I read a really good webcomic here about the BP oil spill. In the comments section, it became something of an argument about the difficulty of fixing a problem in space compared to fixing a problem under a mile of water. I wrote this in reply, but when I was done decided it would be better as a post here. This is the first time I've written anything about my feelings on the BP Oil Spill.
*************************
The question isn't "Is it harder to fix a pipe underwater than in space?"
The question is, "If they can't fix a problem under a mile of water, why are they messing around down there?"
The BP oil spill shines a light on the ravenous arrogance of the human being, especially the modern human. We rush headlong into situations and environments about which we know nothing. The consequences don't matter. It doesn't matter that something might go wrong, and we have no idea what to do then. All that matters is, "I have a dream!" or "I can make a buck!"
If humanity were capable of learning from it's mistakes, this would be a wake-up call. But it won't be. It's not like this is the first time something horribly tragic has resulted from human greed or arrogance. From Manifest Destiny to the atomic bomb to the BP oil spill and beyond, humanity will always just rush headlong into things to see if it can.
Wednesday, June 30, 2010
Sunday, June 13, 2010
In the past year or so, I've been drawn into the "torture discussion" several times whilst online, and I've responded in a manner more impassioned and articulate than my usual fare each time. So I've decided to write an essay on the subject. Not right this second, but I'm gathering here some of my better posts on the subject.
-------------------------------------------
"If nothing we do matters, all that matters is what we do."
I think this relates a lot to Hindu belief that one must disregard the fruits of one's actions, and focus on the actions itself. The result that you want, or that you plan for, isn't guaranteed. Often the results you get are entirely opposite of what you wanted. Angel got "After the Fall" instead of the kamikaze last stand he wanted. So people like Wes in Season 3 or Angel in Season 5, and other big picture thinkers, are sullying their souls, doing things they don't want to do...for no reason at all.
Since there is no big picture, the argument goes, one should only act in accordance to one's personal ethical code regardless of the situation or the possible outcome.
--------------------------------------------
Well, your "Lost" example kind of lends itself to the other side of the argument. Regardless of whether Sawyer took Shannon's medicine or simply used the situation to his advantage, the solution was Sun finding the base plant behind the medicine. If Jack hadn't been wasting his time torturing Sawyer his medical training might have kicked in and he could have come to the same conclusion as Sun. Whether or not torture would have worked, or is moral, or whatever, there was a different, much better, solution.
That is usually the case, I believe.
But, to face your hypothetical head on: no torture ever. There will either be a different, much better, solution than torture or one will just have to live with the consequences. There's no guarantee that torturing someone will prevent the tragedy, or that being tortured is not part of the prisoner's plan to keep you occupied while the tragedy gets closer to happening, etc. Torture is not a magical solution that always works. Quite the opposite, in fact. Setting aside all moral arguments, using torture just seems illogical.
Bringing back the moral argument: the prisoner might also give up the information if I kill his child, rape his wife and mother, or drop a nuclear bomb on Australia, but I'm not going to try any of those things in order to achieve my goal.
+=+=
I do believe that in most situations there is a different, much better solution. But, in the hypothetical situation where there is none at all, I would not torture him, and I would live with the consequences. My reasoning in bringing up murder, rape, or genocide was to illustrate that there are certain things that are considered a 'no-brainer' in terms of what you should not do in order to achieve one's goal. For me, torture is another.
+=+=
Yes. But, you seem to believe that my answer of "I won't torture anybody" means, "I will do nothing, try nothing." That is simply not true. You also seem to believe that if I torture someone, I'll definitely be able to get what I want. This, also, is simply not true.
Lets say I did decide to torture this guy (and, again, I'm setting this in the real world). I torture him, falling victim to the fallacy that doing violence to prevent violence somehow makes sense - there's no guarantee that it will accomplish anything. Maybe the prisoner holds out just long enough. Maybe there's no way to stop the bomb. Maybe the guy has no idea how to stop it. Regardless, I've just tortured somebody and a million people are still dead (in large part because I've just wasted all their time pointlessly torturing someone).
Instead, I could have disregarded the guy entirely and tried to figure out another solution. Maybe I could save the million. Maybe not. At the very least I could let people in the city know that there's a bomb about to explode. And if ten, or five, or even one person gets to safety because of me that would be better than any other action I could have taken. I would have saved one person, and destroyed no one.
--------------------------------------
Those advocating torture always seem to take a couple things as given: 1. that torture absolutely will succeed (and is usually the only solution to a problem), and 2. that not using torture is tantamount to admitting defeat, to doing nothing (and usually results in the 'destruction of civilization').
Take this scenario: someone has planted a nuke in a city. You have him in custody, but he won't reveal the location of the bomb. The bomb will detonate in an hour (or ten, it doesn't really matter).
Those advocating torture insist that the suspect must be tortured. The assumption is that torture will result in the suspect giving up the location of the bomb. This is, as I've said, taken as a given. But it's not. The outcome of a situation is never a given (which is why "The Greater Good" is such a pernicious and dangerous thing. There is no greater good, there is only your individual actions and an uncertain future). And anyone who has the conviction to blow up a city can probably stand up to torture.
To those who would refuse to torture the suspect, those advocating torture usually respond with something like, "So you would let all those people die to keep your hands clean!?" And the answer is...no. I would do many other things, trying to save as many lives as I could - all of them, if possible. At the very least, I would announce to the people of the city that there was a bomb about to explode and that they should probably get out of town. There are always other options.
Then there's the ever popular rationalization that, "Sure, torture is bad, but in this situation you should try to save lives by any means necessary." Buuuut...people who say that never really mean it. Staying with my terrorist/nuke scenario, and accepting for the moment that we should use Any. Means. Necessary...why not bribery? I mean, if we're considering all the options...why not a million dollars? Or a roll in the hay? Or the state of Utah? I guarantee that these tactics will have a far higher success rate. But, of course, that is unacceptable. There are lines that just cannot be crossed.
-------------------------------------
Hopefully sometimes soon I'll synthesize these comments, as well as some ideas about the morality behind such arguments, into something worth reading.
-------------------------------------------
"If nothing we do matters, all that matters is what we do."
I think this relates a lot to Hindu belief that one must disregard the fruits of one's actions, and focus on the actions itself. The result that you want, or that you plan for, isn't guaranteed. Often the results you get are entirely opposite of what you wanted. Angel got "After the Fall" instead of the kamikaze last stand he wanted. So people like Wes in Season 3 or Angel in Season 5, and other big picture thinkers, are sullying their souls, doing things they don't want to do...for no reason at all.
Since there is no big picture, the argument goes, one should only act in accordance to one's personal ethical code regardless of the situation or the possible outcome.
--------------------------------------------
Well, your "Lost" example kind of lends itself to the other side of the argument. Regardless of whether Sawyer took Shannon's medicine or simply used the situation to his advantage, the solution was Sun finding the base plant behind the medicine. If Jack hadn't been wasting his time torturing Sawyer his medical training might have kicked in and he could have come to the same conclusion as Sun. Whether or not torture would have worked, or is moral, or whatever, there was a different, much better, solution.
That is usually the case, I believe.
But, to face your hypothetical head on: no torture ever. There will either be a different, much better, solution than torture or one will just have to live with the consequences. There's no guarantee that torturing someone will prevent the tragedy, or that being tortured is not part of the prisoner's plan to keep you occupied while the tragedy gets closer to happening, etc. Torture is not a magical solution that always works. Quite the opposite, in fact. Setting aside all moral arguments, using torture just seems illogical.
Bringing back the moral argument: the prisoner might also give up the information if I kill his child, rape his wife and mother, or drop a nuclear bomb on Australia, but I'm not going to try any of those things in order to achieve my goal.
+=+=
I do believe that in most situations there is a different, much better solution. But, in the hypothetical situation where there is none at all, I would not torture him, and I would live with the consequences. My reasoning in bringing up murder, rape, or genocide was to illustrate that there are certain things that are considered a 'no-brainer' in terms of what you should not do in order to achieve one's goal. For me, torture is another.
+=+=
Yes. But, you seem to believe that my answer of "I won't torture anybody" means, "I will do nothing, try nothing." That is simply not true. You also seem to believe that if I torture someone, I'll definitely be able to get what I want. This, also, is simply not true.
Lets say I did decide to torture this guy (and, again, I'm setting this in the real world). I torture him, falling victim to the fallacy that doing violence to prevent violence somehow makes sense - there's no guarantee that it will accomplish anything. Maybe the prisoner holds out just long enough. Maybe there's no way to stop the bomb. Maybe the guy has no idea how to stop it. Regardless, I've just tortured somebody and a million people are still dead (in large part because I've just wasted all their time pointlessly torturing someone).
Instead, I could have disregarded the guy entirely and tried to figure out another solution. Maybe I could save the million. Maybe not. At the very least I could let people in the city know that there's a bomb about to explode. And if ten, or five, or even one person gets to safety because of me that would be better than any other action I could have taken. I would have saved one person, and destroyed no one.
--------------------------------------
Those advocating torture always seem to take a couple things as given: 1. that torture absolutely will succeed (and is usually the only solution to a problem), and 2. that not using torture is tantamount to admitting defeat, to doing nothing (and usually results in the 'destruction of civilization').
Take this scenario: someone has planted a nuke in a city. You have him in custody, but he won't reveal the location of the bomb. The bomb will detonate in an hour (or ten, it doesn't really matter).
Those advocating torture insist that the suspect must be tortured. The assumption is that torture will result in the suspect giving up the location of the bomb. This is, as I've said, taken as a given. But it's not. The outcome of a situation is never a given (which is why "The Greater Good" is such a pernicious and dangerous thing. There is no greater good, there is only your individual actions and an uncertain future). And anyone who has the conviction to blow up a city can probably stand up to torture.
To those who would refuse to torture the suspect, those advocating torture usually respond with something like, "So you would let all those people die to keep your hands clean!?" And the answer is...no. I would do many other things, trying to save as many lives as I could - all of them, if possible. At the very least, I would announce to the people of the city that there was a bomb about to explode and that they should probably get out of town. There are always other options.
Then there's the ever popular rationalization that, "Sure, torture is bad, but in this situation you should try to save lives by any means necessary." Buuuut...people who say that never really mean it. Staying with my terrorist/nuke scenario, and accepting for the moment that we should use Any. Means. Necessary...why not bribery? I mean, if we're considering all the options...why not a million dollars? Or a roll in the hay? Or the state of Utah? I guarantee that these tactics will have a far higher success rate. But, of course, that is unacceptable. There are lines that just cannot be crossed.
-------------------------------------
Hopefully sometimes soon I'll synthesize these comments, as well as some ideas about the morality behind such arguments, into something worth reading.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)