Thought people here should be aware of the grave dishonesty that Guardian Blogger Andrew Brown has perpetrated - accusing Sam Harris of unambiguously arguing for torture.
I have complained to the editors and written a lengthy post on the site detailing Brown’s errors. If I am not mistaken I think Harris has a good set of grounds for libel here.
I’ve read it before, it’s pretty embarrassing that journalists are allowed to get away with this, which makes the editors pretty laughable.
This article is exactly the sort of vapid rhetoric we’d expect from someone who had no knowledge or interest in philosophy. I wholehartedly defend Sam on his comments on torture, and any sort of consequentialism would necessarily require torture under some circumstances (the circumstances may of course vary according to which consequentialist account followed). I don’t see Mr Brown engaging and wrestling with the pros and cons of consequentialism here. Instead we just get a vague, flamboyant ‘preacher on the street corner’ sort of response.