[lit-ideas] Re: Is torture wrong by definition?
- From: "Andy Amago" <aamago@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Tue, 4 Apr 2006 10:05:03 -0400
Killing might be wrong. But it's not wrong *by definition* unless you're
finding your definitions in a place other than the dictionary. Killing
might be morally wrong by definition, but there you have to say whose
definition.
> [Original Message]
> From: Omar Kusturica <omarkusto@xxxxxxxxx>
> To: <lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Date: 4/4/2006 9:51:40 AM
> Subject: [lit-ideas] Re: Is torture wrong by definition?
>
>
>
> --- Donal McEvoy <donalmcevoyuk@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>
> > Is anything wrong _by definition_? Only, I suggest,
> > a definition can be wrong
> > by way of a definition - and even here the
> > definition is just a stipulation
> > that we are not compelled to accept - it being a
> > mere convention as to the
> > permissible use of words.
>
> *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. Is "murder" wrong by
> definition, or is it only wrong in some circumstances
> ? How about "rape" ? Once we have decided that
> something corresponds to the definition of "murder" or
> "rape" (an agreed upon definition - I hardly need to
> DMCE to teach me how definitions work), can we still
> maintain that it could be justified ?
>
> > Of course 'ordinary language' is occasionally
> > littered with expressions like
> > 'By definition it is clear that...', 'It is a
> > contradiction-in-terms to
> > suggest that...', 'The only logical conclusion given
> > the terms of the
> > debate..'. Insofar as such expressions, and others,
> > are attempts to win an
> > argument by (covert or overt) appeal to a
> > definition, no deviation from which
> > is logically permissible, they are another muddled
> > aspect of ordinary usage
> > or commonsense - which after all frequently abuses
> > the appeal to 'logic' (eg.
> > 'The only logical to do is x) when logic can only
> > strictly decide points of
> > logic and not between proposals as to what we ought
> > or ought not to do.
>
> * It wasn't suggested that logic by itself will decide
> what is right or wrong. Rather, it is proposed that
> universal human values will decide, assuming that we
> have agreed on definitions, descriptions etc. (Indeed,
> those who seek to defend torture will usually maintain
> that the techniques used do not amount to the accepted
> definition of torture etc.) I might be wrong about
> this but your lecture about "ordinary language" etc.
> will hardly persuade me that is so.
>
>
> > Here is a possible example of a genuine
> > contradiction (provided we
> > interpolate the parenthetical words): "...I think
> > that killing humans is
> > also wrong by definition, i.e. in itself (and no
> > matter what the
> > circumstances). It might be
> > justified only in special circumstances when
> > committing the wrong would prevent a greater wrong."
>
> *Why would you feel that you need to interpolate words
> in order to drive me into a contradiction ? To say
> that something is "justified" is not the same as
> saying that it is a good thing.
>
> > It is not a contradiction if we read Omar as saying
> > merely: "I think killing
> > is, on the face of it, wrong - unless someone shows
> > special circumstances
> > that justify it."
> > But then, to me at least, it is hard to see how this
> > position is not merely
> > "a purely semantic distinction" away from LK's
> > position that whether killing
> > is wrong depends entirely on the context (say, on
> > the existence or
> > non-existence of "special circumstances").
>
> *See below.
>
> > It is a separate point entirely whether we put the
> > burden on the killer to
> > justify his killing (which seems sensible) or on
> > ourselves to show the
> > killing is unjustified;
>
> *It is not "a separate matter entirely". Normally, we
> place the burden of proof on the accuser to prove
> guilt, and this supposed to be an important principle.
> However, in cases where it has been factually
> established that a killing of a person took place, we
> tend to place the burden of proof on the killer to
> show that it was justified. That's because we
> intuitively feel that there is something inherently
> problematic with the act of killing.
>
> but even here I doubt there
> > would be much practical
> > difference given that, even if we placed the
> > theoretical burden on ourselves
> > to show the killing was unjustified, our moral
> > intuitions/instincts would _in
> > most ordinary circumstances_ guide us to often find
> > that burden easily
> > discharged (eg. when someone went up and shot a
> > stranger in the street).
>
> *I am afraid that I don't understand this passage.
>
> > The use and abuse of so-called 'definitional' or
> > 'logical' arguments does not
> > clarify debate on these matters and is, I suggest,
> > best avoided.
>
> *I would appreciate it if you would look elsewhere for
> obedient students.
>
> 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
------------------------------------------------------------------
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:
