tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1138570918413841323.post1488387809063571249..comments2024-02-23T03:29:54.261-05:00Comments on The Unreligious Right: UK General on TortureUNRRhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17093711439992855042noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1138570918413841323.post-48991796309503965142009-02-06T23:23:00.000-05:002009-02-06T23:23:00.000-05:00FrodoSaves,your #1. I'll grant that. Although in t...FrodoSaves,<BR/><BR/>your #1. I'll grant that. Although in that case, I'd just leave that part of the argument out, or deemphasize it. It's not like there aren't multiple lines of attack available for him to use.<BR/><BR/>2. "If the UK chooses to give its citizens and aliens within its borders absolute rights"<BR/><BR/>So if I understand you correctly, you are arguing that the UK chooses to give them an absolute right not to be tortured? That's fine with me. I'm not in favor of torturing UK citizens. And they can decide for themselves what they need to do in extraordinary intelligence situations.<BR/><BR/>"it is the place of no one from without to criticize"<BR/><BR/>Why not? General Guthrie feels he can criticize U.S. practices. And why shouldn't he, if he disagrees with them?<BR/><BR/>3. Ok, that's a reasonable point. But I see it as a legalistic argument, rather than one based purely on reason.<BR/><BR/>4. "Your claim "If torture is justified then it isn't immoral" seemingly contradicts your earlier statement that "The fact that something is illegal doesn't make it immoral."<BR/><BR/>How? Legality is a different issue than morality. <BR/><BR/>5. Maybe, although I do think a no exceptions to laws argument is extreme -- while recognizing that some probably consider my arguments extreme from the other side. And I would stand by my characterization that a blanket claim of "absolute human rights" is both ridiculous and nonsense. I'll take back the irrational characterization. He's clearly not irrational.UNRRhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17093711439992855042noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1138570918413841323.post-69876154699742230902009-02-06T22:34:00.000-05:002009-02-06T22:34:00.000-05:00I have a few comments:1. First, as a member of the...I have a few comments:<BR/><BR/>1. First, as a member of the House of Lords, Lord Guthrie cannot be seen to be arguing in public that the nation's laws are anything but firm and inflexible in all circumstances. The House of Lords is a lawmaking body, making this doubly important. Can you imagine the furor if someone responsible for passing legislation which supposedly upheld private citizens' rights voiced his opinion that it wasn't worth the paper it's written on? By virtue of his position, Lord Guthrie <I>has</I> to adopt a legalistic position. Whether he then justifies his opinion with a moral argument is almost irrelevant, because the legal one has forced his hand.<BR/><BR/>2. Since you are not a believer in natural rights, you should understand better than anyone that rights systems can vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. Rights are what the state gives you. If the UK chooses to give its citizens and aliens within its borders absolute rights, it is the place of no one from without to criticize. You can say "I don't think you <I>should</I> give your citizens absolute rights," but you can't say "you <I>didn't</I> give them absolute rights."<BR/><BR/>3. Your comparison of torture to imprisonment is, I think, erroneous, mostly because of the structure of the European Convention on Human Rights. The ECHR distinguishes between rights which are derogable and those which aren't. In other words, the right to personal liberty is suspendable in certain defined circumstances, while the rights to life and freedom from torture aren't. If you agree with my point #2, that aliens must respect what rights a foreign state chooses to give its own citizens, then I see no reason why you shouldn't accept this also.<BR/><BR/>4. Your claim "If torture is justified then it isn't immoral" seemingly contradicts your earlier statement that "The fact that something is illegal doesn't make it immoral." <BR/><BR/>You allow what is legal to determine what is moral, while stripping the ability of what is illegal to determine what is immoral. <BR/><BR/>While it's not necessarily a logically inconsistent argument, I think the roles you ascribe to legality, morality, and their interplay are confusing.<BR/><BR/>5. Lastly, I worry that you are getting too reckless in your dismissal of Lord Guthrie's arguments. To dismiss his statements as "ridiculous", "nonsense", "extreme" and "irrational" is going too far. Though I disagree with you, I would hesitate to characterize any of your arguments as such, and I don't think Lord Guthrie's column warrants it either. By calling something irrational, you risk alienating opinion if you fail to convince others that it <I>is</I> irrational.<BR/><BR/>Still, I enjoy the opportunity for the good discussion which your posts often afford. Good stuff.FrodoSaveshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15224011199139875343noreply@blogger.com