The Universal Declaration of Human Rights is not a means to an end. It is a statement of who we are.
If you believe that, then you cannot believe in military defense. Otherwise, how to you reconcile the fact that we accept that it's OK to inflict excruciating pain and damage on an enemy as required to achieve our objectives.
This is not a practical problem. It is a moral problem.
There are no intrinsic moral values. Values exist only through mutual agreement. Agreements are pointless unless they serve a practical purpose.
In other words, all moral principles aim to address practical problems.
I would agree to refrain from all use of torture under all scenarios if the other side would do the same.
That's why torturing ruthless terrorists doesn't seem so bad. These are not random people picked off the streets on suspicion alone.
Thanks for responding thoughtfully, Not Me. I don't agree with you completely but it's a good point. How would those who oppose torture, in all its forms and in all cases, propose we deal with enemies who are willing to anything and everything up to killing innocent civilians and themselves?
That said, I'm gonna agree with Victor and Oberon. I don't buy the moral relativism argument.
This is a difficult issue, though. I still feel like if I was the president of a country and torture was presented to me as the last resort and only possible option to save innocent lives, even a flimsy last resort, I would feel hard pressed *not* to choose to do it. I think. And at the same time there's still something in me that just *feels* it's wrong.
"Only an irrational dumbass, would burn Jews." - Jaguar
"please give concise answers in plain English" - request from Provoker