Omar to Donal: *You "suggest," but you don't make
an argument that things cannot be wrong by
definition. You are merely assuming that the
others are supposed to agree with you from some
undefined reason.
Eric: I thought I made a fairly obvious argument
that torture was not wrong "by definition."
For something to be wrong "by definition," I am
assuming you mean "essentially morally wrong,"
i.e., that all occurrences are wrong. Further, I
am assuming that you mean something like,
"torture, because it deprives an individual of
their volition and dignity, and also causes them
temporary and sometimes permanent suffering, is
always wrong."
*If you believe that killing is sometimes
justified (as you seem to do in the case of
national self-defense) then, in your view, killing
is not wrong "by definition."
*Killing is worse than torture. The damage it
inflicts on the individual is permanent and total.
The damage torture inflicts is partial and usually
temporary.
*If killing is not wrong by definition, then
torture cannot be wrong by definition.
As I said in my first post, there are many
arguments against torture. One powerful argument
is that the institutionalization of torture may be
worse than any particular act of torture. But I
don't see how an absolute argument against torture
can be consistent with the view that killing is
sometimes justified.
------------------------------------------------------------------ To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off, digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html