<div dir="ltr"><br><br>[snip]<div class="im"><br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
<div><div style="font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 12pt;"><div>We
live in an increasingly interdependent web of alliances, and our
potential partners do not trust people who use torture routinely, if at
all. Those who have a strong anti-torture ethic will eventually
succeed in such an environment.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>So, how exactly do we divide the ethical question from the practical one?</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Should we?</div><div>
<div> </div></div></div></div></blockquote></div><div><br>As I
understand it, you claim that societies which denied various unethical
activities (for any reason), are better off practically. "Societies
where murder is common are poorer than those where it is not, and
everyone is worse off.".<br>
That might well be true, but it misses something. <br>It
seems obvious that it would be hard for a society to thrive when all
its members are thieves/murderers/etc. However, I can imagine a single
thief living quite well in a city of non-thieves. This is a bit similar
to the doves/hawks example from game theory, where not everyone can be
vultures. (See the (very long) funsec discussion about guns <a href="http://www.mail-archive.com/funsec@linuxbox.org/msg03934.html" target="_blank">http://www.mail-archive.com/funsec@linuxbox.org/msg03934.html</a> for example, there are other possible sources)<br>
<br>Apart from that, from ecology we learn that a given population of
herbivores can only support a given number of hunters. This may be
applied here as well. (As a reference, I give the tongue-in-cheek
example of vampires, see <a href="http://www.hphomeview.com/Tips/Vampire%20Ecology%20in%20the%20Jossverse.pdf" target="_blank">http://www.hphomeview.com/Tips/Vampire%20Ecology%20in%20the%20Jossverse.pdf</a> . I apologize, but this was the clearest example I could think of quickly. ).<br>
<br>your point (which was different than what you claimed :) was that unethical behaviors are a negative survivability trait. <br>My point:<br>I
disagree. You've just shown that a society of only thieves (or high
percentage) isn't well off. That doesn't mean there isn't a place for a
few. <br>
Two final supporting examples:<br>1. A single crime
organization, keeping crime under limits might "grow with the
community", and both may prosper. It might not be fun, but it will work.<br>2.
A community of only/mostly full-time firemen will probably won't
survive as well. Does this show that being a full time firemen is not
practical, and a negative survivability trait? Probably not. It only
shows that you passed the good ratio of firemen/everyone else.<br>
</div><div class="im"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;"><div><div style="font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 12pt;">
<div>Measuring by the gut rejection of torture which most healthy people have, we should be very wary of using torture.</div>
</div></div></blockquote></div><div><br>"Measuring by the gut rejection of %s which most health people have, we should be very wary of using SCIENCE".<br>Was that a valid point some years ago? Is it today?<br>
Not to say that torture is good, but it seems to me that gut feeling of
many do not remove the need for an independent, valid, argument. :)<br><br> </div><div class="im"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
<div><div style="font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 12pt;"><br><div><div> </div>
<div>"Hypothetically, I can condone torture under extreme conditions if
it actually works, and then when other techniques won't bring results
in time. But what conditions are extreme and how do we define the
relevant variables?"</div>
<div> </div>
<div> </div>
</div><div>I don't know, and I don't think anyone knows. This is why I
would not change the laws to allow torture in some cases, but would
allow a defendant charged with torture to introduce mitigating
circumstances.</div>
<div>
<div> </div>
</div></div></div></blockquote></div><div> <br>I don't think this is a
good idea. You set your people (e.g. police, internal security, etc...)
up to fail. You put them in situations where the expected behavior
might be torture, and then have them stand for trial. <br>
<br></div><div class="im"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;"><div><div style="font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 12pt;">
<br><div>
2. Torture hurts interrogations in almost all cases, because it
produces an adversarial relationship with the suspect. Without such an
adversarial relationship, some prisoners will brag about their crimes,
others are liable to want to explain them because very few people want
to be considered evil by those around them. Persons who have committed
crimes for ideological reasons (or frequently, just defended themselves
against the unlawful impositions of a State) are liable to want to get
their message out. In all these cases relationship-building will be
far more useful than an adversarial relationship.</div>
</div></div></blockquote></div><div><br>1. OTTOMH, does good cop-bad cop work? <br>2. Even an ideological bomber who wanted to get his message out would not necessarily tell you where the bomb is.<br><br>Cheers,<br>
Imri<br></div><br>-- <br>Imri Goldberg<br>------------------------------<div dir="ltr">--------<br><a href="http://www.algorithm.co.il/blogs/" target="_blank">www.algorithm.co.il/blogs/</a><br>--------------------------------------<br>
-- insert signature here ----</div>
</div>