Foreign Affairs Discussion Group Message Board

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next

To: Elroy who wrote (229221)	5/1/2007 10:24:38 AM
From: Rambi	Read Replies (2) of 281500

Elroy, That difference is exactly what I was discussing in my previous post. We can't base our laws and ethics on an extreme example that plays on the emotions. A mother's reaction is going to be to save her child when it is in imminent danger if she sees any way at all to do so. But establishing wiretaps, torturing, spying, eroding our freedoms in anticipation of a threat-- making these kinds of decisions is, as you say, entirely different. These are not actions that should be made by a reductio ad absurdum argument, but by a reasoned discussion of risk v. rights. The expression "hard cases make bad law" applies here. By reducing a discussion of principled policy to a "you mean you wouldn't save your own child!" accusation serves more to distort the principle involved than clarify it. Better to start with the principles surrounding the question of torture or wiretapping than to reverse the process (imo). So I guess the answer to your question is- it isn't relevant what I would do in the heat of the moment when my child is threatened. It is the rational and considered policies and ideals we set in place that guide us through those emotional situations and protect us (and others from us).

Report TOU Violation

Share This Post

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next