Let me first say, I love Sam Harris and regard what he has done as the height of courage. In the spirit I think he lives by I would like to offer what I fear may be a devastating objection to his argument for the “strapado”. In his(in my view correct) attack on Chomsky and those who think as he does he argues that the failure of reasoning Chomsky is guilty of is not taking intention into account. For Chomsky moral culpability is equal for unintended deaths and intended. thus he draws a one-to-one correspondence beteen 9/11 hijackers and inadvertent civilian deaths in the Gulf War. But Then in the torture is justified scaffolding of reasoning that Harris carries us up in the “Torquemada” section he argues that if we are willing to wage wars in which civillians will die unintentionally then we should be willing to intentionally torture. I trust all will see the problem here. Harris has made the same mistake he accuses Chomsky of. He makes a moral equivalence between intended and unintended violence. Does Mr. Harris participate in the discussion here? Please comment.
The righteous assignment of moral culpability, plus a shiny coin, will buy you a brightly-colored gumball. Chew carefully, so as not to suffocate yourself accidentally. Then get a mob together, agree on moral culpability for ethical monsters, and hang the suckers by their balls. Now there’s an idea whose time has come.
And no, Mr. Harris does not participate in the discussion here. You need to be a mover and a shaker to talk directly to god. Bitching about “glaring contradictions” in Whoozy-Futzy’s texts in an online forum is fairly common. Perhaps you will want also to address the contradictions in Hegel.
Do you think anyone really knows what his “intention” is? Or if it’s different from his “motivation”? If so, welcome to the “Pompous Philosophical Wibbling Fuckwit Club”.
“The righteous assignment of moral culpability, plus a shiny coin, will buy you a brightly-colored gumball. Chew carefully, so as not to suffocate yourself accidentally. Then get a mob together, agree on moral culpability for ethical monsters, and hang the suckers by their balls. Now there’s an idea whose time has come.” Immediate sarcasm. I’m very impressed by your advanced level. “And no, Mr. Harris does not participate in the discussion here. You need to be a mover and a shaker to talk directly to god. Bitching about “glaring contradictions” in Whoozy-Futzy’s texts in an online forum is fairly common.” Well I can’t understand why he wouldn’t want to spend time trading pretentious posturing with you. “Perhaps you will want also to address the contradictions in Hegel.” Oh you’ve read Hegel! My god how can a single mind be so advanced?! On Hegel I’m roughly with Schopenhauer if you must know. “Do you think anyone really knows what his “intention” is? Or if it’s different from his “motivation”? If so, welcome to the “Pompous Philosophical Wibbling Fuckwit Club”.” As is clear from my post I meant the intention of hypothetical perpetrators of the two kinds of violence. If you are going to bare your teeth to a stranger(cowardice is of course nowhere enabled as online) then at least read and comprehend on a fifth grade level to get started. Sorry if I made the mistake of seeking a discussion here.
If you are going to bare your teeth to a stranger(cowardice is of course nowhere enabled as online) then at least read and comprehend on a fifth grade level to get started. Sorry if I made the mistake of seeking a discussion here.
Sorry, Frosty. I should have simply said that your desired topic has been, how you say? done to death, here and elsewhere. Were you yourself capable of reading comprehensiion even at a fifth-grade level, and not so pompous as being certain that you had something new to offer on the subject (as indicated by your use of the hyperbolic “glaring” in your thread title), you would have discovered that fact, and embarked in a different direction.
We have exceeded our quota for philosophical wibblers. As Hegel might say, ‘Niemand vermisst dich’. Have a nice day.
Remember what Boltzmann had to say about Schopenhauer:
Boltzmann on Schopenhauer: “...a stupid, ignorant philosopher, scribbling nonsense and dispensing hollow verbiage that fundamentally and forever rots peoples brains.”
What exactly is a potential glaring contradiction?
If it is glaring, meaning obvious, how can it be potential?
Does not sound like you consider it to be potential at all John, but glaring and obvious.
In my uneducated view I would say that glaring and potential are contradictory in themselves, but what do I know.
Maybe it is potential until you convince all of us that it is indeed glaring?
What exactly is a potential glaring contradiction?
It’s the potential (thrill) of glaring at someone because they contradict you. John thinks everything is potential until he can tell himself he’s proven it to you. It’s a glaring contradiction because he’s certain he’s already proven it to himself.
Fuckwits, man. You can’t live with ‘em, and it’s useless these days to try to get them to drink hemlock to preserve their honor.
I’ll bet hemlock tastes like shit too. The shit I have eaten tastes really bad so I know.
Potential, because there may be a variable which differentiates the two cases. It’s not that difficult to see what I meant. As for the hemlock you mean like Boltzmann?.. anyway please link the threads where this contradiction is discussed if not too much trouble.
Sorry if I made the mistake of seeking a discussion here.
It will be easier for you to start a discussion if you use the quote function, helpfully placed right above the place you write in.
If you respond by clicking on the “Quote” button at the bottom of the post you are answering, it will automatically be quoted for you, although you may have to do some manual editing too.
So, use “quote” for people you are answering, and also for things you are quoting which you type in yourself, unless they are very short.
Second, break things down into short paragraphs. It’s hard to read one long screed.
Finally, use the “search” function to see if your topic has already been covered.
It’s unlikely that you will discover any new topic in Sam’s writing, but by searching you can figure out how to present it in a new light, so as to get a discussion going.
I’m going to guess that Chomsky’s position is not that intention is irrelevant, but rather that the intention to blow up a city is morally equivalent to the intention to kill the people who are probably going to be killed when you blow up the city.
thanks teuchter. I think your “intention to blow up a city” is an exaggerated description. If the goal was to blow up the city, it could have been done. In contrast to that to bomb a government building and kill or maim a little girl(inadvertently) who was in or near it is not the same. To drop the bomb on Hiroshima would entail the culpability more than to specifically target a building occupied by enemy soldiers say and unintentionally killing civilians.
Let’s cut to the chase then, and not draw things out unnecessarily by watering this hardy perennial:
I think the extreme position for this problem is that no military objective should be pursued with weapons more powerful than clubs and bone points, so as to be reasonably assured of not injuring non-combatants.
Woody Guthrie carved a sign into his guitar that said, “This machine kills fascists”
Ani DiFranco says, “Any tool is a weapon, if you hold it right”
.. anyway please link the threads where this contradiction is discussed if not too much trouble.
So glad you asked! (I love beating dead horses—they can’t fight back.)
“The Morality of Torturing Muslims”
I love beating dead horses—they can’t fight back.
I have discovered a heretofore-unknown admiration for you ASD. This evidence of your own self-knowledge is welcome news, indeed.
Why, thank you, Salt. I believe that’s the nicest thing you ever said to me!
I was clearly making a hypothetical point that there is a difference between targeting a building housing the enemy say and dropping a nuclear weapon to “destroy a city”. But your reaction is telling. Does anyone want to stick to the point I raised in the incongruity between the two arguments? or play word games to jockey for place in salt creeks venerated heirarchy.
I was clearly making a hypothetical point…
John, you cannot “clearly” make a “hypothetical” point. The only thing that reaches a point here is the top of your head.
Does anyone want to stick to the point
Since you come in head first, it’s essentially unavoidable.