[MD] atomic bomb and torture

[amir izadi]

Message: 2
Date: Tue, 07 Mar 2006 16:33:10 -0500
From: "Platt Holden" <pholden at davtv.com>
Subject: Re: [MD] Atomic Bomb
To: moq_discuss at moqtalk.org
Message-ID: <440DB5C6.15805.16DD83F0 at localhost>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII

[amirman}

> So then in your estimate anything that can shorten a
> war is valuable? Killing innocent babies is ok. How
> about a bioterrorist attack? I guess we have to
judge
> the utility of our actions is that it? 

[platt]
You got it. In war, utility of action is everything. 

> So your saying as long as more lives are saved in
the
> long run, our actions are justifiable. That's a
> simplistic utilitarian philosophy. It doesn't take
> into account "how" you live, but "that" you live. By
> that token torture would be alright too. Correct? 

To save lives, you bet.

> If you don't seem to distinguish between soldiers
and
> civilians, why should the terrorists?

In war against terrorists there is no distinguishing
between soldiers 
and civilians because terrorists disguise themselves
as civilians. In a 
general war between nations, all citizens are at risk.
  

Now a question for you. Are you willing to fight
tyranny?

Platt

[amirman]

Though I read Lila in 1992, I only joined this forum a
week ago to see what was being discussed. My first
encounter happened to be with a guy by the name of
Platt who's arguing in favour of dropping A-bombs,
killing babies, engaging in bio-terrorism and
torturing people if it means giving his side an
advantage in a war. 

What Platt is doing is subordinating the social to the
biological by maintaining absolute biological survival
as the highest goal in any conflict. He is willing to
sacrifice the very social fabric of society which are
often governed by a sense of fairness, chivalry,
honour, morals etc. (even in the face of conflict) for
absolute biological survival.

It doesn't appear that there is any limit to how far
he'll go to achieve this "utilitarian" objective of
biological survival at any cost. Using chemical
weapons, spreading plagues, torture, genocide? All
seems to be fair game as long as he, Platt, says: "To
save lives, you bet".

Note how for him the quality of life saved doesn't
seem to matter. THAT he lives (biological) is more
important than HOW he lives (social). 

To answer his question: "Now a question for you. Are
you willing to fight tyranny?"

All I can say is "yes". But first I'll start with
myself to clarify my own philosophy, and make sure
IT'S not tyrannical.  Anyone who in 2006 can
rationally justify for themselves torture in the name
of survival, needs to seriously reexamine their own
philosophy to make sure it's not some rehashed fascist
philosophy of old. Whether it's coming from the mouths
of Ayatullahs or Nazis or Zionists or Pol Pots or the
Neo-cons in the current US administration, the
rationalization is always the same: we torture people
and kill civilians to save lives.

Maybe I'll give some of the other discussions a read.
But I'm signing off on this one.

Good night and good luck,
amirman

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com