More on the Torture Debate

sigh......how oh how can people be enticed to THINK!!

There are TWO issues:

Here's one --

Although I've mentioned this elsewhere in this blog [http://www.bobpielke.com/2008/12/bad-argument-for-torture-again.html], the typical "pro-torture" [PT] argument is fatally flawed in that it is invariably presented as a DEDUCTIVE argument when in reality the only possible "PT" argument is INDUCTIVE!

• Given that the only way to prevent innocent lives being lost in a terrorist attack is to torture a terrorist who can reveal the information sufficient to prevent the attack, then torture is justified.
• Well, "duh"!!!!
• The premise(s) already contains the conclusion!
• It's "circular" -- as are all deductive arguments!!
• That's why deductive arguments always have a conclusion that is certain!

The issue is whether ANY of the claims implicit in the premise can be established!

• Why is this only way?
• How can we know if the terrorist knows the information?
• These questions require EVIDENCE -- hence INDUCTIVE reasoning.
• BUT -- we can NEVER know if we have ALL the evidence!
• Hence, inductive reasoning can NEVER produce a conclusion with certainty.
• ALL evidentiary claims are MORE OR LESS PROBABLE -- ONLY

The other issue is one of morality --

It's the question as to whether this issue is deontological or teleological!

1. Teleological arguments always maintain that the amount of desirable consequences is how we should determine what's right and wrong. [How much good over evil is likely to be produced.]

2. Deontological arguments always maintain that right and wrong are determined by the intrinsic qualities of the act itself -- regardless of the consequences.

Take note -- much of the debate over torture is really a debate over which form of moral reasoning applies!

And...there is NO WAY TO ANSWER THIS DILEMMA!!

Why?

Good question...glad you asked!

It's because when you argue for one of these approaches you MUST MAKE A MORAL ARGUMENT. [We should reason as teleologists!]

Hahahha....but you can't DO this!! You are USING one of the two forms of reasoning -- to justify the form of reasoning you are using!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

That's CIRCULAR REASONING!!!!