Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

> I hate how the line between the good guys and the bad guys is so blurred I sometimes question if it exists at all.

What? You still believe in Hollywood-style good guys and bad guys? Do you think that the Japanese believed then that they were the bad guys?

I am very surprised to see the good guy/bad guy mistake here. Everyone thinks they are the good guy, because everyone has reasons for what they do, otherwise they wouldn't do it. Even the nazis were exterminating Jews for the good of their country, or so they told themselves.




What? You still believe in Hollywood-style good guys and bad guys? Do you think that the Japanese believed then that they were the bad guys?

What a boring, predictable response, that missed the whole point.

Of course I don't believe in Hollywood-style good guys vs bad guys.

But I used to believe that the US saw themselves as "good" and that self-image acted as a self-imposed limiter on deliberate policies that the US would enact.

For example, one could argue that internment of people of Japanese background during WW2 was evil. However, there possibly is an argument that some of them may have had mixed loyalties, and that acted as justification.

One might also argue that incidents like the deliberate infection of native Americans with smallpox were evil, but they localized incidents, and not something that was endorsed at the highest levels of government.

I don't agree with either of these excuses, but I see that there is an argument one could make.

But to stoop as low as a policy of deliberate torture and pretend that is justified is beyond my understanding. I cannot see how anyone can truly believe in their justifications for that - except if they believe those that are being tortured are less than human.


I remember being slightly puzzled by a line in Cryptonomicon where the Colt 45 was described as being created to stop some particularly tough Philippine rebels - I remember wondering who they were rebelling against...

I found out recently (yesterday) that the US occupation of the Philippines in the Philippine–American War was particularly brutal - here is a clipping from the NY Time describing the "water cure":

http://query.nytimes.com/mem/archive-free/pdf?_r=1&res=9F07E...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philippine%E2%80%93American_War


Except that US didn't just intern US citizens of Japanese origin. They interned Aleutians as well. They also went up and down the continent collecting Japanese & German citizens of Latin American countries so that they could trade them for POWs. This led to problems after the war because Peru didn't want them back, and so they had to stay in the internment camps indefinitely. This continued on until an american citizen actually sued to have them be granted citizenship. They were in camps for over 3 years after the war had already ended.

The only reason any of these people were interred was racism, plain and simple. Farmers in California didn't want them owning the land.


Not the only reason, history is always more complex than we'd like it:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Niihau_Incident


There is always justifications for racism. 3 people helping someone out before the U.S had even declared war on Japan doesn't really seem like a very good reason to intern native americans, does it?


Hindsight is always 20/20.

Yes, I'm able to say in perfect safety 70 years after the fact that it was a mistake. If I had been alive and asked on Dec 10, 1941 the same question, I doubt I'd give the same answer.


I understand where you're coming from, and I think that a lot of people would(and do) agree with you. But it's the same as standing up now and saying that the NSA spying on ordinary citizens is wrong. If it's wrong, it should be wrong, and nothing can justify it.


Ok, but the original question was not whether it was wrong, but rather was it "the only reason". Didn't mean to imply it was ever right.


> One might also argue that incidents like the deliberate infection of native Americans with smallpox were evil, but they localized incidents, and not something that was endorsed at the highest levels of government.

This is more myth than fact, and also predated the US by decades:

http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/1088/did-whites-eve...


I agree completely. There's a great set of posts on lesswrong about that.

http://lesswrong.com/lw/i0/are_your_enemies_innately_evil/

"Realistically, most people don't construct their life stories with themselves as the villains. Everyone is the hero of their own story."


> You still believe in Hollywood-style good guys and bad guys?

Not all beliefs in good guys and bad guys are hollywood-style.

> Do you think that the Japanese believed then that they were the bad guys?

No, but I do think they were among the bad guys.

If everyone says "I'm not racist", you probably don't say "oh good, that's okay then" and decide racists don't exist.


I'm not saying there are no bad traits, I'm saying there are no people/groups/nations that are all-bad and others that are all-good. Someone being racist doesn't mean they are evil, just like someone not being racist doesn't mean they are holy. "Good guys" and "bad guys" implies moral absolutes.


Absolutes or otherwise, it's hard to conceive of torture as a 'good' thing, ever. And no, I don't believe in the mythical situation where torture reveals the disarm code for a ticking time bomb. Even if it could, there are more effective means of interrogation.


The mythical ticking timebomb situation is a nice twist on the philosophy discussion around the observer and runaway train.

From memory it goes something like this:

You're in a cabin with the track-switching equipment beside a railway. You can see in the distance a group of 5 people walking along the track. In the other direction you can see an out of control train. You can switch the tracks so the train will be diverted onto another track, avoiding the people and averting a catastrophe.

Most people switch the track.

But now you introduce a single person on the alternative track. If you do nothing 5 people will die. But if you switch tracks one person will die.

People find this a bit harder to think a out, and are hesitant to say that they'd switch the track.

It seems that if the single person is a TERRORIST that many people would switch the track. They might even switch the track if the single person was a taxi driver that someone else had said was a TERRORIST. They might even switch the track if the single person was an innocent relative of a supposed TERRORIST.


I think "ticking time bomb" analogies break down here, because the US made a deliberate policy decision at the highest levels to torture.

To me, the analogy is more like this:

You are mayor of a town. There might be a ticking timebomb in a school somewhere in your town. Watches tell the time and are similar to what is used in timebombs.

Should you (a) torture everyone who looks at a watch, because they might know about a timebomb that might exist, or (b) NOT TORTURE PEOPLE.

To me there is zero justification for deciding (a) in that scenario.


Make it smarter: Would it make the decision harder if the single person was young Alexander Fleming and the other five just coal miners?


Would you believe me if I told you that Alexander Fleming's grandfather actually was a coal miner?


It would not surprise me, that's for sure.

But that's my point: 1 man who would find a cure for millions or 5 who could potentially change the world (themselves or their kids)...


I would change the track, and do everything within my power to take the person's place in that track, so that I may give up my life so that one person may live.

In the same way, the Father made an incalculable cost in giving up his only begotten son, so that no man shall suffer the second death, but experience eternal life.


Doesn't even have to be "terrorist". Can be "Muslim".

http://www.pnas.org/content/108/4/1262.full


I realised that my morals weren't as quite a strong as I thought they were when I read of the Frankfurt Torture Case - where the police threatened to torture a kidnapper (without any intention of doing anything) in order to get the location of the kidnapped child, who they thought was still alive.

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/04/10/world/kidnapping-has-germa...

I realised myself that although I abhor torture, if it was my child (or indeed any child) I would probably do anything to get the kidnapper to talk.


Sometimes. Sometimes there actually isn't a more effective means of interrogation (for ex., when you're pressed for time). What do you do in these rare situations, like in the incident about the kidnapped girl below? If it comes down to it, you do resort to torture, as a very, very last option, and then you do the right thing: you deal with it, assume full responsibility for the act, and submit yourself to the justice system so they can decide wether the torture was warranted. If it was my kid, I would have done it, and then comply 100% when the law questioned me about it.


Do you think that those you think of as "good guys" never tortured anyone? Because they probably did. That makes everyone bad guys, so the distinction of "good guys" and "bad guys" is meaningless.


I don't think of those who torture as "good guys" to begin with.


> the distinction of "good guys" and "bad guys" is meaningless

I agree that if you assume 'good guy' is an absolute, and any deviation from that one true path is 'bad guy', then everyone is a 'bad guy'. Then the terms becomes meaningless. But I consider these relative terms. For all its faults, the US is still closer to the 'good guy' than 'bad guy' side of the spectrum in most areas. North Korea is closer to the 'bad guy' than the 'good guy' side.


I'm more inclined to think of a country like Sweden or Norway as the good guys. I agree about North Korea, but torture, indefinite detention without a trial, Guantanamo, etc are not traits of someone I'd consider a good guy.


> I'm saying there are no people/groups/nations that are all-bad and others that are all-good.

Do you think the person you were replying to would disagree with this? (I agree with it.) It seems more likely to me that they just weren't using the words "good guys" and "bad guys" in the ways you interpreted them.


I think he was using the words "good guys" and "bad guys" as synonyms to "us" and "them" respectively, I'm just pointing out that they would probably be reversed if he were on the other side.


I am from neither the US or Japan, nor do I follow Islam.

So, no: "good guys" and "bad guys" were not meant as synonyms for "us" and "them" (unless you mean "us"="USA").




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: