Hacker News Reader

Comment by hashmap | Hacker News Reader

> The reason I posted is because you seemed to be unaware other people have different moral value systems. This is the fundamental reason behind a lot of disagreements. Here's the root of it: you think I a morally wrong and I think I am morally right. There is no rational argument to demonstrate that either of us are correct.

I have no such illusions; I'm simply saying that this archaic one is objectively wrong from a humanitarian and historical standpoint. We both think we are right; the difference is you are wrong. There is no agreeing to disagree here, and it is quite cut and dried.

Further, I am not saying these things to convince you of anything, and I of course don't think I will. I cannot convince someone to care about their fellow human being. I am saying these things for the sake of those reading.

View on HN

Okay, so you can go ahead and lay out how I am objectively wrong from a humanitarian and historical standpoint? It’s fine to assert that but so far you haven’t actually explained it.

I agree there is no agreeing to disagree about value differences. The key is to identify what outcomes we both want and, from that starting point, evaluate what historical and sociological evidence suggests can get us to those outcomes. Moral framing does not help.

"Cite your sources as to why torturing prisoners is wrong" is simply shorthand for "I actually like the idea of this torture and you can't tell me otherwise". Like I said, I can't make an argument as to why you should care about your fellow human if you don't already. It's not a good faith question.

We know that punitive measures do not act as a deterrence and in the case of more progressive countries that have wildly better outcomes we know what actually has good outcomes. If you're really interested all the literature is just a google away. Check out US incarceration and recidivism rates (which are the worst in the world) and those of more progressive countries. The data is all there for you, if you are curious. We've seen what doesn't work, and we've seen what does. It's not my job to educate you.

Like I said, I'm not here to convince you of anything. I cannot change your value system, I can only make a public example of why it does no good to drag us into the past, and all the atrocities that entails.

EDIT: sort of an afterthought, but for those reading I always find it hilarious that whenever a reactionary sees something work in another country the first instinct is to say "actually the US might exist in a bizarro reality where everything is opposite, and you can't prove that it's not so ha". As if the most scientific approach to seeing someone's repeated successful results is to absolutely refuse to try to replicate it yourself!

It has been my observation that the “humanitarian” experiments in the US have been a large net negative for everyone involved. It is not theoretical.

It’s not a bizzaro reality: peoples and cultures vary across geography in different ways.

Contrary to being a reactionary, my fear is that the denial of these differences and the failure of well-intentioned policies is going to eventually lead to a draconian authoritarian backlash that could be prevented by having more sensible policies now. And as I said in my original post, many of the worst aspects of American culture and the legal system are already downstream consequences of failed “humanitarian” policies that are making a mockery of justice, civil rights, and peace/safety.

All in all, I am afraid that you will not make much progress by assuming everyone who disagrees with you is a morally objectionable reactionary and refusing to seriously engage with them. You are making a religious argument and not a policy argument. I also don’t think it does you service to conflate punishment with torture and make straw men.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com