= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Percent_Carbon comments on Harry Potter and the Methods of Rationality discussion thread, part 14, chapter 82 - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (790)
There is a difference between killing someone in a messy but expedient manner, like a weapon deemed inhumane, and torturing someone to death.
1) the killer must sustain killing intent throughout the torture
2) the killer is vulnerable to counter-attack while torturing when, instead, they could be done and absent
3) the things we do change us, a torturer is likely to (almost must) become less empathetic than one who quickly executes, and empathy is a valuable skill in many activities
Most weapons deemed inhumane are the sort of thing that would be about as unpleasant as being tortured to death. The de facto ban on poison gas in WW2, for example - if I had to choose between mustard gas and napalm, I'm not sure which way I'd go. For that matter, plenty of people are burned alive in ordinary wars(naval combat is particularly bad for that, along with the aforementioned napalm), and that's never been deemed worse than any other death in any legal sense.
Also, all we know is that she was burned to death. Ordinary fire deaths are not the sort of torture you're suggesting - they're relatively quick in most cases(minutes, and not many of them), so 2) in particular doesn't apply strongly.