I'm not saying there are no bad traits, I'm saying there are no people/groups/nations that are all-bad and others that are all-good. Someone being racist doesn't mean they are evil, just like someone not being racist doesn't mean they are holy. "Good guys" and "bad guys" implies moral absolutes.
Absolutes or otherwise, it's hard to conceive of torture as a 'good' thing, ever. And no, I don't believe in the mythical situation where torture reveals the disarm code for a ticking time bomb. Even if it could, there are more effective means of interrogation.
The mythical ticking timebomb situation is a nice twist on the philosophy discussion around the observer and runaway train.
From memory it goes something like this:
You're in a cabin with the track-switching equipment beside a railway. You can see in the distance a group of 5 people walking along the track. In the other direction you can see an out of control train. You can switch the tracks so the train will be diverted onto another track, avoiding the people and averting a catastrophe.
Most people switch the track.
But now you introduce a single person on the alternative track. If you do nothing 5 people will die. But if you switch tracks one person will die.
People find this a bit harder to think a out, and are hesitant to say that they'd switch the track.
It seems that if the single person is a TERRORIST that many people would switch the track. They might even switch the track if the single person was a taxi driver that someone else had said was a TERRORIST. They might even switch the track if the single person was an innocent relative of a supposed TERRORIST.
I think "ticking time bomb" analogies break down here, because the US made a deliberate policy decision at the highest levels to torture.
To me, the analogy is more like this:
You are mayor of a town. There might be a ticking timebomb in a school somewhere in your town. Watches tell the time and are similar to what is used in timebombs.
Should you (a) torture everyone who looks at a watch, because they might know about a timebomb that might exist, or (b) NOT TORTURE PEOPLE.
To me there is zero justification for deciding (a) in that scenario.
I would change the track, and do everything within my power to take the person's place in that track, so that I may give up my life so that one person may live.
In the same way, the Father made an incalculable cost in giving up his only begotten son, so that no man shall suffer the second death, but experience eternal life.
I realised that my morals weren't as quite a strong as I thought they were when I read of the Frankfurt Torture Case - where the police threatened to torture a kidnapper (without any intention of doing anything) in order to get the location of the kidnapped child, who they thought was still alive.
Sometimes. Sometimes there actually isn't a more effective means of interrogation (for ex., when you're pressed for time). What do you do in these rare situations, like in the incident about the kidnapped girl below? If it comes down to it, you do resort to torture, as a very, very last option, and then you do the right thing: you deal with it, assume full responsibility for the act, and submit yourself to the justice system so they can decide wether the torture was warranted.
If it was my kid, I would have done it, and then comply 100% when the law questioned me about it.
Do you think that those you think of as "good guys" never tortured anyone? Because they probably did. That makes everyone bad guys, so the distinction of "good guys" and "bad guys" is meaningless.
> the distinction of "good guys" and "bad guys" is meaningless
I agree that if you assume 'good guy' is an absolute, and any deviation from that one true path is 'bad guy', then everyone is a 'bad guy'. Then the terms becomes meaningless. But I consider these relative terms. For all its faults, the US is still closer to the 'good guy' than 'bad guy' side of the spectrum in most areas. North Korea is closer to the 'bad guy' than the 'good guy' side.
I'm more inclined to think of a country like Sweden or Norway as the good guys. I agree about North Korea, but torture, indefinite detention without a trial, Guantanamo, etc are not traits of someone I'd consider a good guy.
> I'm saying there are no people/groups/nations that are all-bad and others that are all-good.
Do you think the person you were replying to would disagree with this? (I agree with it.) It seems more likely to me that they just weren't using the words "good guys" and "bad guys" in the ways you interpreted them.
I think he was using the words "good guys" and "bad guys" as synonyms to "us" and "them" respectively, I'm just pointing out that they would probably be reversed if he were on the other side.
