109. uburoisc:
Wow –Let me Count the Fallacies
Fallacy 1. “The problem with “studies” about the effectiveness of torture, is you can’t easily find an egghead who will openly even consider the possibility of advocating torture as an effective interrogation option; polite society has unfounded opinions about torture, and a thousand pithy sayings about morality, and if you come right out and defend torture, you will not be tolerated long in that society.”
You fail to locate the problem – it isn’t in eggheads being unwilling to consider possibilities.
Let’s break this down.
1. To conclude that torture doesn’t work we must study it.
2. To study it we must concede that it might be effective.
3. Polite society has unfounded beliefs about the morality of torture.
4. Therefore it is impossible to study torture and reach an unbiased conclusion
Claim 1 is true. Claim 2 is false. I can study a claim that I believe is false.
Claim 5: Lightly placing a thimble on the palm of a person will instantly cause death to that person.
I believe that claim 5 is false. I can objectively conduct a study of it. I gather hundreds of volunteer subjects, inform them of the nature of the experiment, I place a thimble of each of their palms, none die. I repeat the experiment numerous times with other subjects and get the same result.
You might claim my experiment is faulty and invalid because I did not seriously consider that the claim I was studying is true or is even possibly true. I disagree. Nothing about objective and valid experimentation requires me to concede that my belief about the claim being studied might be false.
Fallacy 2.” Now, when you compare the recent US interrogation techniques with what went on in Japan during the Second World War, and in Cambodia, then I cannot believe you are serious…. …There is no relation between the real practice of torture that the Imperial Japanese and Pol Pot practiced, and the pale shadow of torture that went on at both Guantanamo and Iraq. What’s next, American prisons in Alaska are akin to the Gulag Archipelago because each is equally cold?”
You are simply asserting that there is no comparison. The Japanese tortured prisoners by waterboarding. But our use of waterboarding was not torture. They are relevantly different.
We have not seen the videos of waterboarding in Guantanamo, Iraq, or Afganistan. I could argue that they have been withheld them from our view because it is believed that viewers would see them as videos of people being tortured. What other explanation is there for not making these videos public? Privacy shouldn’t be a concern. Faces could be blocked out so no identifications could be made.
Seems to me that those who are withholding the videos believe that views would compare and equate what we did to the Japanese behavior.
Fallacy 3. ‘But I know that you know, really, that the two have no analogy.”
Stick to the arguments themselves – don’t base your arguments on whether someone believes something or not. Base it on the belief itself.
Fallacy 4. “As to the breathless talk of treaties and treaties and international law. First, there is no such thing as international law. …international law is an indulgence of advanced nations, and exists as long as the international system is willing to continue to go along with it.”
By this argument there is no such thing as federal or state law. Just because criminals, corrupt prosecutors, judges and politicians subvert the act by violating it, we cannot infer that there are no laws. Granted the existence of the law depends on the society actually observing or following the law. Democratic systems of laws is a recent “indulgence” of advanced nations but that doesn’t make democracy and the rule of law an effectually effete indulgence.
Line drawing between lawless societies and observant law-abiding societies is difficult. But just because the law is sometimes ignored does not mean it doesn’t exist.
Fallacy 5: “All treaties are contingent, and all of them reflect a place and time; and all treaties wear out their welcome and efficacy….Treaties are broken all the time, thousands have been signed and thousands have been discarded when it was appropriate. If the other side chooses to ignore a treaty, the treaty in not enforceable and may as well not exist.”
You’re equivocating here between doesn’t exist and might as well not exist.
All federal and state laws are continent, violated, revised, discarded, and ignored as well. So what? A law that isn’t enforced today may well be enforced tomorrow. Remember – most simple burglaries are never investigated and the burglar arrested and convicted. This does not mean that the laws against burglaries do not exist. They do exist, they should exist and they should be enforced whenever possible.
Fallacy 6. “Here is a simple thought exercise: Let’s say the Germans overran the Soviets, and Midway went the other way, and the war was going very badly; not an impossible premise. Well, is there anything you wouldn’t do to make sure the US would win that war, without question an existential war for liberal democracy?”
What do you mean thought exercise? This was the reality. The German’s did overrun the Soviet forces and occupied most of European Russia. The Japanese were winning the war before Midway. It was going badly for the Russians and for the Americans.
Would the use of torture been morally justifiable before Midway or even after Midway if we had lost? No, it wouldn’t have been morally justifiable.
You’re thought experiment fails to clarify the problem.
You seem to be claiming that we must accept the principle that torture and other crimes are acceptable if they get you what you want or need. Shop lifting is ok – look at all the neat things I got that I wanted and needed.
In other words, what the Nazis did and what the Japanese did was fine – they were merely trying to win the war. This is the point in dispute. Those who think torture is a criminal act, believe it is wrong to torture people even if it helps you get what you want – i.e., win the war.
“I can answer that unequivocally: no, there is nothing I wouldn’t do to win. Killing children? Women? Lopping off fingers? Yes to all. Losing that war, or the Cold War, for that matter, is unthinkable, and there is nothing I wouldn’t do.”
This is not an argument. You are merely describing what sort of criminal behavior you would be prepared to engage in. Why should your willingness to do these things be taken more seriously or as being more important than my unwillingness to do these things? Are you obviously morally superior to me in some important way?
You call those who oppose using torture the “academic elite”. You seem to be saying that you are part of the moral elite because your views of morality are superior to my views.
Again, I would urge you focus on the arguments and not on the people who hold one position or another.
Calling us thought twits and academic elites does not magically turn your fallacious reasoning into sound arguments.
