Bringing up "natural law" arguments doesn't tell me what you think you're proving with your own hypothesis and its "logical" conclusion.

Sorry I assumed more of a background in philosophy than you have, obviously. Let me spell it out for you: I think I am maing a reductio ad absurdum argument that debunks deontological ethics.

My problem isn't your assuming. It's your inconsistently assuming, then re-assuming until your scenario resembles a Salvador Dali film sequence.

You're making a logical mistake. You think that continually adjusting my scenario to meet objections is a sign of illegitimate ad hoc argumentation. But that misunderstands the logic of the reductio. Deontology argues for rules that hold always and everywhere -- in other words universal normative propositions. But is is a simple truth of logic that a universal statement is disproved by even a single counterinstance. Likewise a universal normative statement is disproved by even a single logically possible counterinstance. Thus I can adjust my scenario 50,000,000 times and if at the end it is still logically possible and you have no objections to it then I win. This is why raising all these pragmatic objections amounts to just not gettin' it.

Go back to my prior response, re-read what I said at the bottom, then tell me why you're not making an argument that the CIA can torture you on the basis of what they think they heard in a single phone call.

Yeah. I was too lazy too spell it out. Let me help you. Imagine instead that they've been surveilling this guy for the last 10 years and they caught him performing a terrorist act on videotape just last week. They've intercepted 10,000 of his phone calls, letters, and emails in which he participated in plans to commit terrorist acts, etc. etc. etc.

Your arguments are really weak, Liberal Artist. You ought to tone down the attitude. You're like the little dog barking at the big dog.

Well you were right about one thing: arguing with The Fool made you a fool.

Torture, if it occurs, needs at least to compulsorily be investigated. And our legal system has the flexibility to decide if there were mitigating circumstances. The problem at hand is not with the laws and any "absolute prohibition" and "ticking time bombs" and other such nonsense. The problem is that we need to know the full truth about the Bush-instituted policy of torture; and subsequent to that, the prosecutions that are justified.

Before you start insulting people you might want to make sure that you're not arguing for the same thing they have already argued for. I have repeatedly said that my TTB scenario does not apply to Bush and that Bush should be convicted for a number of war crimes, #1 being a million dead Iraqis, but also certainly for the torture he conducted.

"How do they know someone is withholding information? Does this assumption hold 100% of the time."

Because I stipulated it in my hypothetical scenario. It holds 100% of the time in my scenario, yes.

my previous post was @amnesiac

How does the ticking time bomb scenario hold up if the Feds are torturing the wrong guy?

Not very wwll. But in the hypothetical scenario, they know* they have the right guy.

*In the oridnary sense of "know" where it doesn't mean 100% metaphysical certainty but that they have met some high standard like beyond a reasonable doubt. You can probably imagine a scenario for yourself if you try hard enough.

Would you object to letting the government waterboard you and put you in a coffin full of bed bugs, The Fool? It is a hypothetical that could really happen, and doesn't involve a ticking bomb or any other such nonsense...You know you are innocent

That's an easy one. Why yes I would object.

I'm innocent and its not even a ticking time bomb situation where they know I have the info they need and I'm withholding it?

Uh, is this a trick question? Hell yeah I would object!

What does your belief about a hypothetical justified instance of torture tell us about how we should conduct our affairs in the real world? Anything more meaningful than for instance the belief of a hypothetical justified instance of theft? If not, then why are you bothering harping on about this.

As I said in the first few lines of my first post on tihs thread, I have two motivations:

1) I think the philosphical point is an important one, and

2) Strategically, I think its counterproductive to argue against torture by making strident and counterintuitive arguments that leave our side branded as extreme pacifists whose views can be ignored.