PHIL 2429 Chapter Notes - Chapter 0: Water Gun, Moral Absolutism

31 views2 pages
26 Dec 2016
Henry shue believes in the distinction of combatants and that violence should not be
directed at combatants
This is an attempt to try to make a terrible combat fair
Shues issue is about attacking the defenseless
From the traditional code of honor theres nothing honorable about killing the
defenseless enemy
But honor and morality are no he same nor are the laws of war
If rules of war allow both sides to kill defenseless pow so where is the unfairness
David sussman says that the moral difference between torture and killing or maiming is
that torture doesn't just insult the persons agency but rather turns the agency against
itself forcing the victim to experience herself as helpless yet complicit in their own
But the isn't explicit just to torture though
If a robber holds a gum to victim and threatens to kill him if he doesn't give him
money then he'll turn his agency against himself by making the victims fear
express the robbers will so that when the victim hands over his money the. It is
complicit in his own violation
Thus fear may overwhelm one as pain overwhelms victims of torture
Thus Sussman can't show that there is a higher burden on torture than there is
on killing
Steinhoff says that they're the same parallel
Susanna says they're not because the way it undermines agency and autonomy
is worse I torture than robbery
Susanna says that they're Same in kind but different in extent
Steinhoff says our emotional reaction to yo displays of torture or killing are distorted by
certain Kim it's of our empathy
We can't associate with the dead but we can associate with the those who are
experiencing excruciating pain
If it is permissible to kill a defenseless enemy combatant n order to avoid ones own
casualties why should it not be permissible to torture a defenseless terrorist in order to
avoid own casualties?
Response could be that the terrorist doesn't those a threat anymore. It that the
combatant still poses a threat
The inflicting of harm is not legitimized here by a present aggression but by a person
culpably causing the threat of harm
The infliction of harm if one ha to die and you have to decide who it would be
would be the one who has culpable brought about the situation
In case of the terrorist then who has hidden a bomb yo kill innocents
It is only fair that the harm that will befall upon one of two is diverted to the person who is
responsible for the situation
The reply that interrogative torture is not reliable isnt a legitimate case
By allowing torture in the ticking time bombs case one does not necessarily warrant
sanctioning it in general
find more resources at
find more resources at
Unlock document

This preview shows half of the first page of the document.
Unlock all 2 pages and 3 million more documents.

Already have an account? Log in

Get access

$10 USD/m
Billed $120 USD annually
Homework Help
Class Notes
Textbook Notes
40 Verified Answers
Study Guides
1 Booster Class
$8 USD/m
Billed $96 USD annually
Homework Help
Class Notes
Textbook Notes
30 Verified Answers
Study Guides
1 Booster Class