| Topic: | Re:Re:Re:Support from David Cameron | |
| Posted by: | Malcolm Peltu | |
| Date/Time: | 12/11/10 15:38:00 |
| Francis: I know the value of hypothetical examples in phislosophical discussions and know it can help to clarify thinking. But I think that in this case by excluding the unknowns it becomes unrealistic and seems to be designed to elcit the answer you agree with as it is essentially the same as a question like would you kill someone if you saw them about to kill someone else. The question I think is more relevant to the Bush quote that triggered this: What you do if you weren't certain or that the effect could be what Cameron says it was? And also my question related to the Bush defence that it was said to be legal by his advisor: What are your limits to the torture you would condone or are there no limits? I accept that you may not wish to answer them and prefer your own question, but I cannot assume what your answer would be. |