[LINK] RFI: Scroogle

[Darryl (Dassa) Lynch]

link-bounces at anumail0.anu.edu.au wrote:

<SNIP> 
>> For example, he is not pro universal torture - he argues
>> that torture is justified where it will (?may) save one or
>> more innocent lives that are immediately threatened. It is
>> only by posing such really difficult questions that we can
>> establish exactly what we should hold to be moral/ethical.
>> His article on torture has made me stop and think - I don't
>> like the idea that even limited/* */torture can be justified
>> but I have yet to come up with a cogent reason against it
>> other than the ones he dismisses in his article. I am still
>> working on it though because any torture generates complete
>> repugnance in me (and it may be that those dismissed
>> arguments are enough to outlaw any sort of torture).

The starting point is to actually define what is seen as torture.  I'm
tortured by the taxes I have to pay and some of the restrictions society
puts on me.  This is totally different to physical torture although that is
also accepted in limited forms by our society.  Being forced into crowded
public transport at times is physical torture, especially if there are no
facilities to relieve oneself for long periods of time.

When you say you are against torture and it is repugnant to you, you are
thinking of specific forms of torture.  Yet you and society do accept other
forms, be they intentional or not.

We need to clearly define the limits of what is acceptable perhaps.

Darryl (Dassa) Lynch