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

[zhenzhi]

wishing you the very best of everything, with love xoxo :-)

[wushi]

Happy Holidays to you and yours :-)

[cu_roi]

I agree; it is highly improbable that, on the one hand, you would know that particualr person has the location of nuclear device, set to explode in a major mertopolitan area, while on the other hand you, you have failed to discover the whereabouts of the bomb...but supposeing that you do know, without question, that a particular person has the location of a nuclear device, set to explode in a major metropolitan area, and supposeing that you have him/her in your custody, I think that torture would be the moral action. Granted, the possibility of such a situation cannot be used as a justification for a blanket legaliztion of torture; the victims of unjustified tortue would far outweigh the lives saved. Nonetheless, I can concieve of circumstances in which the use of pain as motivation, would be scurpulous.

[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.

[cu_roi]

that last period is supposed to be question mark