I suppose since no such articulate explanation has been forthcoming from any supporters of single payer healthcare, you may be right, Steve- perhaps I should take that on.

CStanley wrote: “I'm not 'from the other side' on this issue but I think I can articulate the position of those who are.”

It's good to see you opening up and defending those who you don't agree with. Hopefully this means we can look forward to an articulate defense and explanation of the 'single payer health plan' from you real soon.

“Hemm's statement about ethics is, while eloquent, very black and white, and it evaluates actions without regard to intent. Those who disagree with him would say that such an ethical construct would make it impossible to justify killing in self defense, or killing as an act of war. Intent does matter.”

I'm not quite sure how one can get from what I said to the belief that killing is wrong under circumstances like self-defense or acts of war, but let me address both inferences.
Killing someone to protect oneself or one's loved ones in no way contradicts my earlier statement. I would become a “killer” to stop my killing.

Likewise, as a soldier on the front lines opposed by an enemy intent upon my demise killing presents no conflict to my basic tenet that I may kill to protect my country.

The question that must be addressed as a soldier, however, can become much more complex. As a forward observer, you see OBL duck into a house. Within moments, you see two small children also enter. Do you call down the air strike that will obliterate that house? The pragmatist side of this argument says absolutely. Killing the monster outweighs the death of innocents. On the face of it, that sounds like a reasonable, “real world” solution. Take the same situation and add 5 more innocents, hows the scale tipping now? How bout 100?, 500? when does the pragmatic scale tip in favor of innocent lives? Pragmatism demands cold blooded calculations masquerading as ethics.

I see the only ethical response is to advance upon the house and attempt to kill OBL with your rifle. Dangerous? absolutely. Fool hardy? Maybe. Ethical? Solely.

But, to get back to the reason for this discussion. Torture is not enforcement of law, nor is it revenge, nor is it just. To torture, one must have control of your victim, he is literally at your mercy. To systematically cause pain that carries no guarantee of valid information is beyond my ability to rationalize.
I could kill someone who attacks my family with my teeth if need be, but I can't see the rationalization of calm, coolly administered pain for any reason. A soldier may do something in the heat of battle that he may carry guiltily for the rest of his days, but even that is not near the same as a government making pain a national policy.

The anti-war crowd abuses this, and many of us aren't particularly horrified to read an account, say, of a Muslim terrorist in Chechnya made to talk by Russian captors by having his toes successively shot off until he talks (after which the subject accidentally hangs himself, et cetera — oops), but we know what's wrong is wrong.

It's ironic that ethics and morality are examined in this light anyway, rather than where they apply to this Obama administration decision, which is political in numerous ways that raise questions of ethics and morals, and which was a reversal of a possibly dishonest previous position, that in itself raising such questions.

Fear is what happens when you realize you might die now, and all of a sudden you have an out by forsaking those ideals. Especially when the cost is so cheap, the life and comfort of a proven killer in exchange for the hopeful insurance of my own life and comfort. Even though it is the act itself that needs to be considered not the relative worth of the person its being done to. Because, we have always seen in history the act will be applied eventually to the innocent as well as the guilty. So what you need to ask yourself is not is it worth it to do this to a killer to save lives, but is it worth it to torture one of my own loved ones to do save these lives. If you think it is still worth the sacrifice, then perhaps you are right.

I'm not 'from the other side' on this issue but I think I can articulate the position of those who are.

Hemm's statement about ethics is, while eloquent, very black and white, and it evaluates actions without regard to intent. Those who disagree with him would say that such an ethical construct would make it impossible to justify killing in self defense, or killing as an act of war. Intent does matter.

Now, I don't see it as starkly as Hemm and others here but I also don't agree with that opposing viewpoint with regard to torture. I do think that intent must be considered when evaluating the morality of any action, but I also think that there are other principles which must be applied. Minimum amount of force or harm or violence must be used to achieve a purpose, even if the rationale for the action is a justifiable one (preventing attacks on innocent victims.) All alternatives must be considered before resorting to actions which harm or violate another individual, even one who is guilty and can provide information which would protect future potential victims. Since I'm not convinced that those conditions were satisfied before “EITs” were used, I don't consider the actions that were used to be morally justified- but I don't see it as starkly as Hemm described either.

HemmD wrote: “Ethics is never a matter of measuring other people's goodness or worth, ethics is measuring your own worth. If you then choose to torture for a noble purpose, understand that the only thing that differentiates you from that monster you are drowning is a difference in self-righteous goal. I torture for the greater good is oxymoronic.”

Perfect! The best short explanation I've ever read… Let's see if someone from “the other side” can argue their side in sixty words or less.

AustinRoth wrote: “I thought one of the main tenets of Liberalism, specifically and particularly Cultural Liberalism, is that moral values are NOT absolute.”

“Individual” instead of “absolute” would have been my choice of words but yes I'll accept your definition… But it seems that you think that's a negative quality… it's not. Neither Christian, conservative, liberal, atheistic, right, left have consistent morals / values, they're individual. Some Christians think drinking alcohol is immoral… some don't. Some conservatives think torture is immoral… some don't. Some liberals think golfing is immoral… some don't… etc.

Just this morning Father_Time went off on another of his homophobic rants which I think are immoral yet on just about all his other views I tend to agree with him… go figure. Another example of my “culturally liberal” views of morality is that I believe that a Pro-life Christian murdering a doctors is immoral… many pro-life Christians disagree they think it both justified and moral.

Now remember that as HemmD says, our opponents believe THEY are saving lies. THEY are justifying their wrong actions with exactly the same moral relativism. Sure, their religion says it's wrong to kill too, but to protect their brothers and countrymen from an existential threat, they feel as righteous doing WRONG things as we apparently do.

Perhaps you should ask someone who is a Liberal what their platform is. For me, Ethics is about one's own values, not a running scale of ideological concepts.

Please stop teaching children immediately. Students need someone to teach the subject, not your rationale.

Your naive pragmatism that weighs torturing an individual to “save innocents” is tragic in its lack of comprehension. Moral decisions are not measured upon a scale like feathers and lead; ethical judgment requires a question you fail to even consider.

Ask yourself “How much am I willing to become just like my victim, “one of the most evil in the world?” Ethics is never a matter of measuring other people's goodness or worth, ethics is measuring your own worth. If you then choose to torture for a noble purpose, understand that the only thing that differentiates you from that monster you are drowning is a difference in self-righteous goal. I torture for the greater good is oxymoronic.

Khalid Sheik Mohammed killed for his belief that he did God's bidding. You have decided that torturing Mohammed so you could prevent the death of innocents. God does not condone the murder of innocents, so you torture to preserve God's wishes. You don't see that horrible actions for a good cause taints the very cause you wish to uphold? You may find that as you save the innocents, you become the evil you wish to destroy.