Comments on: Distorted moral judgments

By: Alex White

Alex White — Sun, 22 May 2005 23:21:44 +0000

Dogwhistle?

I mused to a friend on Saturday that the paper was written for American consumption, where they are already coming up with legal justifications for abrogating the Geneva Convention, ignoring human rights and getting around domestic laws against torture.

By: Robert

Robert — Sun, 22 May 2005 14:48:09 +0000

Certainly not, Mark. But this appears to be a shallow, illogical argument that has been made for (1) argument’s sake, or (2) notoriety. I’m not sure that either is a worthwhile excuse for its publication.

By: mark

mark — Sun, 22 May 2005 14:44:08 +0000

It’s ridiculous that someone who supports torture be considered trustworthy enough to help judge the rights of asylum seekers. I think he should step down.

However, academics shouldn’t be asked to give up their jobs simply because they write “a challenging paper”. Otherwise we’d be doing to right-wing academics what the loony Right in the USA are trying to do to left-wing academics.

By: Alex White

Alex White — Sun, 22 May 2005 00:38:57 +0000

Actually, as a means of terror and domination over an oppressed population, torture is remarkably successful. Torture is more often used by dictators and totalitarian governments to control a subjected people than it is as an information gathering tool.

By: Makr

Makr — Sat, 21 May 2005 12:14:31 +0000

Well, I’d say if you did it right and didn’t let anyone know the torturings were going on, it would work and be consistent with at least some versions of utilitarianism. The point is, of course, that it is wrong, despite being self-consistent.

As for him standing down, I don’t know why that would be necessary. He’s written a challenging paper. So what?

By: anna

anna — Fri, 20 May 2005 06:59:04 +0000

Mark – Torture is not only morally and legally wrong, but studies have shown that it DOES NOT WORK. It is a violent and humiliating process for producing confessions – often false confessions by people who simply do not have the information that is being demanded of them.

Professor Bagaric has also got his utilitarian maths wrong – in countries where torture has been legitimised, it is not just used in the “one life to save thousands” situations, but becomes a routine method of punishment without trial. Bagaric also fails to count the cost on a society’s general wellbeing when people have to live under the constant fear that they can be dragged into an interrogation room and tortured at any time.

While he continues to profess such disregard for basic human rights and the rule of law, I’d support the calls for Professor Bagaric to stand down from his positions at Deakin University and on the Refugee Review Tribunal.

By: Mark

Mark — Fri, 20 May 2005 04:20:19 +0000

The scary thing, from my point of view, is that it kinda makes sense. The logic is no different from that which Peter Singer uses to extend moral consideration to animals – Bagaric and Clarke just take it in the opposite direction. Instead of extending the circle of consideration, they’re contracting it on the basis of who can be best used as a means to an end. The majority will benefit from all of this. Society must be defended.

By: Mark Bahnisch

Mark Bahnisch — Thu, 19 May 2005 13:34:12 +0000

Belated trackback.

By: Le Driver

Le Driver — Thu, 19 May 2005 08:02:56 +0000

I remember that the use of torture was one of the reasons used to justify the invasion of Iraq. Saddam authorised the use of ‘hot spoons’ to sear the skin. ‘How barbaric!’ they said.

What a convoluted world we live in.

By: Giovanni L. Torre

Giovanni L. Torre — Thu, 19 May 2005 05:36:17 +0000

I would back him to the hilt, but I don’t think he goes far enough.

I propose the introduction of a torture lottery. We can draw birthdates out of a barrel every week and torture the winners until they tell us everything they know about everything.

After a couple of years of this people would go out of their way to know as little as possible about anything.

Better safe than sorry.