Comments on: The Spectre of Pacifism

By: m65

m65 — Mon, 08 Mar 2010 00:42:05 +0000

good read thanks for the share. i really like the way the article is written and also the design of the website

By: Moral attacks in politics | One Fine Jay

Moral attacks in politics | One Fine Jay — Mon, 25 Jan 2010 02:02:08 +0000

[...] actions using good intentions (virtue ethics) and consequentialism. A fine example can be seen in Julian Sanchez’s The Spectre of Pacifism: The conceptual mistake is to suppose that we’re faced with a binary choice between a pure [...]

By: Anderson

Anderson — Sat, 09 Jan 2010 06:46:16 +0000

- As usual with Julian’s posts on torture, I find it hard to extract a clear argument or statement of position from his convoluted writing. I THINK he’s saying that he can imagine real-world cases in which torture would be justified, but I’m not sure.

- This “torture fan,” “torture apologist” stuff is really tedious. What exactly are these terms supposed to mean? If I am not willing to absolutely rule out the use of torture, if I believe a ticking time bomb situation may arise in which torture is justified, does that make me a “torture fan?”

- If “torture fans” do not seem interested in any kind of serious CBA, neither do their opponents. I don’t know how many times I’ve heard torture opponents give a litany of possible social and political costs of torture without making any effort to quantify these costs and weigh them against possible benefits.

- To Dan @ 22, no, the ticking time bomb case does not require certainty for torture to be justified. There is no certainty, of course.

By: Quick observations about the torture debate « The United States of Jamerica

Quick observations about the torture debate « The United States of Jamerica — Thu, 07 Jan 2010 16:21:01 +0000

[...] intelligence policy, national security, terrorism, torture by Jamelle Julian Sanchez comments on the running “conversation” at The Corner over the parallels between anti-torture [...]

By: The Stupid Bomb « Just Above Sunset

The Stupid Bomb « Just Above Sunset — Thu, 07 Jan 2010 08:12:12 +0000

[...] That waterboarding idea – from Dick Cheney and his daughter and most everyone on Fox News, and seeming like a good idea to fifty-eight percent of Americans, according to the Rasmussen polling – was interesting. Julian Sanchez examines the lively debate on that at the Corner, the blog at the National Review, and suggests the stupidity is bubbling up: [...]

By: dan

dan — Thu, 07 Jan 2010 03:10:54 +0000

The basic problem I have with the whole ‘bomb in Manhattan’ problem is the total certainty it assumes. In fact, you never really know there is a bomb, you never really know what city it is in, you never know the person you are punching in the face knows damn all about this supposed bomb, and you never know when to stop punching because this time he told you the truth.

By: Readables « this is probably an interesting blog (but it might not be…)

Wed, 06 Jan 2010 13:54:33 +0000

[...] Julian Sanchez dissects the debate over torture. [...]

By: Mike Farmer

Mike Farmer — Wed, 06 Jan 2010 12:22:53 +0000

Clarification — I would kill one to save many, IF the one was a clear and imminent danger to the lives of many — I wouldn’t sacrifice one like a goat on the outside chance my delusion is a request from God.

By: Mike Farmer

Mike Farmer — Wed, 06 Jan 2010 12:14:05 +0000

But, what I’m saying, Sam, is that the slippery slope of the greater good argument puts rights in danger– out of context, it’s difficult to make these types of argument. Within the context of basic rights, though, to say we should violate the rights of some for the greater good, which is the current progressive position, is equivalent to the thumb-screw argument to save those people in Manhattan from the ticking bomb.

I would kill one person to save many, then face the consequences, but to institutionalize the subjugation of law abiding individuals to the greater good is immoral, just as torture of individuals for the greater good is immoral.

Judging current morality, I don’t think all those who oppose torture agree with the above argument, and this seems odd to me.

By: sam

sam — Wed, 06 Jan 2010 11:19:52 +0000

“the greater good argument is bogus when it comes to justification for murder or the violation of rights”

But, as Julian points out, if the consequences are extreme enough, where the deaths of millions could be saved by the sacrifice of one, most of us would agree to the sacrifice. But saying that an act that normally would revulse us is sanctioned by necessity and is thereby beyond normal moral evaluation is false.

Aeschylus wrote of the moral issues here in Agamemnon. Agamemnon is condemned not for the sacrifice of Iphigenia, which he is compelled to do by God, but for his attitude towards the killing. Martha Nussbaum put it this way:

“[T]he central theme in Chorus’s blame of Agamemnon [is that] he adopted an inappropriate attitude towards his conflict, killing a human child with no more agony, no more revulsion of feeling, than if she had…been an animal of a different species.” The Fragility of Goodness: Luck and ethics in Greek tragedy and philosophy, p.33.

Agamemnon killed his daughter without remorse, without saying, “Though I do this under God’s necessity, I do so with aching heart.” Most of us are morally lucky in that we never have to confront these awful choices. But those who do cannot escape moral evaluation by claiming refuge in necessity.