Class Notes (839,092)
Canada (511,185)
Sociology (3,264)
SOC203H1 (77)
Lecture 9

lecture 9.docx

4 Pages

Course Code

This preview shows page 1. Sign up to view the full 4 pages of the document.
Torture: weber vs. Durkheim  Torture: some recent examples  o US military intelligence in Iraq (red cross report) o philipines authorities mid 90s o  Extracting important information from torture  Torture as a concept  o inflicting excruciating pain, can be done by individuals or states (mooks interested w/ pain inflicted by states.. not individuals) o private individuals can torture other people (criminal torture by ind.) o Israelis and US will torture o A book written by Vargas Llosa o  describe corruption in the capital of the ruler  certain military man want to overthrow the power holder, they failed and they were tortured.  Can torture be justified?  o are the circumstances under liberal democratic states justify torture? o  some believe torture is wrong in all circumstances  amnesty international is against al for of torture o loop's example of ticking time bomb problem o  consider: authority suspects a person in custody, they ahve their reason to believe that there might be an attack and the suspect knows when, leading to the possibility of disabling the bomb   would in this situation, torture be justified? since getting those information are crucial in savings a lot of life.  A weberian argument  o State is an association that has a monopoly over the legitimatize use of violence. the use of vioence is central t o our definition of state o a tragic view of politic: he believes that people who becomes involved in politics, sometimes in practice, had to accept that in order to achieve/nudge society/you have to adopt unsavoury means for good purposes o Loop's summarization: o  anyone who chooses to be involved politics, let himself in for the diabolic forces working for violences.  It is not true that good only comes from good, but good can also comes from evil.(political infant is someone can't see it)  No ethics in the world that numerous instances that in the good end, one must willing to pay the price for using morally dubious means, who must also face the possibility and probability of evil consequences, it cant be possible to justify ethically the ethically dangerous means and ramifications  If one is a serious politician, one has to be prepared to use dirty means to achieve its end  If a grown up politican needs to be prepared to use dirty means of achieving good ends that means torture can be justified in certain circumstances.  A durkheimian counter-argument  o Lukes: counter argument in Durkheimian view o  1894: Jewsih captive found guilty (Dreyfus)   was found to be passing secrets to the enemy  1896: new evidence emerges, a major general in the army  1898: a new trial held, the new general gets off the hook  people in the right wing, people believed in the authority in the church  traditional view: people who believes in the military  dreyfus was found innocent and freed, and also promoted  Individualism is the new authority. "violating civil rights of individuals cannot rest unpunished without putting national___ in jeopardy. It is impossible that the infringement on individual rights can freely occur. The common sentimetns will suffer.   A religion that abdicates an individual mind  Thus in the individualist defends the rights of the individual that defends the right of the individual defends on the interest of society o Lukes argues against Weber, he applied a durkheimian argument, the right of the ind. have to be respected. In US, the fear of terrorism is corrosive to the rule of the individualism o  US is undermining its own mora lcohesion by violating rights on individual   it is losing the war on terror because losing respect for individual rights.. o Zola: he accused the authority of a cover up(pointed to the judges, because they believe they helped the authority[to frame Dreyfus]) o  Fleed to UK to escape jail o Durkheims counter argument: o  In fact the anti dreyfus had it all wrong when talking about the importance of french unity.  Those days are gone, the new ciil religion is one of individualism (increasingly in modern societies, they don't have the same moral authority from before)  Does this means there are no moral glue/authority that bond people together?   No  However there is a new religion emerges called Religion of individualism(shared by individuals, not really a religion)  In fact the problem is this that in disrespecting the rights of Dreyfus, showing a lack of respect for individualism, that in fact is harmful to french society. He thinks its necessary
More Less
Unlock Document

Only page 1 are available for preview. Some parts have been intentionally blurred.

Unlock Document
You're Reading a Preview

Unlock to view full version

Unlock Document

Log In


Join OneClass

Access over 10 million pages of study
documents for 1.3 million courses.

Sign up

Join to view


By registering, I agree to the Terms and Privacy Policies
Already have an account?
Just a few more details

So we can recommend you notes for your school.

Reset Password

Please enter below the email address you registered with and we will send you a link to reset your password.

Add your courses

Get notes from the top students in your class.