tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1138570918413841323.post2204487579712399770..comments2024-02-23T03:29:54.261-05:00Comments on The Unreligious Right: The Guilty are Different than the InnocentUNRRhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17093711439992855042noreply@blogger.comBlogger34125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1138570918413841323.post-73971295703245528642009-04-24T11:11:00.000-04:002009-04-24T11:11:00.000-04:00> logical error of falsely equating the innocen...> <I>logical error of falsely equating the innocent and the guilty.</I><BR><BR>But he's not equating them, that's a pointless straw man. I'll phrase his argument yet another way:<br /><br /><I>If we only care about effectiveness, that could lead to actions that are not justified--of which harming innocents happens to be one. This proves that effectiveness is an insufficient criteria, and that there are lines it is unjust to cross. Given this, anyone claiming that torture is justified must define those lines.</I><BR><BR>So go about defining your lines, and stop complaining about a false equivalence that doesn't exist.Gherald Lhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14018224925808657621noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1138570918413841323.post-78878943151582150292009-04-24T10:15:00.000-04:002009-04-24T10:15:00.000-04:00"Harming innocents isn't automagically un..."Harming innocents isn't automagically unjustified, just look at Hiroshima and Nagasaki."<br /><br />True, but that's yet another situation and another argument.<br /><br />"ut the example still proves the point that effectiveness is insufficient and you need other dividing lines."<br /><br />I agree that effectiveness alone is insufficient. I don't think your argument is the same as Chapman's. And I'm attacking only the one point of his argument.<br /><br />Btw, I mentioned to my wife that we have a 30+ comment argument on this and she thinks we are insane :).<br /><br />Let me go off on another tangent, because there is a similar argument to Chapman's that I have heard repeatedly from certain death penalty opponents, particularly on the left. It is to attack anti-abortion people who are pro-death penalty, as if there was some logical correlation between killing the innocent & killing the guilty. There isn't. Both are killing (at least to anti-abortion types), but there is nothing logically inconsistent about being in favor of executing a criminal, but not wanting to kill the innocent. Pretending that the guilty & the innocent are somehow equivalent is the logical fallacy.<br /><br />The part of Chapman's argument that I am attacking is the same sort of logical error of falsely equating the innocent and the guilty.UNRRhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17093711439992855042noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1138570918413841323.post-73565412883712853382009-04-24T09:15:00.000-04:002009-04-24T09:15:00.000-04:00Harming innocents isn't automagically unjustif...Harming innocents isn't automagically unjustified, just look at Hiroshima and Nagasaki.<br /><br />You've specified that it's unjustified in the case of torture in more controlled circumstances. That's great, Chapman and I agree with you, but the example still proves the point that effectiveness is insufficient and you need other dividing lines.<br /><br />One of the lines happens to be no killing innocents, which we can integrate logically as:<br /><br />Vx((Px & Ix))->J(x))<br /><br />But presumably this still leads to contradictions because there are cases which satisfy Px and Ix but not Jx.<br /><br />So you need to specify additional criteria.<br /><br />Vx((Px & Ix & .... & ..... & .... )->J(x)<br /><br />All you've been doing in this thread is saying the Ix requirement should have been obvious, which is much ado about nothing.<br /><br />You want Ix -- great, I put it in there. Now tell us what else is missing, because it's insufficient unless you think all cases like Jb or Jd are true. (Obviously you think Jw is true, we know that much)Gherald Lhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14018224925808657621noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1138570918413841323.post-19033965371732356202009-04-24T08:54:00.000-04:002009-04-24T08:54:00.000-04:00"1) No we shouldn't, as Chapman points out. For th..."1) No we shouldn't, as Chapman points out. For the upteenth time, you need other reasons. This was and is and remains the whole bloody point."<br /><br />The point is that his point is irrelevant to the point of anyone advocating torture of terrorists. Torture of innocents is a separate category. 2) has nothing to do with 1). It does not prove anything about 1).<br /><br />"3) needs to be answered, since we need to be able to distinguish between what is and is not justified. This requires that all techniques and matters of degree, etc, be addressed to come up with a distinguishing line between what's justified and what isn't."<br /><br />Yes, it's a related question tied to 1) (or even to 2) if someone is proposing 2)). 1) can be conditional on 3). But it doesn't have to be. If I argue that any degree at all is ok with 1), then 3) is irrelevant.<br /><br />What you are saying, I think, is that if one accepts that waterboarding a terrorist is ok, why is it not ok to also burn him with a hot poker? Why is only some torture acceptable?<br /><br />I have no problem with the underlying logic of that line of argument. But it is not the same thing as saying, why isn't it ok to torture an innocent victim? That is a completely separate category of person.UNRRhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17093711439992855042noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1138570918413841323.post-36006261564684552842009-04-24T08:34:00.000-04:002009-04-24T08:34:00.000-04:00And no they are not separate arguments. The negat...And no they are not separate arguments. The negation of 2) was used to to prove that the answer to 1) is logically false. On other words effectiveness is an insufficient condition to justify torture.<br /><br />Because it's insufficient, what you call the "separate argument" of 3) needs to be answered, since we need to be able to distinguish between what is and is not justified. This requires that all techniques and matters of degree, etc, be addressed to come up with a distinguishing line between what's justified and what isn't.Gherald Lhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14018224925808657621noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1138570918413841323.post-21001115874309753622009-04-24T08:27:00.000-04:002009-04-24T08:27:00.000-04:001) No we shouldn't, as Chapman points out. For th...1) No we shouldn't, as Chapman points out. For the upteenth time, you need other reasons. This was and is and remains the whole bloody point.<br />2) Nobody thinks so, that I know of.<br />3) This is a question for which no sustainable answer has been provided. Unless one is that passes muster, the use of torture hasn't been justified.Gherald Lhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14018224925808657621noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1138570918413841323.post-46401107450404207472009-04-24T06:56:00.000-04:002009-04-24T06:56:00.000-04:00"Setting aside whether their claim is even true, a..."Setting aside whether their claim is even true, arguing for torture based solely on effectiveness is illogical. Chapman shows it to be illogical. Your objections to Chapman boil down to "my argument is different, and he's not addressing it". "<br /><br />Again, no one, including Cheney, is arguing based <I>solely</I> on effectiveness. Chapman hasn't shown anything to be illogical, except for an argument no one is making.<br /><br />"i.e. ...explain to us why waterboarding is surely ok but more extreme "matters of degree" might not be"<br /><br />The question of what techniques are ok is yet another different argument. So now we have three arguments:<br /><br />1)should we torture terrorists if it effective<br /><br />2)should we torture innocent people if that would make the torture of terrorists more effect<br /><br />3)If we torture terrorists, how far can we go in torturing them.<br /><br />Responding to argument 1 by citing problems with arguments 2 or 3 is illogical and meaningless. Using my previous example:<br /><br />Argument 1 = putting criminals in jail deters crime<br /><br />Argument 2 = putting the innocent families of criminals in jail deters crime even more<br /><br />Argument 3 = if we put criminals in jail, how long of a sentence is acceptable?UNRRhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17093711439992855042noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1138570918413841323.post-15913276978737342262009-04-24T00:21:00.000-04:002009-04-24T00:21:00.000-04:00i.e. ...explain to us why waterboarding is surely ...i.e. ...explain to us why waterboarding is surely ok but more extreme "matters of degree" might not be. Explain where you think the U.S. should draw the line and why it's not arbitrary. Per Chapman, we know there must be a line. All we need is you to make a compelling case for why it should include some things that work and not others which could also work.Gherald Lhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14018224925808657621noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1138570918413841323.post-53396431209408377772009-04-24T00:15:00.000-04:002009-04-24T00:15:00.000-04:00It may not be your argument. But many on the righ...It may not be <I>your</I> argument. But many on the right, including Cheney, have basically been saying:<br /><br /><I>This torture--I'm sorry, enhanced interrogation techniques--was a success. Look at all the good, valuable, and important for national security (!!) information that we got!! That justifies it. The techniques worked, ergo what we did was o.k.</I><BR><BR>Setting aside whether their claim <A HREF="http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/23/opinion/23soufan.html" REL="nofollow">is even true</A>, arguing for torture based solely on effectiveness is illogical. Chapman shows it to be illogical. Your objections to Chapman boil down to "my argument is different, and he's not addressing it". Whoopdedoo, go talk about your argument in a new post then.Gherald Lhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14018224925808657621noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1138570918413841323.post-56552290998956842742009-04-23T22:12:00.000-04:002009-04-23T22:12:00.000-04:00"His point is only that there must be lines other ..."His point is only that there must be lines other than a mere effectiveness test."<br /><br />If that was his point he could have just said so, especially since no one disagrees anyway.<br /><br />"publius gets it"<br /><br />He gets it wrong. He says,<br /><br />"there’s simply no way that the effectiveness of torture can solely justify its use. And I think he poses a difficult logical problem for torture supporters."<br /><br />The problem is, no one is making that argument. No one is arguing its effectiveness can <I>solely</I> justify its use. So no logical problem exists. The logical problem is with using an argument that doesn't even apply. We are talking about apples and Chapman says that cutting up apples implies cutting up oranges.UNRRhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17093711439992855042noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1138570918413841323.post-48750669274110231162009-04-23T17:49:00.000-04:002009-04-23T17:49:00.000-04:00But that's actually precisely how you do a reducti...But that's actually precisely how you do a <I>reductio ad absurdum</I> in plain language most people can understand: You demonstrate that the logical outcome of someone's arguments could be preposterous.<br /><br />Chapman picked an emphatically objectionable example only to emphasize the contradiction--it wasn't because it's the only example available, or because he thought he'd made a breakthrough discovery that killing innocents during interrogations is a line Cheney would want to cross. His point is only that there must be lines other than a mere effectiveness test.<br /><br />publius <A HREF="http://obsidianwings.blogs.com/obsidian_wings/2009/04/the-limits-of-effectiveness.html" REL="nofollow">gets it</A>Gherald Lhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14018224925808657621noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1138570918413841323.post-7397569185213329032009-04-23T17:04:00.000-04:002009-04-23T17:04:00.000-04:00I think I would accept your argument if it weren't...I think I would accept your argument if it weren't for Chapman's last paragraph. If he was only making a <I>reductio ad absurdum</I> argument, that paragraph wouldn't be there. But including it appears to mean that he really thinks that torturing innocents is a logical extension of the utility of torturing terrorists.UNRRhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17093711439992855042noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1138570918413841323.post-73119328330987041462009-04-23T14:53:00.000-04:002009-04-23T14:53:00.000-04:00Sorry, I meantyet we can agree ~J(x) is true .......Sorry, I meant<B>yet we can agree ~J(x) is true</B> .... a negation of J(x).Gherald Lhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14018224925808657621noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1138570918413841323.post-60668314464723861402009-04-23T14:51:00.000-04:002009-04-23T14:51:00.000-04:00The issue you raise is addressed by my introductio...The issue you raise is addressed by my introduction of I(x) in my follow-up comment.<br /><br />Also, I should be more precise and fully specify "<B>For all x</B> (P(x) & I(x)) -> J(x)" ---- the "for all x" is important, since it's what allows you to instantiate any identifier such as k.<br /><br />Note that in the case of killing innocent children it's obvious that ~J(x)<br /><br />If we're using one of my examples other than k, such as:<br /><br />w :: waterboarding<br />b :: boiling comrade alive<br />d :: slow dismemberment<br /><br />Then you would first have to accept ~J(x) for that identifier before you'd be able to disprove Cheney's argument.<br /><br />But so long as there exists at least one identifier for which P(x) is true, I(x) is true, yet we can agree J(x) is true --- Cheney's argument fails.<br /><br />That's what Chapman showed.Gherald Lhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14018224925808657621noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1138570918413841323.post-26867084983828793832009-04-23T14:47:00.000-04:002009-04-23T14:47:00.000-04:00Here's my math example,
You have two sets, se...Here's my math example,<br /><br />You have two sets, set T and set Ti. Set T contains two variables, A & B.<br /><br />A = the utility of torture<br />B = terrorists should be tortured<br /><br />Set Ti contains one variable, C<br /><br />C = innocents should be tortured to make terrorists talk.<br /><br />The question is: If A is positive, A = B Considering set T, is A positive?<br /><br />Chapman says, If A is positive A=B. If A=B, then A=C.<br /><br />But C isn't even part of the equation. He's introduced a variable from a different set. We aren't using set Ti for this particular problem.UNRRhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17093711439992855042noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1138570918413841323.post-50395867791918166152009-04-23T14:39:00.000-04:002009-04-23T14:39:00.000-04:00Perhaps the problem here is that you want to intro...Perhaps the problem here is that you want to introduce an additional predicate:<br /><br />I(x) :: x does not harm innocents.<br /><br />So you would do Cheney a favor and restrict his argument to:<br /><br />For all x, (P(x) & I(x)) -> J(x)<br /><br />Then since I(k) is false, the k example would never be applicable.<br /><br />Ok. We all understand taht.<br /><br />But there are other examples--such as the dismemberment and boiling alive ones I offered--for which I(x) holds.<br /><br />So long as such an example exists, Cheney's position that (P(x) & I(x)) -> J(x) can never be true.<br /><br />That's Chapman's point, and it doesn't depend on the k example your'e objecting to by introducing the I(x) requirement. Capice?Gherald Lhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14018224925808657621noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1138570918413841323.post-20330965789589224562009-04-23T14:33:00.000-04:002009-04-23T14:33:00.000-04:00Chapman: "Cheney and others have yet to advocate g...Chapman: <I>"Cheney and others have yet to advocate going that far. But if they really believe what they say about the techniques we've used, here's a question they need to answer: Why not?"</I>The reason why not is because they, like all of us, have something against killing innocents. We all understand this. Chapman's point is to disprove Vx(Px->Jx) -- not to actually pretend Cheney is in favor of murdering children.<br /><br />He's reduced Cheney's argument to absurdity. That's what a <I>reductio ad absurdum</I> does, by definition. Chapman doesn't actually think Cheney would agree to J(k) on the merits, he's just demonstrated that for Vx(Px->Jx) to be true you would have to believe J(k).<br /><br />So Chapman's point remains, as ever, that Vx(Px->Jx) is ridiculous and invalid.<br /><br />Please study how reductio arguments work and stop misrepresenting Chapman's position.Gherald Lhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14018224925808657621noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1138570918413841323.post-49930282240058708792009-04-23T14:24:00.000-04:002009-04-23T14:24:00.000-04:00"by objecting to the example he offered by saying ..."by objecting to the example he offered by saying it was too obvious."<br /><br />I haven't said that at all. I said that the specific example he used is illogical. Here's his final paragraph,<br /><br />"Cheney and others have yet to advocate going that far. But if they really believe what they say about the techniques we've used, here's a question they need to answer: Why not?"<br /><br />Because they are only arguing for using those techniques on terrorists, i.e. their utility argument is restricted in scope. They are not arguing for using them on clearly innocent people. If they argued that utility concerns were the ONLY consideration in using torture, then Chapman would be correct.<br /><br />Chapman, and apparently you, think his question is logical extension of Cheney's argument. It isn't. It is only logical if you willfully ignore everything else we know.<br /><br />When Chapman says, "Why not?", the obvious answer is, "because torturing innocent people is entirely different situation."UNRRhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17093711439992855042noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1138570918413841323.post-63353144888008768332009-04-23T13:45:00.000-04:002009-04-23T13:45:00.000-04:00"I'm arguing against his specific example..."I'm arguing against his specific example"<br /><br />Congratulations, you've already successfully demonstrated that killing innocents can be objected to on grounds other than what Chapman was talking about.<br /><br />You get a medal. Can we go home now?<br /><br />Because--yet again--you can't pretend to invalidate Chapman's argument by objecting to the example he offered by saying it was too obvious.<br /><br />Try symbolism. Let:<br /><br />P(x) :: x works<br />J(x) :: x is justified<br />k = killing innocent relatives<br /><br />Cheney's claim: For all x, P(x) -> J(x) [if something works, then it's justified]<br /><br />Chapman wishes to disprove his claim. The proof is by contradiction:<br /><br />1. P(k) [assumption]<br />2. ~J(k) [assumption]<br />3. For all x, P(x) -> J(x) [assumption for reductio]<br /><br />4. P(k) -> J(k) [instantiation of 3 -- assumptions 3]<br />5. J(k) [affirming the antecedant 1,3 -- assumptions 1,3]<br />6. ~For all x, P(x) -> J(x) [reductio 2,5 removing assumption 3 -- assumptions 1,2]<br /><br />Therefore just by knowing #1 and #2, Chapman has disproved Cheney's claim.<br /><br />Your objection to his proof is to yell "But we already knew ~J(k), no one was arguing against that!!!!!"<br /><br />But you can hardly invalidate Chapman's argument by saying you already knew one of his assumptions and that it should be obvious true. So stop fucking trying.Gherald Lhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14018224925808657621noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1138570918413841323.post-13868992813320997022009-04-23T13:20:00.000-04:002009-04-23T13:20:00.000-04:00"with his simple and straightforward point that "i..."with his simple and straightforward point that "it works" is not a justification for torture or anything else, "<br /><br />See comment immediately above.UNRRhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17093711439992855042noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1138570918413841323.post-34165112157140583762009-04-23T13:18:00.001-04:002009-04-23T13:18:00.001-04:00You falsely equate 'we can't take action against t...You falsely equate 'we can't take action against the guilty' with his simple and straightforward point that "it works" is not a justification for torture or anything else, and that you need some other justification. So quit tilting at straw men.<br /><br />Obviously if you want to argue for taking action against the guilty, the question of quilt/innocence matters.<br /><br />But when all Chapman is doing is saying that "it works" is not a sufficient justification for any treatment--be it for the guilty or the innocent--then the issue you've raise remains irrelevant.Gherald Lhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14018224925808657621noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1138570918413841323.post-13895138954955579362009-04-23T13:18:00.000-04:002009-04-23T13:18:00.000-04:00"The actual salient point which UNRR keeps missing..."The actual salient point which UNRR keeps missing is that the question of harming innocents is entirely separate from whether something works or doesn't work."<br /><br />It can be, but Chapman combines them.<br /><br />"But this objection is irrelevant, because the point stands with non-innocent examples."<br /><br />If he used a different example, then I wouldn't be objecting to it. I'm not objecting to the basic argument that utility doesn't imply justification. I'm arguing against his specific example,UNRRhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17093711439992855042noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1138570918413841323.post-73121470957444160642009-04-23T13:12:00.000-04:002009-04-23T13:12:00.000-04:00uzza,
Does Cheney really have to put that into wo...uzza,<br /><br />Does Cheney really have to put that into words? He isn't talking about anyone other than terrorists.<br /><br />"Justifying action against the guilty does imply justification for the same action against the innocent"<br /><br />So you think an argument that imprisoning criminals deters crime implies that imprisoning their innocent families is also justified?<br /><br />Gherald,<br /><br />"Chapman's argument is also a question of degree, and the involvement of innocents is tangential to his point."<br /><br />It destroys his point by creating an illogical implication.<br /><br />"Please admit you were wrong and move on."<br /><br />Obviously I don't think I'm wrong. And I feel this is a vital point in the whole torture debate. Arguments that maintain that we can't take action against the guilty, because the same or similar action would be unjust when used against the innocent, are illogical and pointless.UNRRhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17093711439992855042noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1138570918413841323.post-43240958477784130762009-04-23T13:07:00.000-04:002009-04-23T13:07:00.000-04:00uzza: "Justifying action against the guilty does i...uzza: "Justifying action against the guilty does imply justification for the same action against the innocent"<br /><br />Not necessarily, no. You can justify some actions against the guilty that you couldn't justify against the innocent--such as capital punishment or life imprisonment.<br /><br />The actual salient point which UNRR keeps missing is that the question of harming innocents is entirely separate from whether something works or doesn't work.<br /><br />Chapman made his point by saying "just because killing innocents could work, doesn't make it justified".<br /><br />His point stands even if you were already predisposed to be against harming innocents, as I assume all of us are.<br /><br />Once again, Chapman understands it's matter of degree, and that just because something works doesn't make it justifiable.<br /><br />The only real objection UNRR raises here is that Chapman happened to pick an example that involves innocents, which UNRR was already opposed to. But this objection is irrelevant, because the point stands with non-innocent examples.Gherald Lhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14018224925808657621noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1138570918413841323.post-25120557495177779202009-04-23T12:56:00.000-04:002009-04-23T12:56:00.000-04:00The argument Cheney uses, "it worked", doesn't mak...The argument Cheney uses, "it worked", doesn't make any distinction between a known leader of Al Qaeda, and an innocent child, it treats them as morally equivalent. Cheney introduces no moral distinctions. He said “it worked, therefore it is justified” not “it worked, therefore it is justified against only the guilty” <br /><br />Justifying an action <I>does</I> imply using the same action in other circumstances. Justifying action against the guilty <I>does</I> imply justification for the same action against the innocent, especially when the “it” under discussion includes the Soviet's and other regimes' use against innocents, not to mention recent allegations that US personnel may have done so. Chapman agues these implications should be restricted, just as do you, only less logically.uzzahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02494141255401096538noreply@blogger.com