Ah, I see what the problem is here. See, I was approaching this discussion as a conversation between two adults on equal footing, not myself as a student and you as my teacher.
Your presume too much. And your definition of "consistent" does violence to the term.
Let’s take, for instance, your following:
***
Assumption A: Torture is bad. Assumption B: Torture consists of X, Y, and Z. Conclusion C: X, Y, and Z are bad. (B & A Modus Tolens)
The above is a valid argument. to argue that Torture is ok (not bad) given the above assumptions would be contradictory and thus inconsistant. However by adjusting or adding an assumption it is possible to write a consistant argument in favor of "Its ok when we do it, but not when they do it". For instance, if we were to change Assumption A: to "Torture without reason is bad" the whole argument takes on a new dimension.
***
The problem with the above is that the argument prior to 911 was NOT “torture without reason is bad.” It was simply “torture is bad.” International laws against torture do not forbid “torture without reason.” They forbid torture. Period. And as someone old enough to remember how discussions on this issue were conducted prior to the Bush administration, I can tell you that was how any discussion of torture was framed. When Alexander Solzhenitsyn’s book, THE GULAG ARCHIPELAGO was published here in the US, the reaction to its chapter on Soviet torture was not to ask whether or not the Soviets had a good reason for imposing sleep deprivation, sexual humiliation, and stress positions on prisoners. It was universal revulsion on both the right and the left. When the revelations about Pinochet’s torture of prisoners came out, I don’t recall any serious commentator, right or left, saying “but he needs to torture prisoners because…” The wrongness of torturing people – even Communists – was taken as an absolute.
What you’re doing here is attempting to make an argument “consistent” by altering it after the fact. It’s like the person who says resolutely “stealing is wrong” but, after they’re caught at it, insists “What I meant was that stealing is SOMETIMES wrong!” The thief can insist all he wants, but the fact remains that his stated argument before was not “stealing is SOMETIMES wrong” but “stealing is wrong.”
Re: Reccomended Reading...
Your presume too much. And your definition of "consistent" does violence to the term.
Let’s take, for instance, your following:
***
Assumption A: Torture is bad.
Assumption B: Torture consists of X, Y, and Z.
Conclusion C: X, Y, and Z are bad. (B & A Modus Tolens)
The above is a valid argument. to argue that Torture is ok (not bad) given the above assumptions would be contradictory and thus inconsistant. However by adjusting or adding an assumption it is possible to write a consistant argument in favor of "Its ok when we do it, but not when they do it". For instance, if we were to change Assumption A: to "Torture without reason is bad" the whole argument takes on a new dimension.
***
The problem with the above is that the argument prior to 911 was NOT “torture without reason is bad.” It was simply “torture is bad.” International laws against torture do not forbid “torture without reason.” They forbid torture. Period. And as someone old enough to remember how discussions on this issue were conducted prior to the Bush administration, I can tell you that was how any discussion of torture was framed. When Alexander Solzhenitsyn’s book, THE GULAG ARCHIPELAGO was published here in the US, the reaction to its chapter on Soviet torture was not to ask whether or not the Soviets had a good reason for imposing sleep deprivation, sexual humiliation, and stress positions on prisoners. It was universal revulsion on both the right and the left. When the revelations about Pinochet’s torture of prisoners came out, I don’t recall any serious commentator, right or left, saying “but he needs to torture prisoners because…” The wrongness of torturing people – even Communists – was taken as an absolute.
What you’re doing here is attempting to make an argument “consistent” by altering it after the fact. It’s like the person who says resolutely “stealing is wrong” but, after they’re caught at it, insists “What I meant was that stealing is SOMETIMES wrong!” The thief can insist all he wants, but the fact remains that his stated argument before was not “stealing is SOMETIMES wrong” but “stealing is wrong.”