork talking about a double
standard, that "the terrorists" can use torture but we can't,
boo hoo hoo. Of course there's a double standard! We're Americans;
we know better than that, we are better than that. We're the most
powerful nation on earth, we're singlehandedly defining right and
wrong militarily, and the Limbaughs and O'Reillys of the world
are saying that our troops were just having a good time, that it was
ok to beat and humiliate helpless prisoners. THAT's disgusting.
\_ Some useful questions to think about:
(a) Is torture ever justified (another phrasing: are you a
utilitarian)?
\- you are clouding the issue by introducing utilitarianism.
\_ Like the mighty squid. A true utilitarian should have
the balls to look at torture and shrug. -- ilyas
\_ A true utilitarian would want to see the cost-
benefit analysis before signing off on torture.
\-utils dont ness distinguish between the source
or distribution of the benefits. like "i enjoy
torture" vs "to save the children" --psb
Past experience (South and Central America)
suggests that torture has a very limited benefit
and serious longterm fallout. Don't confuse
utilitarianism with sociopathy.
\_ It depends on who you torture, why, how, and who
would care and how much if it got out.
\-yes but a ultilitarian would not necessarily
require it be for some important national purpose.
interesting litmus test for would be utilitarians
say sufficiently high TV ratings would do it in
some conceptions of utilitarianism. --psb
\_ holy shit! that is brilliant! thank you! you
have given me the next great reality tv idea. i
can't thank you enough! this is why you have a
motd fan base.
\- "Torture TV" is a standard hypothetical that
comes up in critiques of util. In fact one of
the other "standard hypos" involves torture
of a spy in wartime. Also relevant to this
is the notion of norm setting [see rule util,
and the questions, should you chop up a sick
person in a hospital to save 5 people with
transplanted parts]. But even defenders of
util in the war torture example would ack
you have to be sure you have the right guy
and that he has somethinof a spy in wartime. Als
o relevant to this
is the notion of norm setting [see rule util,
and the questions, should you chop up a sick
person in a hospital to save 5 people with
transplanted parts]. But even defenders of
util in the war torture example would ack
you have to be sure you have the right guy
and that he has something to say. You may
wish to read B. Williams [ucb, dead], or
Taking Rights Seriously. --psb
\_ Ok, so I haven't read anything on util.
philosophy. It's still great and needs to
be done! The People Demand Entertainment!
I think it'll be something like you get more
money the more torture you choose to suffer
but if you break you lose all the money you
earned to that point. That's good for about
3 seasons before it gets a little stale and
needs to get spiced up a bit.
\_ I find the 'conventional' conception of
utilitarianism hard to stomach as is. I am just
pointing out the current situation as an
interesting litmus test for would-be utilitarians
here on the motd. What if there were no
pictures, and the mental torture was done
professionally? Would it be ok then? I have
some difficulty saying 'yes.' -- ilyas
\- issue now clouded.
\_ I'm not a utility, but torture is justified if
a guy clearly knows some stuff on which lives
depend and doesn't talk. That leaves a lot of
you something important.
room for abuse though since they don't really
know who might know anything. So I'm not happy
with a generic "torture everybody just in case"
setup. I don't imagine that would be be of
much utility anyway.
\_ Nonononono, you don't torture them "just in
case. You torture them primarily _because_
it is fun and also because they might tell
in other news, i heard J. BENTHAM's head fell off. --psb
\- Auto-Correction: Head was procured in a scrum.--psb
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeremy_Bentham
\_ is it strictly a utilitarianism question? is
withholding medication a prisoner needs torture?
is withholding drugs? is withholding illegal drugs
ok if you're a doctor and you're trying to wean someone
off drugs? is withholding also ok if you're a drug
lord teaching someone a lesson? how about if you're
trying to convert the prisoner from some other cause?
would it matter if the "other cause" is islam or
some cult with a messiah figure, 7 wifes, and 20
children living in a shack in texas?
(b) Is physical torture 'worse' than psychological torture?
\_ Some is, some isn't. There's a whole lot of ways to
permanently fuck up someone's head while barely touching
them.
\_ There are four lights!
(c) Is the defining moral characteristic of an act the _effect_
or the _attitude_? -- ilyas
\_ Hi, thanks for coming forward. We knew you enjoyed it.
\_ I have no unsigned posts on the motd at the moment.
I don't even remember the last time I started a non-CS
thread. Thanks for playing. -- ilyas
\_ Whoever is trying to argue with Ilya, don't bother.
Its like arguing with concrete, and about as
enlightening.
\_ actually, I like to see ilyas post. he's almost
elevated himself to Fan #1 status.
\_ Well, you either take my word for it, or think I am
a liar. I don't mind either outcome, really.
-- ilyas
\_ it looks like you missed a joke of some sort there
\_ Has O'Reilly actually condoned or excused the bahavior? Or is
this just another dig at conservatives in general? (I *have*
seen Rush's comments BTW, but no reference to O'Reilly). -emarkp
\_ I haven't seen/heard O'Reilly say anything like calling it
fraternity hazing but it is convenient for some people to just
lump all the opposition together and pin all of them with what
one of them said.
\_ If you've never seen an Imperialist cartoon, this is one! |
| 11/23 |
|
| en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeremy_Bentham Server will be down for maintenance on 2004-05-12 from about 02:00 to 03:00 UTC. Table of contents 22 1 The life of Jeremy Bentham 23 2 Utilitarianism 24 3 Quotes 25 4 External links The life of Jeremy Bentham Born in Spitalfields, London into a wealthy Tory family, Bentham was recognised as a child prodigy when discovered as a toddler sitting at his father's desk reading a multi-volume history of England. He went to 26 Westminster School, and in 27 1760 his father sent him to 28 Queen's College, Oxford, where he took his Bachelor's degree in 29 1763 and his Master's degree in 30 1776. Bentham trained as a lawyer and was called to the bar in 31 1769. A prosperous attorney, his father had decided that Bentham would follow him into the law, and felt quite sure that his brilliant son would one day be Lord Chancellor of England. Soon, however, Bentham became disillusioned with the law, especially after hearing the lectures of the leading authority of the day, Sir 32 William Blackstone. Deeply frustrated with the complexity of the English legal code, which he termed the "Demon of Chicane", he decided, instead of practising the law, to write about it, and he spent his life criticising the existing law and suggesting ways for its improvement. His father's death in 33 1792 left him financially independent, allowing him to set himself up as a writer in Westminster. For nearly forty years he lived there quietly, producing between ten and twenty sheets of manuscript a day, even when he was in his eighties. Among his many proposals for legal and social reform was a design for a prison building he called the 34 Panopticon. Although it was never built, the idea had an important influence in later generations of thinkers. Bentham was eighty years old when the University opened in 38 1828, and had no part in its establishment. However, Bentham strongly believed that education should be more widely available, particularly to those who were not wealthy or who did not belong to the established church, both of which were required by the traditional universities at 39 Oxford and 40 Cambridge. As University College London was the first English university to admit all, regardless of race, creed or political belief, it was largely consistent with Bentham's vision, and he oversaw the appointment of one of his pupils, 41 John Austin, as the first Professor of 42 Jurisprudence in 43 1829. After death, Bentham's body was preserved and stored in a wooden cabinet, termed his "Auto-Icon", at 44 University College London. The body would often be brought out of storage at official functions so that the eccentric presence of Bentham would live on. As a jape, some drunken college 45 rugby players broke into the institute quite recently and stole Bentham's head. As the original head was lost, the body now has an artificial substitute head. Utilitarianism Bentham not only proposed many legal and social reforms, but also devised moral principles on which they should be based. This philosophy, 46 utilitarianism, argued that the right act or policy was that which would cause the greatest happiness for the greatest number --though he later dropped the second qualification and embraced what he called "the greatest happiness principle". Bentham also suggested a procedure to mechanically estimate the moral status of any action, which he called the 47 felicific calculus. Utilitarianism was revised and expanded by Bentham's more famous disciple, 48 John Stuart Mill. In Mill's hands, "Benthamism" became a major element in the liberal conception of state policy objectives. It is often said that Bentham's theory, unlike Mill's, faces the problem of lacking a principle of fairness embodied in a conception of justice. Kelly forcibly argued in his book Utilitarianism and Distributive Justice: Jeremy Bentham and the Civil Law 49 ISBN 0-19-825418-0 , Bentham had a theory of justice that prevented such undesirable consequences. As the felicific calculus shows " 50 expectation utilities" to be much higher than "natural" ones, it follows that Bentham does not favour the sacrifice of a few to the benefit of the many. All text is available under the terms of the 68 GNU Free Documentation License (see 69 Copyrights for details). Wikipedia is powered by 71 MediaWiki, an open source 72 wiki engine. |