[ConstantineX]

IMO you should read the body of posts before you begin inferring things I clearly took pains not to say as not to provoke hostility. First, I am not an ACist.
[ QUOTE ]

To answer your question, I think some normative formation of a Kantian categorical imperative would obligate us not to torture -- something along the lines of "Don't torture people" fits all three formulations well.


[/ QUOTE ]

Why is this moral choice the "correct" one? When pvn argues the difference between action A or B, he takes some statements axiomatically and begins to deduce acceptable and unacceptable behavior from those priors, which stems from ideas like "self-ownership" and "natural rights". I realize you can just assert this and be consistent philosophically, but if you accept, like I do, that society should decide its rules in a utilitarian manner then your opposition is peculiar. When confronted with some results from theoretical economics, a liberal instinct is to appeal to pragmatic considerations, i.e. "reality has a liberal bias", tacitly admitting that the heart of the philosophy relies on some utilitarian considerations, quite different from those loony "Libertopians". For these reasons, when I argue in favor of libertarian principles, I usually make normative judgments on the societal level, rarely on an individual one - I firmly believe that libertarianism leads less violence and more prosperity for the ENTIRE society. If you choose your priors in an ad-hoc manner, well, I don't think society should listen to you.

[ QUOTE ]

I'm not sure what makes you think that; I think I've made it clear here in this thread that even if experts in jurisprudence agree torture isn't prohibited by the law, it shouldn't be considered a legitimate interrogation tactic; this isn't to say I've explicitly endorsed natural right theories, either, but I'm not sure what I've said in this thread that would make you think I've rejected them.


[/ QUOTE ]

I made no reference to actual jurisprudence when I posed my question.

[ QUOTE ]

This is question begging: it implies torture will produce results that contributes to "a collective good" while simultaneously assuming social contract theorists (or whoever you're referring to that adheres to 'the framework of individuals relinquishing personal liberty for the collective good') are necessarily consequentialists whose concern is with "the collective good".


[/ QUOTE ]

If your concern isn't with the collective good, why should any society listen to you or employ your rules? I don't see how a pragmatic society can be anything BUT consequentialist.

More pointedly, I think you're making a pretty bold assertion. My question is: why is the optimal level of torture in a society zero, as you seem to imply? I can think of plenty of situations where it would useful to employ torture for the collective good. Framing the normative judgment society makes as a "Kantian imperative" ignores the question because amongst a population with differing moral views some sort of utilitarianism must and will be employed.

That's exactly my problem with ACists actually. It seems pretty apparent to me there's a non-zero optimal level of government from a societal perspective. Why is the line for individual liberty so clearly demarcated for your on this issue, but not on other issues? No doubt because you're more learned in philosophy than I there is some elegant answer with appealing and consistent priors. That's why I asked - but I don't suspect any other than an instinctual, visceral opposition to torture (which could be fine, actually, clearly evolution gave us moral instincts for a reason).