Sam Harris Wrestling the trolls.

[JimC]

Ayaan Hirsi Ali might be off the rails in her neo-con stance, but if she is, the blame lies at the liberals' door. Before the skeptic movement: everyone had to be very very careful, walking on eggshells careful, in their criticism of Islam lest they be called a racist. There ARE racists who's primary motivation for their dislike of Islam is that they see it as a brown person's religion. There are also liberals who defend it for the same reason.

As a liberal, I find that shameful. I've seen so many women, many who identify as feminists, who said "I wouldn't want to live like that but if I was raised in that culture..." So they were willing to sacrifice the dignity of humans on the altar of "tolerance" and expect to be seen as champions of the downtrodden?

I was there. I remember. The fear of being labeled racist meant that this extraordinary mind works at the Heritage Foundation. To my shame, I was part of that. I associated every criticism of Islam with the most bigoted racist who ever spoke out. I'm trying to do better now though.

Now the labeling goes on. Step out of line on gender issues and you're a misogynist, rape apologist, or hopeless loser who'll never get laid.

History repeats. Maybe time is circular after all.

Spot on. Being wary of racists conflating a rational anti-islam stance with their own prejudice is one thing, being unable to attack the revolting aspects of Islam because of PC paralysis is quite another...

[colubridae]

I’m more motivated to discuss with Harris about the circumstances where he considers torture appropriate. There’s a very good chance that I would disagree with him absolutely, but there is also a chance that I may also learn something about myself and my values that I was previously unaware of. I can’t launch a blanket condemnation of Harris because I have no grounds for doing so. I can continue to disagree with him though.

Back in the late Triassic there was a film made called ‘Dirty Harry’, it spawned a genre all of its own.

Basic hard-nosed cop versus loonie-tune sociopath. The hunt is on. During the story sociopath kidnaps female teenager and tells cops to ‘lay off’ or he will let her die in the dungeon where she is stashed.

Cop then tracks down sociopath in a chase scene during which sociopath is shot in the leg. Knowing the victim’s clock is ticking hard-nosed cop tortures sociopath (using fresh leg-wound). Unfortunately kidnap victim dies.

As story unfolds sociopath is released ‘evidence obtained under duress inadmissible etc.’
During mandatory DA/cop argument scene, legal expert says something like:-
“The evidence obtained is clearly inadmissible. The court would, of course, recognise the legitimate concerns of the police officer for the safety of the kidnap victim”

Does this suit your requirements for torture use?

To be honest I try not to take ethics instruction from Hollywood if I can help it.

errr that's avoiding the question.

Whatever you think I’m not trying to catch you out. I’m genuinely interested.

I’ll make it quite simple then. If someone's life were at stake would you commit the torture.

Assume you knew that the one to be tortured has the necessary answer to save the victim’s life (we can talk about uncertainties in a later post.)

Hypothetical questions are perfectly normal for considering such ethical issues e.g. 5 men on a tram track, tram out of control. As in:-

[Jaygray]

errr that's avoiding the question.

Whatever you think I’m not trying to catch you out. I’m genuinely interested.

I’ll make it quite simple then. If someone's life were at stake would you commit the torture.

Assume you knew that the one to be tortured has the necessary answer to save the victim’s life (we can talk about uncertainties in a later post.)

Hypothetical questions are perfectly normal for considering such ethical issues e.g. 5 men on a tram track, tram out of control. As in:-

Aw, that’s disappointing. I thought it was a polite refusal to answer the question.

Nothing wrong with hypothetical situations. I use them all the time.

I'm not playing this game on a public forum. Sorry. I’ve been around long enough to know that this issue is too complex either to set or answer in a snappy paragraph or two.

Here’s how it’ll go: You lob a scenario at me, I answer it, you modify it so that you can make another point, I modify it again to make my position look fab, then you modify the scenario again. Then we'll argue about how the questions were set, who's scenario is more realistic, and... oy vey! In the end it’ll be two people running up the down escalator.

I notice that your location is Birmingham Art Gallery. My work is occasionally based around 10 minutes walk from there. Maybe we can meet up and discuss this in person this one of these days if you are that interested. It would be a fun way to pass a couple of hours, and a much better vehicle than this forum.

Sorry if this disappoints or annoys. To quote Elizabeth the First (no adverse to racking the odd prisioner or two):

"Your judgment I condemn not, neither do I mistake your reasons, but pray you to accept my thankfulness, excuse my doubtfulness, and take in good part my answer, answerless"

Pretentious or what?

Now where were we? Oh yes Sam Harris...

[Coito ergo sum]

I think it's a pretty simple thing to answer:

If it were irrefutable, beyond doubt, that John Smith could tell us how to save Jane Doe's life and he refused to do so, and the choice was between waterboarding John Smith to get the information and allowing Jane Doe to die. I'd waterboard the guy myself and never lose a moment's sleep about it. Anyone who would let Jane Doe die to save John Smith from being waterboarded for a few minutes is, in my view, morally bankrupt.

Now, that situation is extraordinarily unlikely and saying "yes" to that situation is not saying "yes" to any other given situation, nor is it an endorsement of torture generally or in any circumstance where someone says it is necessary. The yes answer is confined to the given circumstances, and the given circumstances only.

[pErvinalia]

edit: scrap that. I missed part of your post.

[Drewish]

I think it's a pretty simple thing to answer:

Anyone who would insist that their answer to the question must be eveyrone else's answer is morally bankrupt.

[hadespussercats]

It is difficult to overlook the role that blog comments play in all this. Having a blog and building a large community of readers can destroy a person’s intellectual integrity—as appears to have happened in the case of PZ Myers. Many people who read his blog come away convinced that I am a racist who advocates the widespread use of torture and a nuclear first strike against the entire Muslim world. The most despicable claims about me appear in the comment thread, of course, but Myers is responsible for publishing them. And so I hold him responsible for circulating and amplifying some of the worst distortions of my views found on the Internet.

So, is PZ responsible for the Horde?

Well, he certainly takes that tack against others.

[hadespussercats]

The older I get, the more I realize that an impeturbable calm is the best weapon against people who are trying to bully, deride, or otherwise get a rise out of you.

Which is different from the stupid "Just ignore them!" advice I used to get when I was little.

No-- letting people know they've been seen, but they aren't important enough to merit an impassioned response-- that's powerful.

Unfortunately, I have a hard time with impeturbable. My emotions are hard to rein in.

[hadespussercats]

Hehehe. First time through, I wrote "impeturbable clam."

My new band name!

Thanks for sharing a great article, OP.

[Coito ergo sum]

Keep clam, and spell check.

[hadespussercats]

Keep clam, and spell check.

Carry on, carry on!

[Wumbologist]

Keep clam, and spell check.

Carry on, carry on!

[hadespussercats]

I like that your avatar looks like she's about to crack up!

[Audley Strange]

I think it's a pretty simple thing to answer:

Anyone who would insist that their answer to the question must be eveyrone else's answer is morally bankrupt.

Horseshit, that's what morals are, a rationalisation for arbitrary superiority of belief."My way good your way bad, do it my way sinner!!" You've engaged in it yourself in an absolutist way.

I thought you thought you were smarter than this.

[Bella Fortuna]

Hehehe. First time through, I wrote "impeturbable clam."

My new band name!

Thanks for sharing a great article, OP.