[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/lit/ - Literature

View post   
File: 27 KB, 460x276, Sam-Harris-008.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6668552 No.6668552 [Reply] [Original]

What exactly did he mean when he said that there are instances when torture is acceptable, and that the West may have to nuke the middle east preemptively?

>> No.6668561

He meant that torture and genocide are good and things that we should do..

>> No.6668566

Exactly what he said. His opinion is that sometimes preemptive nuclear torture is acceptable.

>> No.6668592

Defend the chosen people by all means necessary, goy

>> No.6668595

>>6668552
Utilitarianism

>> No.6668600
File: 11 KB, 300x300, elliot-rodger1.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6668600

>>6668552
>What exactly did he mean when he said that there are instances when torture is acceptable

if Jews do it to their enemies it's ok

>> No.6668621

>>6668552
Exactly what it sounds like.

Madmen with a taste for blood will often drape their violent lust in shimmering curtains of "the greater good", attempting to obscure their insanity beneath layers of faux utilitarianism.

I'm not a deontologist myself, but people like Harris tempt me that way. Suggesting nuclear holocaust is pushing the utilitarian veneer to breaking point, and it annoys me that people like him claim to have the same views as me (and many others) on morality.

>> No.6668628

>>6668600
You're insane.
You've lost your mind.
Get help.
Just a bit sorry satan.

>> No.6668710

>What exactly did [Sam Harris] mean when he said...
He never knows.

>> No.6668723

>>6668552

How about you quote him directly, in context, instead of dishonestly making him look worse than he is?

>> No.6668737

>>6668552

>when he said that there are instances when torture is acceptable

He has said he can CONCEIVE of situations where torture could be ethically justified. I've never seen him claim that torture was acceptable in any specific instance.

>and that the West may have to nuke the middle east preemptively?

Why are you talking about "the middle east"? When he has talked about preemptive nuclear strikes he has only talked about Islamist regimes like Al-Qaeda or ISIS getting a hold of them. He has never suggested nuking "the middle east".

>> No.6668740

>>6668723
Having read the quote many times, knowing the context, he pretty much does explicitly say that sometimes torture and preemptive nuclear strikes on Islamic dictatorships are acceptable. He only looks bad because this is an edgy opinion that most people in the civilized countries he claims are superior to Iran have the moral standards he claims to defend while he himself lacks them.

>> No.6668760

>>6668737
So he doesn't think anyone should ever be tortured in a real situation?
The threats you named exist in the Middle-East pretty much exclusively (excepting ISIS cells in North Africa), if Al-Qaeda or ISIS invaded a Western country like France I doubt Harris would advocate nuking Paris. If Iraq or Pakistan (inb4 'that's South Asia,' it's all in Iran's sphere of influence) fell to them, though, he would be all for it. It isn't even racism, it's just trigger-happy geopolitical realism. Next-level neoliberalism, even.

>> No.6668767

>>6668740

Why is that lacking in moral standard?

To me, saying "torture and preemptive nuclear strikes are NEVER acceptable" might sound more morally righteous, and it's something a politician would say, but in truth it is a simplistic view that doesn't account for the complexity of the real world.

>> No.6668778

>>6668552
As someone who has read all of Sam's books and many of his blog posts, it's always easy to identify those who have never read much (if any) of his work. They're always the ones who dislike him the most, who read his name and are immediately angered, and who take quotes of his out of context, cherry-picking the ones that confirm their biases against him. He's not an unreasonable man. I have a hard time disagreeing with anything he says.

>> No.6668789

>>6668552
Sam harris looks more ashkenazi than the bank owner that lives in my street lol

>> No.6668804

>>6668621
>faux utilitarianism.
Come on dude. this isn't faux utilitarianism. This is exactly the kind of monstrous stuff that utilitarianism implies. Just look at Peter Singer. The dude says we all have an obligation to become vegan and yet it's morally acceptable (and in fact morally good!) to kill a living infant just because you want to. This is the endgame of utilitarianism, the strong say "oh it's for the greater good" and kill everything else in the world.

(except for the cows because their lives are very tragic and they don't deserve it)

>> No.6668809

>>6668804

>yet it's morally acceptable (and in fact morally good!) to kill a living infant just because you want to

What the hell are you on about

>> No.6668841

>>6668767
The intricacies of the real world are exactly why torture is an issue. Information gained through torture isn't generally considered to be trustworthy information. Even if a terrorist gives you the code to defuse the bomb, there's no reason to assume it's the correct code. It may make the bomb explode sooner. You can't really know without using it, really. There have been very few situations where torture has stopped imminent terrorist attacks, or at least no one I've had this argument with has cited more than one or two.
As for nuclear weapons, I don't think Amy country is justified in a preemptive strike, and this is because I think that it is necessary for the sake of our species' continued existence that every state follow this rule. Terrorist groups aren't states, and they can't be held to the same standard in terms of international law or ethics.

>> No.6668888

>>6668841

Torture being unreliable and not useful in most cases is not a reason to declare that it should never be used. If it were to be used obviously it would be the absolute last resort after there are no other options. As an aside, your example is a bit silly because they wouldn't ask the terrorist on how to defuse the bomb, they'd ask him where it is and try to figure it out on their own. A suitable example would be the terrorist giving them a false location, but even the chance that they'd give the right location is >0%

As for nuclear strikes, it's unclear to me what your position is in the case of ISIS having nuclear weapons.

>> No.6668900

>>6668778
I think he says some things that are reasonable. But from the material I've watched and read, he hasn't been able to meaningfully articulate how his particular idea of moral realism would work. His intentionalist ethics are also naive and his email exchange with Chomsky really proved that. On top of that, his rhetoric is full of bad analogies and pathos arguments, which doesn't necessarily invalidate some of his points but explains why people dislike him.

>> No.6669019

>>6668809
>le zygote has human rights

>> No.6669075

>>6668809
Peter Singer is very happy to say that infanticide is okay as long as it "fits the preference of the parents"

>> No.6669110

>>6669019

>if everyone else agrees that its' not wrong then its' not wrong

>> No.6669119

>>6668552
>MUH CONSCIOUSNESS

Ladies and gentlemen, a literal fucking hack

>> No.6669149

>>6668552
Leftists deserve to be tortured

>> No.6669458

>>6669075

I googled his statements on the matter and found these:

>In 1979 he wrote, “Human babies are not born self-aware, or capable of grasping that they exist over time. They are not persons”; therefore, “the life of a newborn is of less value than the life of a pig, a dog, or a chimpanzee.”

>“The liberal search for a morally crucial dividing line between the newborn baby and the fetus has failed to yield any event or stage of development that can bear the weight of separating those with a right to life from those who lack such a right.”

>Instead of upgrading the fetus to the status of a person, however, Peter Singer downgrades the newborn to the status of nonperson because newborns, like fetuses, are incapable “of seeing themselves as distinct entities, existing over time.”5 They are not rational, self-conscious beings with a desire to live.6 Since, in Singer’s criteria, personhood hinges on these factors, killing a newborn (or fetus) is not the same as killing a person

I don't see anything irrational in his statements.

>> No.6669497

>>6669458

holy fuck I really hate those scientific guys who want to isolate every fucking thing using biological principles

the problem in those statements is that they don't take in account the effect in the mind of others of killing a newborn. It's not that it's good or bad killing newborns, it's about the consequences of accepting it.

It's like when stannis kills his children by fire, he gets over a killing threshold after that

>> No.6669524

>>6669497

Clearly some people have no problem accepting it.

The question is are those people special somehow or could most/all become like they are by some process of learning.

>> No.6669578

>>6668804
>the strong say "oh it's for the greater good" and kill everything else in the world.
I wonder why Stirner never mentioned using the spooks to his advantage.

>> No.6671655

>>6668552
Who knows. His debates are good, but him being Jewish has some serious effects on his foreign policy views.

>> No.6671668

>>6668710
thread should have ended here and OP should have stopped spamming this poor retard's face.

>> No.6671676

>>6668552
'I am a faggot of titan proportions'

>> No.6671697

He thinks ideology is the same as any other virus

>> No.6671805

>>6668888
This last resort ticking time bomb scenario is ridiculous since it never happens in reality. Let's turn our back on being civilized because of some retarded hypothetical scenario that never happens. Yeah that seems worth it.

>> No.6671993

>>6668592
lol I dislike Harris as much as the next guy but that's not at all what he says