Humes’ is-ought problem

The is–ought problem, as articulated by the Scottish philosopher and historian David Hume, arises when one makes claims about what ought to be that are based solely on statements about what is. Hume found that there seems to be a significant difference between descriptive or positive statements (about what is) and prescriptive or normative statements (about what ought to be), and that it is not obvious how one can coherently move from descriptive statements to prescriptive ones. Hume’s law or Hume’s guillotine, is the thesis that, if a reasoner only has access to non-moral and non-evaluative factual premises, the reasoner cannot logically infer the truth of moral statements.

A similar view is defended by G. E. Moore‘s open-question argument, intended to refute any identification of moral properties with natural properties. This so-called naturalistic fallacy stands in contrast to the views of ethical naturalists.

The is–ought problem is closely related to the fact–value distinction in epistemology.


Further References

Mooya, M.. (2022). Hume’s guillotine – the ‘is-ought’ problem in property valuation theory. Journal of Property Research

Plain numerical DOI: 10.1080/09599916.2021.1918222
DOI URL
directSciHub download

Spielthenner, G.. (2017). The Is-Ought Problem in Practical Ethics. HEC Forum

Plain numerical DOI: 10.1007/s10730-016-9318-8
DOI URL
directSciHub download

Hapla, M.. (2020). Justification of human rights and is-ought problem. Casopis pro Pravni Vedu a Praxi

Plain numerical DOI: 10.5817/CPVP2020-1-3
DOI URL
directSciHub download

Pigden, C.. (2001). The Is-Ought Problem: An Investigation in Philosophical Logic. Australasian Journal of Philosophy

Plain numerical DOI: 10.1080/713659291
DOI URL
directSciHub download

Iwasa, N.. (2011). Sentimentalism and the is-ought problem. Croatian Journal of Philosophy
de Vries, R.. (2011). The Uses and Abuses of Moral Theory in Bioethics. Ethical Theory and Moral Practice

Plain numerical DOI: 10.1007/s10677-011-9290-y
DOI URL
directSciHub download

Sisk, B. A., Mozersky, J., Antes, A. L., & DuBois, J. M.. (2020). The “Ought-Is” Problem: An Implementation Science Framework for Translating Ethical Norms Into Practice. American Journal of Bioethics

Plain numerical DOI: 10.1080/15265161.2020.1730483
DOI URL
directSciHub download

“Deep-Interrogation” – A euphemism for torture

The five techniques (also know as Deep-Interrogation) were illegal interrogation methods which were originally developed by the British military in other operational theatres and then applied to detainees during the Troubles in Northern Ireland. They have been defined as prolonged wall-standing, hooding, subjection to noise, deprivation of sleep, and deprivation of food and drink.[1]

They were first used in Northern Ireland in 1971 as part of Operation Demetrius – the mass arrest and internment (imprisonment without trial) of people suspected of involvement with the Irish Republican Army (IRA). Out of those arrested, fourteen were subjected to a programme of “deep interrogation” using the five techniques. This took place at a secret interrogation centre in Northern Ireland. For seven days, when not being interrogated, the detainees were kept hooded and handcuffed in a cold cell and subjected to a continuous loud hissing noise. Here they were forced to stand in a stress position for many hours and were deprived of sleep, food and drink. They were also repeatedly beaten, and some reported being kicked in the genitals, having their heads banged against walls and being threatened with injections. The effect was prolonged pain, physical and mental exhaustion, severe anxiety, depression, hallucinations, disorientation and repeated loss of consciousness.[2][3] It also resulted in long-term psychological trauma. The fourteen became known as “the Hooded Men” and were the only detainees in Northern Ireland subjected to all five techniques together. Other detainees were subjected to at least one of the five techniques along with other interrogation methods.[4]

In 1976, the European Commission of Human Rights ruled that the five techniques amounted to torture. The case was then referred to the European Court of Human Rights. In 1978 the court ruled that the techniques were “inhuman and degrading” and breached the European Convention on Human Rights, but did not amount to “torture”. In 2014, after new information was uncovered that showed the decision to use methods of torture in Northern Ireland in 1971-1972 had been taken by ministers,[5] the Irish Government asked the European Court of Human Rights to review its judgement and acknowledge the five techniques as torture.

The Court’s ruling that the five techniques did not amount to torture was later cited by the United States and Israel to justify their own interrogation methods,[6] which included the five techniques.[7] British agents also taught the five techniques to the forces of Brazil’s military dictatorship.[8]

During the Iraq War, the illegal use of the five techniques by British soldiers contributed to the death of Baha Mousa.[9][10]

Juridical exceptionalism – The “ticking-bomb argument” in favor of the post hoc justification for violations of fundamental human rights


Further References

Vreeland, J. R.. (2008). Political institutions and human rights: Why dictatorships enter into the United nations convention against torture. International Organization

Plain numerical DOI: 10.1017/S002081830808003X
DOI URL
directSciHub download

Conrad, C. R., & Moore, W. H.. (2010). What stops the torture?. American Journal of Political Science

Plain numerical DOI: 10.1111/j.1540-5907.2010.00441.x
DOI URL
directSciHub download

Brecher, B.. (2008). Torture and the Ticking Bomb. Torture and the Ticking Bomb

Plain numerical DOI: 10.1002/9780470692486
DOI URL
directSciHub download

Lightcap, T.. (2011). The politics of torture. The Politics of Torture

Plain numerical DOI: 10.1177/2156587216641830
DOI URL
directSciHub download

Rejali, D.. (2011). Torture and Democracy. In Torture: Power, Democracy, and the Human Body

Plain numerical DOI: 10.1080/00210862.2011.594634
DOI URL
directSciHub download

Sontag, S.. (2004). Regarding The Torture of Others. New York Times Magazine

Plain numerical DOI: 10.1109/ICDAR.2003.1227788
DOI URL
directSciHub download

APA & CIA

Psychologists Collaborated with CIA & Pentagon on Post-9/11 Torture Program, May Face Ethics Charges

c
assets.documentcloud.org/documents/1376717/cia-report.pdf

See: www.rt.com/usa/256813-cia-torture-psychologist-fbi/

www.nytimes.com/interactive/2014/12/09/world/cia-torture-report-document.html?action=click&module=RelatedCoverage&pgtype=Article&region=Footer