Good and Logical Spock / Bad, Illogical Spock

[John Helpher]

In my view, the definition doesn't change depending on who is the victim. If pain was the direct means used to make me reveal information, I'd call it torture. If pain was a side-effect of the means of recovering information, I wouldn't.

What I'm most concerned about regarding this issue is the tendency for we humans to diminish badness for one reason or another, often without even realizing why we're doing it. That's the nature of delusion.

Spock knew the only way to get the information was to hurt someone to do it. Would we do the same, and under what circumstances would we justify hurting others to do what we believe is beneficial to ourselves?

Splitting hairs about whether the pain was intentional or just a "side-effect" misses the point of motivation and personal integrity. If you can convince yourself that the pain you cause to others isn't really you being immoral, but rather just an unfortunate side effect in your quest to get what you want, then there is no end to the evil you can justify.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

What I'm most concerned about regarding this issue is the tendency for we humans to diminish badness for one reason or another, often without even realizing why we're doing it. That's the nature of delusion.

Spock knew the only way to get the information was to hurt someone to do it. Would we do the same, and under what circumstances would we justify hurting others to do what we believe is beneficial to ourselves?

Splitting hairs about whether the pain was intentional or just a "side-effect" misses the point of motivation and personal integrity. If you can convince yourself that the pain you cause to others isn't really you being immoral, but rather just an unfortunate side effect in your quest to get what you want, then there is no end to the evil you can justify.

I broadly agree, but I think the situation is more nuanced than either consequentialism or utilitarianism can encompass. There are degrees of immorality, and in my view, intent is important.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I think you're splitting hairs on the definition of what "physical" means, but I'll share an anecdote. John McCain was once being interviewed on a local radio station here. They were talking about his captivity in Vietnam. The host asked him "what was worse, the physical torture or the emotional?" McCain immediately answered "the physical". The host actually sort of embarrassingly apologized for asking, like, yeah that was a dumb question.

Well, in this thread, it's not my intention to focus on the definition of "torture," but rather to evaluate the ethical characteristics of the movie scene in the OP. And I DO think that for Lt. Valeris, and for Spock, it was intended to convey, for them, some level of physical discomfort ...

Have you seen any of the original Star Trek movies or Star Trek t.v. series?

 

[Chesterton]

Well, in this thread, it's not my intention to focus on the definition of "torture," but rather to evaluate the ethical characteristics of the movie scene in the OP. And I DO think that for Lt. Valeris, and for Spock, it was intended to convey, for them, some level of physical discomfort ...

Have you seen any of the original Star Trek movies or Star Trek t.v. series?

Yes I watched the TV show as a kid. Had some plastic toys like a phaser and communicator and stuff. I didn't care for how each show seemed like a little morality play. Felt like I was being preached at. I only saw that one '80's movie where they came to Earth, and it had something to do with saving whales or something? I don't remember much of it. I remember the mind meld being done in the show but I don't think there was much detail on what it was. I thought it was just like reading someone's mind, which wouldn't seem like such an awful experience, except for the obvious invasion of privacy, lol.

 

[John Helpher]

There are degrees of immorality, and in my view, intent is important.

I agree intent is important. In the example given, Spock performs what he knows to be pain against a person's will for the sake of getting what he believes to be information which will save lives.

The question is, was he justified? Was it right for him to hurt another person to save lives?

I'm not sure if you're familiar with a particular political event that happened in mid 2018, but there was a supreme court nominee (chosen by Trump) up for review by congress. His name was Brett Kavanaugh. It was in the news a fair bit. Brett had a fairly well documented history of sexual assault, but an official, in-depth investigation into that history was stifled at the time by the people who were in control of such processes. Ya see, Brett is a republican and as such he represents a pro-life vote on the supreme court. Getting him on the bench would represent a huge victory; only a sitting president can nominate a candidate, they are life-time appointments, and no one (not even a president) can fire them after they are appointed.

For this reason, a slew of professing Christians came out in support of Brett, saying that "boys will be boys", that the alleged incident(s) happened too long ago to still be relevant, that people should be allowed to move on from their past, etc. It all had the ring of legitimacy to it, except that Brett denied everything. He said he had nothing to move on from. The issue became so polarized that a woman who supported Trump (remember, Trump nominated the guy) claimed that there is nothing wrong with a bit of groping anyway. She said this on live, national television with her two teenage daughters standing beside her. She even asked them to verbally commit to her expression of political loyalty by also confirming that they saw nothing wrong with a bit of groping. Mind you, the accusation against him was not groping, but rather attempted rape. Political expediency practically dripped from this situation.

This woman, and many like her, were prepared to defend this man (despite tacit acknowledgment that he was guilty) because of his pro-life vote on the supreme court. In their minds, all the millions and millions of saved babies could not compare to his few sexual assault allegations even if he really was guilty of all of them. They were quite prepared to see any dozen (or perhaps even hundreds) of women assaulted if it meant a reversal of current abortion law.

These people had convinced themselves that a certain amount of immoral behavior, a certain amount of sexual assault, a certain amount of rape was justified if it meant saving lives in some other area. In their minds, neither they nor Brett tortured anyone; the sexual assault was just an unfortunate bit of baggage they needed to accept for a greater good.

Relating this back to the OP hypothetical, all Spock had to do was mentally assault this woman in the deepest places of her mind (in a way which was clearly unwanted and very painful for her) and they could save who-knows-how-many lives.

This is the problem when it comes to playing around with moral technicalities for the sake of a greater good. When we refer to the hurt we cause to others as just a side-effect for the greater good, we have ceased to genuinely consider the most important intent of all; our own.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

I'm not sure if you're familiar with a particular political event that happened in mid 2018, but there was a supreme court nominee (chosen by Trump) up for review by congress. His name was Brett Kavanaugh. It was in the news a fair bit.

Yes, I followed it at the time... like a slow-motion car crash.

This woman, and many like her, were prepared to defend this man (despite tacit acknowledgment that he was guilty) because of his pro-life vote on the supreme court. ... They were quite prepared to see any dozen (or perhaps even hundreds) of women assaulted if it meant a reversal of current abortion law.

Did they say that last part, or did you just make it up?

These people had convinced themselves that a certain amount of immoral behavior, a certain amount of sexual assault, a certain amount of rape was justified if it meant saving lives in some other area. In their minds, neither they nor Brett tortured anyone; the sexual assault was just an unfortunate bit of baggage they needed to accept for a greater good.

They were prepared to ignore allegations of past sexual assault for political expediency. That's not the same as thinking rape was justified for the greater good.

I disagree with what they did (and what Kavanaugh was alleged to have done), but I also don't agree with offering speculation as fact.

 

[John Helpher]

They were prepared to ignore allegations of past sexual assault for political expediency.

The question is, how much of the problem were they prepared to ignore? We don't have any factual numbers but factual numbers isn't the point. The point is, they're prepared to do it in this case because they feel it's justified. In how many other circumstances would they convince themselves that ignoring what they see as a lesser evil would be justified to prevent what they perceive as a greater evil?

When you're prepared to ignore evil for personal gain, there is no point at which you stop to say, "okay, this much evil is tolerable; we won't go beyond this point" because every new instance becomes part of the broader justification.

Even your response hints at that; you don't agree with what they did, buuuuuuuuut...

That's a significant but. It leaves the door open for some justification. Is someone challenging your immorality? Politely agree with them on the surface while simultaneously accusing them of fostering speculation and voila, you've got some wiggle room to continue with the immorality while having convinced yourself that you agreed it was bad.

That's what you suggested with the Spock scenario; he knowingly hurt the woman to get what he wanted. In the movie itself their justification was that they were serving a greater good (just like the Kavanaugh supporters who believed he would change abortion laws), but you created a new justification; you suggested that because Spock's intent was only to get information, the pain required to get that info was a "side-effect" and therefore does not fit into the category of immorality. Boom; justification.

If you're willing to do it in that scenario, what other areas of life would you be willing to over look a bit of incidental pain on others if it meant getting what you want or achieving some moral goal? I mean, I'm saying "you" because you're the one participating in this discussion at the moment, but this principle can be applied to any human. We should all be asking ourselves how far we'd be willing to go. That's the point of exploring these kinds of hypotheticals; they can have an aloof, intellectual slant to them, but they invariably show the spirit of the people who discuss them.

Or, as Jesus put it, "From the abundance of the heart the mouth speaks".

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

The question is, how much of the problem were they prepared to ignore? We don't have any factual numbers but factual numbers isn't the point. The point is, they're prepared to do it in this case because they feel it's justified. In how many other circumstances would they convince themselves that ignoring what they see as a lesser evil would be justified to prevent what they perceive as a greater evil?

Only they know that (or think they know).

Even your response hints at that; you don't agree with what they did, buuuuuuuuut...

Yes; I don't agree with what they did, but I also don't agree with your speculation-as-fact.

That's a significant but. It leaves the door open for some justification.

Nope. See above.

Is someone challenging your immorality? Politely agree with them on the surface while simultaneously accusing them of fostering speculation and voila, you've got some wiggle room to continue with the immorality while having convinced yourself that you agreed it was bad.

No; I simply don't like speculation presented as fact.

That's what you suggested with the Spock scenario; he knowingly hurt the woman to get what he wanted. In the movie itself their justification was that they were serving a greater good (just like the Kavanaugh supporters who believed he would change abortion laws), but you created a new justification; you suggested that because Spock's intent was only to get information, the pain required to get that info was a "side-effect" and therefore does not fit into the category of immorality. Boom; justification.

No. I said the pain required to get the information was a by-product, therefore it didn't fit the definition of torture I was familiar with. In #87, I explicitly said, "I'm not making any judgement about whether it was morally justifiable, just questioning whether it satisfies the definition of torture."

You're misrepresenting the facts again.