Page: 1

uncledad

Profile Information

Member since: Tue May 13, 2014, 05:50 PM
Number of posts: 5,653

Journal Archives

It is not a moralistic judgement to observe a behavior and note its significance.

If your question is: is torture wrong, you have to decide for yourself based on your set of ethics and moral standards.
You can justify ethically that to save a life you may need to torture a person to save a city under threat from an atomic bomb, yet, morally you can hold the view that torture, no matter what the circumstances, is wrong.

The role empathy requires is an emotional response based in part on one's morals in understanding the difference between the two

A person who tortures and holds a moral view that it is necessary to do so, because they are defending what they think is under a legitimate threat and has remorse for their actions is showing empathy. Torture is a last resort and not the primary means to gather information from this person's perspective.

While a person who tortures for the same reason and has no remorse, shows no empathy, is displaying a trait found among psychopaths. A behavior that can not be morally justified or ethically condoned.

As a Nation that has attempted to minimize cruel and inhumane punishment, a standard based both on moral and ethical considerations, walking a line of "enhanced interrogation" makes a mockery of what we are attempting to defend. Your view may differ. And I sure many will disagree with me.

What in fact they are arguing for is an exception to the law based on selective ethics under the guise of a moral view not held by the majority of Americans. Their view is it may happen as it has in the past, but, it is still wrong.

Yet, they will tolerate an exception, if and only if, a treat is so out of proportion and no other means are available, that it may be necessary to do so. They would not be happy about it. They show empathy collectively and have remorse that such actions take place.

That's my observation. In my opinion, torture is not morally acceptable.

Demand creates jobs.

Demand for luxury goods that are beyond the means of the majority of working people has minimal impact on the over all economy.
What impacts the purchase of such goods is the desire of wealthy people to purchase such goods. If for example seaside villas in Italy are what's in among the rich, the purchase of these villas will have no effect on the general economy in this country.
Should the rich employee numerous staff to care for the property, again no impact here.
Perhaps, Swiss watches purchased here? Supply chain to customer here would be effected. The larger manufacturing base and that supply chain there would be effected. Imposing a 10% lux tax on a $10,000 watch will not discourage the wealthy if they want the watch. So no effect here or there.
As to a big expensive hole in the water where the money goes, any one spending over a million plus will have a broker find them the best deal. If they want a classic. However, that same million will get something new and custom made by any number of builders world wide. You would not be in the super class at a $million. Or $10 million for that matter. Considering the fuel bill of a $million boat, do you worry about the tax upon the purchase?
How about my favorite, horses. Show jumpers. Dressage. Running a barn is not cheap. Trainers and vet bills. Hauling and accommodations on the show circuit. A well papered jumper can run $80,000. There are more expensive ones and less expensive ones. How much does that add to the general economy? It's pretty much a closed circuit. Like the hole in the water. Expensive in dollar terms, but limited in employment terms.
Would this effect the limited number of people in that industry should there be a major down turn in the economy? Those on the margins would fall off. Belts would be tightened some what. Over all? You would not notice it.
How about land yachts, custom motor homes? What happens when there's a recession? Sales drop. Is it because of the sales tax? No. Gas mileage? No. Supply chain competition? No.
There's a perfectly good one parked down at the barn. Ok, so it's a few years old. Choice is between a refurbish of the hole in the water or a condo near the campus miss horsey has decided on or a new motor home ?
The condo (supply chain) employees many many more people than either of the two closest options. Do you have any idea what it costs to board a horse at a college?
The hole in the water was owned in partnership, the barn was already in the family for two generations, the motor home was bought from the neighbor who bought a new one and the horse is back home. Miss horsey decided he was lonely for his barn mates. Condo is shared between the three most likely to cause a party to happen cause college. And no I did not pay $80,000 for the horse.
This may add some perspective to the discussion. Or not.
Go to Page: 1