...and the west lectures Russia and China!

[gustavm]

The sub human overseeing g it all sits in the Oval Office, (or Downing Street, the Kremlin, the Great Hall of the People).

At least the conclusion seemed to be that torture is not effective in soliciting information (though I though this had already been well established, as its pretty obvious really - someone under torture is liable to say anything the inquisitors want just to make it stop).

Undoubteably evil (and good) exists in individuals of every nation of the World. But perhaps two factors control the extent to which evil can prosper:

(i)How high the stakes are perceived to be at any moment in time - what can be sold to the population, or what is deemed "acceptable" or "a necessary expedient" to individuals within the security services or armed forces.

(ii)But more crucially - the political system in place in those countries, which in the case of Russia (& China) permits atrocities to be carried out on a far greater scale with minimal negative impact on the leadership.

I guess in the aftermath of 9/11, (i) was very significant in the USA. But in terms of (ii) the constraints on Russia and China are far far fewer than on the USA. (Its not hard to visualise that Trump is capable of great evil - imagine if he were given similar unconstrained power on a level similar to Putin, and for 20+ years. But fortunately the political system has to a strong degree more checks & balances than in Russia or China - at least for now.)

So on that basis, I still think is it perfectly valid even for the USA to call out Russia and the Putin regime for the wanton carnage and death they have caused to the people of Ukraine.

Therefore, I think its a great mistake (& common feature of quite a few contributors to this forum) to try to argue there is complete moral equivalence.

 

[Sue Pertwee-Tyr]

I think a big part of the problem is that psychopathic or sociopathic behaviour is more likely to get a person to the top of the tree, than empathic and nurturing behaviour. Until that changes, we will continue to be ****ed.

 

[Seanm]

At least the conclusion seemed to be that torture is not effective in soliciting information (though I though this had already been well established, as its pretty obvious really - someone under torture is liable to say anything the inquisitors want just to make it stop).

Undoubteably evil (and good) exists in individuals of every nation of the World. But perhaps two factors control the extent to which evil can prosper:

(i)How high the stakes are perceived to be at any moment in time - what can be sold to the population, or what is deemed "acceptable" or "a necessary expedient" to individuals within the security services or armed forces.

(ii)But more crucially - the political system in place in those countries, which in the case of Russia (& China) permits atrocities to be carried out on a far greater scale with minimal negative impact on the leadership.

I guess in the aftermath of 9/11, (i) was very significant in the USA. But in terms of (ii) the constraints on Russia and China are far far fewer than on the USA. (Its not hard to visualise that Trump is capable of great evil - imagine if he were given similar unconstrained power on a level similar to Putin, and for 20+ years. But fortunately the political system has to a strong degree more checks & balances than in Russia or China - at least for now.)

So on that basis, I still think is it perfectly valid even for the USA to call out Russia and the Putin regime for the wanton carnage and death they have caused to the people of Ukraine.

Therefore, I think it’s a great mistake (& common feature of quite a few contributors to this forum) to try to argue there is complete moral equivalence.

Not sure that moral relativism is a huge improvement. In fact I’m not really sure that morality is the right way of thinking about what’s happening when states engage in torture or when they “call each other out.”

 

[gustavm]

Not sure that moral relativism is a huge improvement. In fact I’m not really sure that morality is the right way of thinking about what’s happening when states engage in torture or when they “call each other out.”

Morality is always relative though, isn't it? Otherwise only the perfect could ever condemn the actions of another. I doubt anyone here would think they are a perfect being, but plenty condemn the actions of (for example) the Tory government.

 

[droodzilla]

Morality is always relative though, isn't it? Otherwise only the perfect could ever condemn the actions of another. I doubt anyone here would think they are a perfect being, but plenty condemn the actions of (for example) the Tory government.

I think the point is that consistency requires us to condemn the actions of all states that engage in torture.

Torture qua torture is a gross abuse of human rights and a great evil, regardless of the political system that orders it.

It's odd that you mention Trump in this context when the crimes in Iraq happened on George W Bush's watch (who we're now supposed to respect as an elder statesman and artist, no less). Ghouls like Rumsfeld and Cheney bear a heavy responsibility too, of course.

It's funny, I was talking to my partner last night about how I thought a big red line was crossed during the Iraq War. I don't know if we ever won "The War on Terror", but I'm certain we lost any cleim we ever had to the moral high ground in that period.

 

[Seanm]

Morality is always relative though, isn't it? Otherwise only the perfect could ever condemn the actions of another. I doubt anyone here would think they are a perfect being, but plenty condemn the actions of (for example) the Tory government.

Not me. I ****ing hate them but they're just doing what they do, might as well wag your finger at a virus. It's panto, all this condemnation, but never more so than when one state condemns another.

 

[gustavm]

I think the point is that consistency requires us to condemn the actions of all states that engage in torture.

Torture qua torture is a gross abuse of human rights and a great evil, regardless of the political system that orders it.

It's odd that you mention Trump in this context when the crimes in Iraq happened on George W Bush's watch (who we're now supposed to respect as an elder statesman and artist, no less). Ghouls like Rumsfeld and Cheney bear a heavy responsibility too, of course.

It's funny, I was talking to my partner last night about how I thought a big red line was crossed during the Iraq War. I don't know if we ever won "The War on Terror", but I'm certain we lost any cleim we ever had to the moral high ground in that period.

Yes I agree, of course torture should be condemned utterly, my point is that this shouldn't stop "the West" condemning Putin for his actions (more than condemning, since as has been pointed out above this isn't of much practical use, but actively opposing him via sanctions, and by supporting Ukraine with economic aid and the provision of military hardware ). Just responding directly to the question implied by the title of this thread.

I don't think anyone ever owns the high moral ground.

Trump was intended merely as an example. And I don't think I've ever met anybody who actually respects George W. Wern't Rumsfeld and Cheney the real instigators, and Bush more the useful idiot? (Though compared with Trump, he's something of an intellectual giant!)

 

[mandryka]

I’ve got a really simple question about this. If it doesn’t work, why do they do it?

 

[mandryka]

Re the above moral discussion, a western state may decide to publicly condemn Russia for its torture and remain silent about America’s for diplomatic reasons. They may say that America is an important economic and political ally, so it’s in their interests to condemn who they condemn, and to avoid any public condemnation of anything they do. Or they may say that Russia is a threat so it’s in their interest to condemn them to make them a periah - but America is potentially useful. I don’t see any inconsistency here, on the contrary.


The moral condemnation is a gesture, as Sean said (or almost said) - but it’s a verbal gesture designed to have non verbal consequences.

 

[gustavm]

I’ve got a really simple question about this. If it doesn’t work, why do they do it?

Quite possibly it might work if applied extremely selectively. (Its sometimes comes up in a "moral maze" type question such as whether it might be justified in some hypothetical situation such as having caught someone who's hidden an atomic bomb somewhere in a large City, in trying to locate it).

But once its use is sanctioned as a national policy it tends to be used in a widespread and non-discriminatory way that makes it difficult to distinguish real intelligence from made-up intelligence (so I've read somewhere).

 

[Cav]

I’ve got a really simple question about this. If it doesn’t work, why do they do it?

Perhaps because they think it works (based on what evidence though)?
Perhaps because they think it is some sort of deterrent?
Perhaps because it is some sort of revenge?
Perhaps because those who carry it out are sadists?
Perhaps because those who actually do it are too institutionalised or cowardly to refuse to?
Perhaps because they can?
Perhaps because their less powerful allies are to cowardly to tell them not to?

 

[Cav]

Quite possibly it might work if applied extremely selectively. (Its sometimes comes up in a "moral maze" type question such as whether it might be justified in some hypothetical situation such as having caught someone who's hidden an atomic bomb somewhere in a large City, in trying to locate it).

The Inquisition had an excellent success rate by that criterion...

 

[ks.234]

At least the conclusion seemed to be that torture is not effective in soliciting information (though I though this had already been well established, as its pretty obvious really - someone under torture is liable to say anything the inquisitors want just to make it stop).

Yet torture is still going on

Undoubteably evil (and good) exists in individuals of every nation of the World.

No, not only does “evil” not actually exist, the use of metaphysical language excuses what are very human earthbound atrocities. “Evil” is not helpful when discussing political state actions. “Evil” is otherworldly, it comes from notions of heaven and hell. Therefore it enables people to say ‘I am not evil, therefore it doesn’t apply to me’. The lesson from history is that ordinary people do extraordinary things once those extraordinary things are normalised. The Stanford experiments are instructive here, people can be manipulated to do extraordinary things when authority normalises them

But perhaps two factors control the extent to which evil can prosper:

(i)How high the stakes are perceived to be at any moment in time - what can be sold to the population, or what is deemed "acceptable" or "a necessary expedient" to individuals within the security services or armed forces.

Not sure what you mean here

(ii)But more crucially - the political system in place in those countries, which in the case of Russia (& China) permits atrocities to be carried out on a far greater scale with minimal negative impact on the leadership.

No, The US and UK have committed atrocities on a equivalent scale and the leaderships have remained intact, in fact, they have done more than just retain their structural integrity, they have profited enormously.

I guess in the aftermath of 9/11, (i) was very significant in the USA. But in terms of (ii) the constraints on Russia and China are far far fewer than on the USA. (It’s not hard to visualise that Trump is capable of great evil - imagine if he were given similar unconstrained power on a level similar to Putin, and for 20+ years. But fortunately the political system has to a strong degree more checks & balances than in Russia or China - at least for now.)

Not true, to give just one example the war with Iraq was celebrated by checks and balances, not restrained. Enron lobbied for the invasion of Iraq just as ITT lobbied for the invasion of Chile, United Fruit to exploit Costa Rica etc and turn them into ‘Banana Republics’, and the East India Company lobbied for the exploitation of India. There is a long history of extraordinary acts of warfare in the name of capital interests that have been untouched by checks and balances. (The EIC existed before democratic checks and balances, but the fact is that their MO is a pattern repeated since the dawn of modern capitalism)

So on that basis, I still think is it perfectly valid even for the USA to call out Russia and the Putin regime for the wanton carnage and death they have caused to the people of Ukraine.

But no one has said that it is not valid for the USA or anyone else to call out the Russian invasion of Ukraine. The invasion of Ukraine absolutely should be called out, so, for that matter should the Holodomor and other atrocities

Therefore, I think its a great mistake (& common feature of quite a few contributors to this forum) to try to argue there is complete moral equivalence.

There absolutely is a moral equivalence, to suggest otherwise is moral relativism and more important, the sort or moral relativism that undermines the call out. If war, invasion and atrocity is wrong in Ukraine, it is wrong everywhere. And while it is right to call out atrocity in Ukraine, that call out is morally vacuous if equal atrocities elsewhere are considered *not* equivalent.

 

[dweezil]

The response of the US government to the 9/11 attacks was catastrophically bad and incredibly counterproductive. I have lived in the US since the late 1990s and I remember the incredible solidarity that most of the world felt with the US in the days after 9/11 and how this evaporated and flipped as the US government abducted folks around the world and invaded Afghanistan then Iraq.
I remember an interview with the lead singer of Green Day when American Idiot came out and feeling in total agreement - the country had lost its collective mind.

WE were ruled by a pair of religious fundamentalists at the time, the whole thing reeked of crusade.

 

[tones]

I’ve got a really simple question about this. If it doesn’t work, why do they do it?

Two possible answers:
(a) to degrade and humiliate the victim in his or her own eyes, to destroy their sense of self-worth. The torturers of the like of Pinochet were not in the slightest interested in extracting information, which leads us to
(b) some humans are in fact inhuman and get a kick (literally and metaphorically) out of inflicting misery on others. The torturers of Savak, the Shah's secret police, found that their skills were in demand by the Ayatollahs, so they merely changed employer.

 

[gustavm]

Yet torture is still going on

No, not only does “evil” not actually exist, the use of metaphysical language excuses what are very human earthbound atrocities. “Evil” is not helpful when discussing political state actions. “Evil” is otherworldly, it comes from notions of heaven and hell. Therefore it enables people to say ‘I am not evil, therefore it doesn’t apply to me’. The lesson from history is that ordinary people do extraordinary things once those extraordinary things are normalised. The Stanford experiments are instructive here, people can be manipulated to do extraordinary things when authority normalises them Not sure what you mean here
No, The US and UK have committed atrocities on a equivalent scale and the leaderships have remained intact, in fact, they have done more than just retain their structural integrity, they have profited enormously.Not true, to give just one example the war with Iraq was celebrated by checks and balances, not restrained. Enron lobbied for the invasion of Iraq just as ITT lobbied for the invasion of Chile, United Fruit to exploit Costa Rica etc and turn them into ‘Banana Republics’, and the East India Company lobbied for the exploitation of India. There is a long history of extraordinary acts of warfare in the name of capital interests that have been untouched by checks and balances. (The EIC existed before democratic checks and balances, but the fact is that their MO is a pattern repeated since the dawn of modern capitalism)

Word definitions are slippery things. I agree the measurement of evil is not an exact science, but if you are going to dispute its usefulness as a concept, then the validity of many other common-place human attributes or other words (love, pity, generosity, the colour yellow) should also be called into question, and meaningful conversation will become difficult.

A state is not a sentient being, so I agree the actions of a state shouldn't be analysed in the same way as human actions. But in states with more totalitarian governments, the actions and impulses of the leadership are likely to exert a more immediate effect on the actions of the state. e.g. The particular "World view" of Hitler (if you prefer that to the word "evil") led pretty much directly to WW2 and the concentration camps of Belsen etc.

As someone once said, "Power corrupts, but absolute power corrupts absolutely". My main point was essentially that a system of political dictatorship (where a leader can be installed for decades with complete power) is more liable to become a menace to both its own people and (if also relatively powerful) to the rest of the World: Putin has threatened to unleash a nuclear war if the collective west tries to prevent him achieving his goals. Fortunately things have not quite got that bad in the USA (at least, for now). Trump was not able to arrange for his opponents to fall out of windows, or to have them injected with polonium, or sprayed with novichok, and eventually lost power following an election.

As for moral relativism - isn't any discussion of right & wrong or morality always relativistic?

But no one has said that it is not valid for the USA or anyone else to call out the Russian invasion of Ukraine.

Very much implied by the title of this thread - which is what motivated my first post.

The invasion of Ukraine absolutely should be called out, so, for that matter should the Holodomor and other atrocities

We agree.

 

[ks.234]

Word definitions are slippery things. I agree the measurement of evil is not an exact science, but if you are going to dispute its usefulness as a concept, then the validity of many other common-place human attributes or other words (love, pity, generosity, the colour yellow) should also be called into question, and meaningful conversation will become difficult.

A state is not a sentient being, so I agree the actions of a state shouldn't be analysed in the same way as human actions. But in states with more totalitarian governments, the actions and impulses of the leadership are likely to exert a more immediate effect on the actions of the state. e.g. The particular "World view" of Hitler (if you prefer that to the word "evil") led pretty much directly to WW2 and the concentration camps of Belsen etc.

As someone once said, "Power corrupts, but absolute power corrupts absolutely". My main point was essentially that a system of political dictatorship (where a leader can be installed for decades with complete power) is more liable to become a menace to both its own people and (if also relatively powerful) to the rest of the World: Putin has threatened to unleash a nuclear war if the collective west tries to prevent him achieving his goals. Fortunately things have not quite got that bad in the USA (at least, for now). Trump was not able to arrange for his opponents to fall out of windows, or to have them injected with polonium, or sprayed with novichok, and eventually lost power following an election.

As for moral relativism - isn't any discussion of right & wrong or morality always relativistic?



Very much implied by the title of this thread - which is what motivated my first post.



We agree.

The problem with all of that is that it does not mention Abu Zubaydah.

Which I guess is the point?

Regardless of word definition, what is happening at Guantanamo Bay and similar places is morally, legally, and democratically repugnant and is clear demonstration, if any were needed, that the USA and its partners are equally as guilty of war crimes as anyone else.

PS. Moral Relativism is a specific and clearly defined thing.

 

[ks.234]

As someone once said, "Power corrupts, but absolute power corrupts absolutely". My main point was essentially that a system of political dictatorship (where a leader can be installed for decades with complete power) is more liable to become a menace to both its own people and (if also relatively powerful) to the rest of the World: Putin has threatened to unleash a nuclear war if the collective west tries to prevent him achieving his goals. Fortunately things have not quite got that bad in the USA (at least, for now). Trump was not able to arrange for his opponents to fall out of windows, or to have them injected with polonium, or sprayed with novichok, and eventually lost power following an election.

While democracy should be better than a dictatorship, to say that dictatorships are more likely to become a menace to its own people and the rest of the world is not born out by even the most cursory glance at the history of the USA, or the UK.

There is an entire thread to discuss the crimes of Putin, this one is about the crimes of the USA in Guantanamo and the hypocrisy of claiming the moral high ground.

 

[KrisW]

That’s not a supportable argument. Can you name one dictatorship that has not become a menace to its own people and neighbouring states? I can name lots of democracies that haven’t.

The democracies that fail that test are ones that approach dictatorship, with power tightly controlled in an elite that is hard to dislodge. The UK and USA fall into that category, with unrepresentative electoral systems that encourage and over-reward extremist positions.

 

[gustavm]

The problem with all of that is that it does not mention Abu Zubaydah.

Which I guess is the point?

Regardless of word definition, what is happening at Guantanamo Bay and similar places is morally, legally, and democratically repugnant and is clear demonstration, if any were needed, that the USA and its partners are equally as guilty of war crimes as anyone else.

PS. Moral Relativism is a specific and clearly defined thing.

Of course I condemn what is happening in Guantanamo Bay, as I've indicated above. That said, I don't think debating with you is going to achieve much for either of us. And thanks for the put-down re Moral Relativism.