The Bad Argument for Torture -- Again!!

What IS the "bad argument for torture"?

Good question -- glad you asked.

You all already know what it is. It's the only argument torture advocates [TA's] use to make their case, and it's so obviously "bad" [a fallacy, in philosophy-speak] that I'm amazed TA's still use it. [See one of my earlier blogs.]

Here it is, in case you need a refresher:

If you knew for sure [and this is the key point] that you could extract crucial information from a particular person that would save lives, prevent a catastrophe, end genocide, etc, etc, etc. by torturing this person, wouldn't you gladly do it?

Well, what's wrong with this argument, you say?

Another good question -- glad you asked.

What's wrong with it is that it's perfect!!!!

What?

That's right....IT'S PERFECT!

How can this be, you wonder?

....glad you asked!

Here it is schematized as logicians are wont to do:

P: Person X has information that would prevent event E from happening.
P: Person can be persuaded to give up this information only by means of torture.
P: It is highly desirable to prevent E from happening.
C: Therefore Person X should be tortured.

PERFECT!

And by "perfect" I mean that given the premises, the conclusion must follow with absolute certainty -- and it does!!

That's precisely the problem! NO moral argument is capable of doing this. If it were, then there would be no moral disputes whatsoever. And the last time I checked....this is not the case. All moral arguments allege that something is good or right or obligatory based on more general moral principles -- which are almost always in dispute. But more important, there is nothing in a moral argument that can assert factual certainty....because there is no such thing as factual certainty -- about anything -- factual claims are only more or less probable....never certain!!

To put it in philosophy-speak, this argument is actually inductive [leading to a conclusion that is more or less probable] in nature, but it pretends to be deductive [leading to a conclusion that is absolutely certain].

The second premise about is a factual claim -- and therefore only more or less probable. But it is used as if it were logically certain, like "all dogs are animals."

Again in philosophy-speak, THE ARGUMENT IS CIRCULAR! IT BEGS THE QUESTION! IT'S FALLACIOUS!

So, TA's now that you are enlightened, will you stop being so STUPID! [See one of my earlier blogs on "stupidity"!] If this is your only argument, and it is, then there is NO reason to torture whatsoever!