[Vision2020] Bush's Primitive Warrior Ethics

[Paul Rumelhart]

nickgier at adelphia.net wrote:

>Dear Visionaries:
>
>For those who don't want to read the entire piece, here three of the final paragraphs:
>
>For example, a clear sign of progress in Western society is that one does not need to argue against rape: it is “dogmatically” clear to everyone that rape is wrong. If someone were to advocate the legitimacy of rape, he would appear so ridiculous as to disqualify himself from any further consideration. And the same should hold for torture. .  .
>
>Are we aware that the last time such things were part of public discourse was back in the late Middle Ages, when torture was still a public spectacle, an honorable way to test a captured enemy who might gain the admiration of the crowd if he bore the pain with dignity? Do we really want to return to this kind of primitive warrior ethics?
>
>This is why, in the end, the greatest victims of torture-as-usual are the rest of us, the informed public. A precious part of our collective identity has been irretrievably lost. We are in the middle of a process of moral corruption: those in power are literally trying to break a part of our ethical backbone, to dampen and undo what is arguably our civilization’s greatest achievement, the growth of our spontaneous moral sensitivity.
>
>March 24, 2007, The New York Times
>Op-Ed Contributor
>Knight of the Living Dead
>By SLAVOJ ZIZEK
>  
>

Exactly.  This was what I was trying to say (not nearly as eloquently) 
back when the Viz was having this discussion.  I was having a hard time 
getting across my incredulity at having to actually voice *why* 
torturing somebody was bad.  It was surreal.

Paul