[debate] was Re: Torture

[Alan Light]

Rob Enderle wrote:"The problem with the “harmful to life” definition for evil is it removes intent or intelligence.   For instance an asteroid strike is harmful to life but is not evil.  I don’t believe you can have evil without there being intelligence involved."


 
You might feel different if that asteroid was heading towards You.  ;-)
 
But I take your point, and would specify that Evil consists of harm to *intelligent* life, especially if directed by some other intelligence.
 
"On a tool though, the question is can a tool be evil?   For instance if I developed a Rape Tool, accepting Rape as evil, would the tool be evil or would I be evil for having developed it or would the person using it be evil?   Is this even an “or’ question?"
 
Without going too far into details, the existence of a sadomasochistic subculture, and the rape fantasies that many women and some men have, would suggest that a "rape tool" might be considered desirable by some for fantasy play.  Of course, the sadomasochistic subculture is also evidence that Torture is sometimes acceptable.  However, there is a huge difference between consensual acts and torture committed upon an unwilling victim who is incapable of resisting.
 
I was initially leery of defining torture as a tool, but in such a case it would be at least something like a tool, and it would not be evil.
 
I still maintain, however, that use of torture against an unwilling person remains evil (and ineffective and counterproductive) in virtually all real world applications.
 
Thanks for the link to Wikipedia.  I followed one of the links within that article and discovered the intriguing views of Morgan Scott Peck.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M._Scott_Peck  His definition of an evil person reminds me some people I know.  ;-)
 
 
Alan


      
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://whitestar.linuxbox.org/pipermail/debate/attachments/20090501/bb964f60/attachment.htm>