[lit-ideas] Re: Is torture wrong by definition?
- From: Omar Kusturica <omarkusto@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Tue, 4 Apr 2006 18:55:14 -0700 (PDT)
--- Eric <eyost1132@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> *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.
*I don't know which is worse. Trying to determine
whether killing or torture is worse strikes me as a
somewhat trivial undertaking.
>
> *If killing is not wrong by definition, then
> torture cannot be wrong by definition.
*I thought that I made an argument that both are wrong
by definition. I indicated that they may be justified
only in special circumstances, namely where committing
those acts would prevent an imminent greater wrong.
They are not justified under ordinary circumstances,
i.e. merely in order to remove some ordinary wrong or
to achieve some wordly good. Raskolnikov certainly
needed the money, and the old woman was probably a
prig, but that context did not justify killing her.
See what I mean ? Those who murder or torture usually
have reasons to do so, i.e "the context."
For further examples of acts that seem wrong by
definition, consider "rape" and "genocide." Calling
something a "justified rape" or "justified murder"
would seem to be, if not strictly speaking a logical
contradiction, then certainly a violation of human
language.
O.K.
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
------------------------------------------------------------------
To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off,
digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html
Other related posts:
