Morality of torture
But if torture does work, then the question becomes: what conditions authorize the use? Inflicting suffering on a fellow human being offends the moral sense of normal people. But what if that human being has information that would save a single, innocent human life? Then is it right to sacrifice that innocent life to your personal sense of moral well-being? Or are you required abandon you own sense and do everything in your power to save innocent life? The question of whether torture actually works is beyond the scope ordinary experience, analysis or discussion. The community has no choice but to rely on the opinion of experts in the field. Do we have the right person? That is a question of competence that, again, falls outside the public debate on morality.
There is a moral question ordinary people can respond to: Are there circumstances where torture is the moral imperative? If it works: there are.
This letter has not been edited.
My personal sense of moral well-being does not sacrifice that innocent life.
The terrorists' warped ideology does.
Equating the two shows the how warped the writer's own ideology is.
Posted by on November 7, 2007 03:04 PMThe writer injected the big "IF" into his commentary. Unfortunately we don't know "IF" torture works because the results are "SECRET". He should have stopped when he wrote: The question of whether torture actually works is beyond the scope (of) ordinary experience, analysis or discussion.
Posted by Stan B on November 7, 2007 03:14 PMAnd if we have the wrong person? I don't know if James is religious but I don't understand how this position can be appeased by any real Christian.
Posted by savior on November 7, 2007 03:19 PMWhat next, debating the morality of murder, adultery, and robbery?
Remember back only 7 years ago when certain acts were by definition, wrong?
Count America's embrace of moral relativism as one more of Bush's dubious accomplishments.
Posted by on November 7, 2007 06:30 PMMr.Jones positions torture as being a valid subject for moral discussion, but this presupposes that we have already accepted a Utilitarian moral position such as that proposed by Mills.
In a Utilitarian view, the end justifies the means, and as long as a good outcome resulted, torture would indeed be seen as morally correct even though repugnant.
However, this leads to some conclusions which are somewhat startling.
For example, in a Utilitarian moral world, abducting a healthy visitor to a hospital and dissecting them to service the transplant needs of many sick people would be an entirely moral action, since the net benefit of the many outweighs the net loss of the single person sacrificed for their body parts.
In Utilitarianism, morality is relative, no matter how repulsive the action.
A different moral system is one with a Deontological basis. This proposes rules that hold certain behaviour as inherently wrong, and which should never be taken. Christianity, for example is a deontological system of ethics, in which some behaviour is regarded as evil, and some good, and regardless of the outcome, an evil act remains evil.
Christianity and civilized behaviour are not compatible with Utilitarianism and neither therefore with torture, even if it did “work”.
America can pride itself on the fact that some things are seen as wrong, regardless of what benefits may be possible as a result. There is therefore nothing to discuss as far as torture is concerned, whether it “works” or doesn’t, the moral imperative is that it is an evil thing which no moral person could support.
The definition of torture varies as wildly as the opinion of using it to save lives or not.
To some people on the left a civilized society wouldn’t lock up criminals because forcing them in prisons is torture. I don’t buy it. If some people act like wild animals, then they should be handled like one.
Bangalore Skank,
I think there's a huge difference between torturing someone into revealing the location of a bomb that they planted, and abducting and cutting up an innocent visitor at a hospital for their body parts.
I read that the plot to blow up 11 passenger jets over the Pacific in 1995 was stopped, when the plotter was captured and tortured by the Philippines police into revealing the location of the bombs and the plans to carry it out. The capture of Ramsey Yousef, the WTC bomber, was also made possible by that information.
So, which is more immoral? Allowing many hundreds of people to be killed over the Pacific Ocean, or the torture of someone into revealing information that stopped it?
Posted by Dave on November 7, 2007 09:04 PMThe definition of torture varies...wildly...
...as needed to convince some Americans that they are not as immoral as their beliefs and/or actions would suggest.
Rest assured America...we are the good guys, fighting the good fight, for good reasons.
This is only possible because the definition of "good" like that of "torture" now varies wildly...
Posted by on November 7, 2007 09:33 PMDave.
WTC 1 was solved by gumshoe detective work and stupid terrorists. Came back for their truck deposit in New Jersey and lit themselves on fire in the Phillipines.
Uno.
Typical Repugnant strawman. Please cite one mainstream lieberal/progressive who declares punishing criminals by imprisonment to be torture.
I find it supremely ironic to make the argument that Jimmy is a moral relitivist, but as a scientist I must go where the evidence takes me. According to JJ, who lets reason and not ideology take him where logic dictates it must, guided by Judeo-Christian principles, and The Declaration of Independance's proclamation that the truth is self-evident that all men are created equal, and are endowed by their Creator from the moment of conception with certain unalienable rights, including life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Unless you are a fetus in New York or California, or a terrorist suspect or Afghani goat herder turned in by your neighbors for a bounty.
Go Bango!
Posted by Repugnants are liars a.k.a. Queen Gorgo: Because only Spartan women give birth to real men!) on November 7, 2007 09:42 PMI read that the plot to blow up 11 passenger jets over the Pacific in 1995 was stopped, when the plotter was captured and tortured by the Philippines police into revealing the location of the bombs and the plans to carry it out. The capture of Ramsey Yousef, the WTC bomber, was also made possible by that information.
If you can cite a source for this conservative Holy Grail evidence that torture-saves-lives, please cite it.
However, as someone already pointed out, this terrorist plot fell apart on its own, according to the prosecutors who convicted Yousef and others in 1996:
"Mr. Yousef is charged with two other men, Abdul Hakim Murad and Wali Khan Amin Shah, of plotting an audacious scheme in the Philippines to plant bombs on a dozen American jetliners flying between the United States and Asia early last year. The plan fell apart, the Government contends, after smoke from explosive chemicals that prosecutors say Mr. Yousef and Mr. Murad were mixing in their rented apartment in Manila on Jan. 6, 1995, attracted firefighters and the police."
Why can't conservatives tell the truth anymore?
Posted by on November 7, 2007 09:55 PMThe "ticking bomb" argument is implausible. It is also not exactly a new argument.
1. The "ticking bomb" argument relies on the assumption that interrogators are certain about what a suspect knows WITHOUT talking to the suspect. If interrogators haven't talked to the suspect how can interrogators be certain that what they know is correct?
2. Assume for purposes of argument there was a way to get accurate information without talking to the suspect. In this instance interrogators, by talking to the suspect would be reaffirming, what they already knew. Re-affirming what is already known is a waste of time if you're trying to stop a terrorist attack.
3. Torture DOES NOT work. A suspect will say what the interrogators want to hear so as to make the torture stop: i.e. you will likely end up with false information. By the time you figure out the information is false, it is generally too late.
The final point here is that torture is immoral in every circumstance, because it is inherent inhumane and does not save lives.
Posted by Louis on November 7, 2007 10:39 PMMr. Jones - Do you also believe that our enemies are justified in torturing our sons and daughters to obtain crucial information that might save one innocent life?
Even Senator McCain has confirmed (as a former POW), that information obtained under torture is highly suspect. Most of us would end up saying anything just to make the pain stop.
Posted by Michael R on November 7, 2007 10:42 PMA mighty long letter to say nothing of value, while betraying the author's own lack of morality.
Posted by on November 7, 2007 10:51 PMDave's exampel is the "ticking time bomb" scenario is not only plausible it is reality and ignoring the problem does not make it go away. It is a moral question and has to be understood, not simply dismissed as evil.
What if
We have incustody a fourteen-year-old-girlwho, wh have reason to believe, know where a nuclear bombis planeted in the heart of Manhattan, a bomb timed to explode with hours. Is tortue justified to use torture to get the information that will save thousand?
Here's a related question
If on the morning of 9/11 you knew that the commercial airliner was going to crash into a Twin Tower, is is tjustifed to shoot it dow.n?
You have to spend a lot of time in graduate school to become dumb enough to posist that No, we must not shoot down the airline because that act would authorize waylaying innocent people in the parking lot and dismembering them for their body parts.
Does the end justify the means is not an interesting moral question because the just answer is always - sometimes.
We first have to decide if there are circumstances in which tortureis the moral imperative. Then we have to ask ourselves, "Do we dare trust ourselves to torture?"
If there are conditions
Posted by James Jones on November 8, 2007 06:53 AMEverything becomes OK because of the "War on Terror"..suspension of individual rights, pissing on the Constitution, and now torture is OK too... there is becoming less and less disctinction between the good guys and the bad guys. Bush, Daddam, eh..flip a coin
Posted by Keith on November 8, 2007 06:54 AMMichael R
Yes the enemy has justification in torturing our sons and daughters if we are planting atomic bombs in the heart of their city.
The way we avoid that problem is by not planting atomic bombs in the heart of their city. I think we can just about manage that.
The difficult question is, How do we use evil acts, torture, without becoming evil?
One of the aims of the terrrorist is to turn his enemy into a terrorist. Then the battle becomes between terrorists instead of being between good and evil.
What do you think?
Posted by James Jones on November 8, 2007 07:02 AMAccusations of torture ALWAYS fly about during periods of conflict.This particular period is a little different,though.In other periods of conflict,it was the enemy who was accused of torture and other crimes against humanity.
Torture was watching our nation come to a screeching halt ,while murderous Islamic Jihadist;s flew planes into building with thousands of people in them.
These people DO NOT fall under The Geneva Convention Guidelines.
What part of enemy combatants without uniforms ,fighting under a country's flag ,do people not understand?
Moral? We are in a whole new world ballgame now.So quit wasting your morality on terrorists.
Posted by Can I get an AMEN! on November 8, 2007 08:03 AMIf torture did not work, then why use it? Obviously, it works. Doesn't allah provide an extra virgin or two for those tortured?
Posted by Breeze on November 8, 2007 08:19 AMJames- NO, they (and we) are NOT justified, because it is immoral no matter how you look at it. I would not want my life saved if that was the price. Further, there is never any way to know for sure that person is really involved or knows information of value.
Posted by fiesty on November 8, 2007 08:24 AMfiesty,
The point is that it's not just about your life. it is a tribute to you that you would prefer to die yourself then see someone else suffer.
Does that make it right to allow others die as a tribute to your morality?
Posted by James Jones on November 8, 2007 09:00 AMReal torture is the babble that comes out of Howard and Nancys orifices.
Posted by on November 8, 2007 01:22 PMWho would Jesus torture?
Come on JJ aren't you the superior Christian who derides liberals for their situational ethics. Since you have repeatedly posted about how important the sanctity of life is to you please tell us who the Prince of Peace would torture. Also how about telling us if Jesus wants you to fly nukes over Iran. What I love about JJ is how absolutely certain he is that he can commit evil deeds because he is a self-righteous person therefore his deeds aren't evil. How is that any different from the self-righteous delusions of the Islamic extremists?
Posted by Wes on November 8, 2007 04:54 PMMs.Amen said ” These people DO NOT fall under The Geneva Convention Guidelines.”
Actually they do, and neither you nor the US government gets to decide what does and what doesn’t fall under the various conventions. The US is bound to all the conventions to which it is a signatory and the world court in the Hague decides if laws or conventions have been broken. Whether you think that “these people” (btw, who exactly are they?) are covered or not, is rather irrelevant.
”What part of enemy combatants without uniforms ,fighting under a country's flag ,do people not understand?”
The rules on treatment of prisoners, cruel and inhuman punishments, and torture or extra-judicial killings cover combatants and non-combatants regardless of whether they wear uniforms or are themselves guilty of war crimes. The term “enemy combatant” as used by the current US administration is not a term used or recognized by the world court, and offers no relief from the laws. A person cannot be tortured just because a fancy category is invented for them, it is illegal no matter what you call them.
” We are in a whole new world ballgame now.”
There is nothing “new” about this situation at all, and there is no recognition of novelty by the world court. This is important to note because although the subject is about morality, you have been arguing about legality.
Wes
Come on JJ aren't you the superior Christian who derides liberals for their situational ethics
If you say so then I guess I must be.
Why wouldn't God torture. That's not too tough Wes. I think you can probably "get it."
Since God is omniscient He already knows what the terrorist is thinking. Since God is omnipotent, he can stop any evil purpose with the raise of an eyebrow.
You have to take into account Wes that He is the Creator of the Universe and all. So under the circumstance, why go to all the fuss and bother of setting up the waterboard?
The problem here is Wes - You're not God. So we're going to have to figure out our own way of doing things when God decides not to interfere.
That there is in Genesis.
Posted by James Jones on November 8, 2007 06:01 PMSorry Mr. Jones - We don't know how many innocent people have been tortured because we thought they knew something.
I cannot imagine the horror of knowing that one of my children suffered and died during brutal interrogation tactics because the enemy suspected that he might know something.
Justifying our inhumanity because of their inhumanity while they use our behavior to justify theirs, is a never-ending cycle that will only bring misery and grief.
Posted by Michael R on November 8, 2007 06:06 PMJames, so are you a Jew or a Christian?
What does Jesus teach about the treatment of others?
The problem isn't whether we are God, as you put it, but what Jesus instructed you to do.
Tell us how the teachings of Jesus square with torture, and how many earthly lives you will exchange for your soul going to hell.
Go ahead Jimbo, take your pick between apostasy and blasphemy, you have reduced your choices to those.
Jones: "Are there circumstances where torture is the moral imperative? If it works: there are."
An impossible and convoluted statement, of course. Jones says that torture is acceptable only if it works. But we will never know whether torture will work until after we employ it. So we will never have a situation in which someone is justified in Jones' eyes to torture because before the torture the condition that Jones imposes, i.e., knowledge that the torture will work, does not exist.
While Jones poses a situation that is impossible, the real question is whether torture is acceptable because the people authorizing the torture think it might work.
Of course, that immediately raises the question of who the people are who authorize the torture. If torture under such condition is acceptable, who should be empowered to authorize it? Any CIA agent or any military personnel? Should court approval be required?
What if the victim of the torture died and it turned out he didn't have any information? Should the CIA agent be guilty of murder? What about a private contractor?
How would anyone know that if the victim had information, he could have been made to reveal it without torture methods? Should non-torture methods first be used and for how long?
What if some private citizen thinks his next door neighbor knows where the ticking bomb is? What if he is right and he gets the neighbor to confess and thereby saves many lives? Does that mean that any next door neighbor can torture a person, provided it turns out he is right and gets the information which saves lives?
This posing of questions without trying to answer them is fun.
Here are the questions Jones poses without having the courage to try to answer them:
"But what if that human being has information that would save a single, innocent human life? Then is it right to sacrifice that innocent life to your personal sense of moral well-being? Or are you required abandon you own sense and do everything in your power to save innocent life?
"Are there circumstances where torture is the moral imperative? If it works: there are."
"But if torture does work, then the question becomes: what conditions authorize the use?"
"We have incustody a fourteen-year-old-girlwho, wh have reason to believe, know where a nuclear bombis planeted in the heart of Manhattan, a bomb timed to explode with hours. Is tortue justified to use torture to get the information that will save thousand?"
"If on the morning of 9/11 you knew that the commercial airliner was going to crash into a Twin Tower, is is tjustifed to shoot it dow.n?"
"Do we dare trust ourselves to torture?"
"The point is that it's not just about your life. it is a tribute to you that you would prefer to die yourself then see someone else suffer.
Does that make it right to allow others die as a tribute to your morality?"
It seems to me to be about time Jones shed his craven ways and stepped up to the plate.
Posted by Truth on November 8, 2007 07:37 PM
"Why wouldn't God torture?"
Jones says God doesn't need to torture because he knows everything.
If so, a better question, then, is "why does God torture?"
According to Jones, he knew when he made each of us exactly what would happen to us. He knew, for example, what these victims of murder, rape and torture would go through. He knew, for example, that those children in Africa would starve to death. Yet, he went ahead. Isn't that torture of the worst kind because he could easily have kept it from happening?
Perhaps, after all, God is not great.
Posted by Truth on November 8, 2007 07:48 PMMichael R,
The question I posed was:
The difficult question is, How do we use evil acts, torture, without becoming evil?
you have responded with an apology that I do not understand.
"Sorry Mr. Jones - We don't know how many innocent people have been tortured because we thought they knew something."
No one contends that innocent people should suffer so your response is not entirely clear. In fact, it seems illogical.
I would be happy to respond to your concern but we seem to be speaking past one another.
Posted by James Jones on November 8, 2007 08:16 PMJones: 'No one contends that innocent people should suffer so your response is not entirely clear."
Since in America guilt or innocence is determined by a court of law, it is clear that Jones does not think a person should be tortured unless he has been convicted by a court of law.
Posted by Truth on November 8, 2007 09:00 PMJJ:
Reading you is torture.
Posted by Charles B on November 8, 2007 09:33 PMJames asks if we can use torture and not become evil.
Evil is a religious word, maybe the torturer goes home at night to his loving family, as they did in the worst times in England and Europe. Torture was just his job, you see. He answered to a higher calling.
Of course we can torture and not be evil, but we will be inhumane. And we are only human, if we lose that, as a nation, then we are not worth spit.
Posted by Sharon B. on November 8, 2007 10:08 PMOld Jim doesn't even know how blatantly he practices American exceptionalism. "It is OK to torture another human being because we're Americans. If we stuff someone in a sleeping bag which is similar to waterboarding and used in Afghanistan and they suffocate well we are blameless because we are Americans. See look at this flag pin on my lapel."
What this radical extremist ignores is the harm it does to the torturer. Talk about harming our troops instead of supporting them. The torturer can be emotionally destroyed with guilt over what they have done or discover that they enjoy torturing another person. Where is the morality in asking our sons and daughters to torture another human being because you think it might be useful for your political purposes.
I suppose we can be a nation of bottom dwellers like JJ and justify torture and flying nukes over Iran or we can take the high road whatever the cost. Isn't this what separates us from the terrorists? We don't do what they do. Period. We don't terrorize another human being just because we can. We treat people as we would want to be treated and we understand the difference between revenge and protection. Unfortunately JJ is consumed with destruction and killing so to him torture is no big deal. Bring em on right JJ , you righteous follower of forgiveness.
Posted by Wes on November 8, 2007 10:13 PMSkank,
Did Jesus do anything to teach that it is sometimes justifiable to do evil that good amy come of it? Yes, in the narrative of the money changers.
There are Christian, and Jewish, theologians on both sides of the question.
For the secular mind the question is:
May a deomcracy resort to lesser evils when faced with the greater evil of its own destruction?
Allan Dershowitz argues the affirmative effectively.
Posted by James Jones on November 9, 2007 05:49 AMSharon B,
Evil is not a religious concept. It is human reality. Inhumane acts are immoral, wicked and, therefore, evil.
The question is if we can engage in inhumane acts and still be worth spit.
Posted by James Jones on November 9, 2007 05:53 AMWes,
"What this radical extremist ignores is the harm it does to the torturer. "
No, that is exactly the question. You are blinded by your bigotry.
You may treat people as you would like to be treated (except for me of course because I don't deserve it). The terrorists take a different view.
JJ:
You never addressed the quandary outlined by Truth:
"Jones says that torture is acceptable only if it works. But we will never know whether torture will work until after we employ it. So we will never have a situation in which someone is justified in Jones' eyes to torture because before the torture the condition that Jones imposes, i.e., knowledge that the torture will work, does not exist.
Pretty much renders your question moot.
Posted by Charles B on November 9, 2007 07:25 AMJones: "Did Jesus do anything to teach that it is sometimes justifiable to do evil that good amy come of it? Yes, in the narrative of the money changers."
Interesting. So ousting the money changers from the temple because they were carrying on an illegal activity there is evil? I wonder if Jones can name the person in the bible who said to turn the other cheek or the man who said to love your enemies? Waterboarding just doesn't seem to me to be a nice way to show one's love. Jones is clearly blaspheming the Man.
Posted by Truth on November 9, 2007 07:52 AMCharles B,
It is not surprising that you would eventually find a reason to ignore the question but, that won't make it go away.
Posted by James Jones on November 9, 2007 07:57 AMJJ:
I don't think torture is justified under any circumstances. Truth's (still unanswered by you) quandary is the reason why.
Posted by Charles B on November 9, 2007 08:18 AMJames Jones, Remember when I suggested that you go live alone in the wilderness for a year so you could find all your God given rights? Well the same applies to sin and evil. Go look for them in nature and you won`t find them no matter how awful animals treat each other, they can not sin. Neither can we because , we are animals. But because we are social animals we can commit wrongs against each other and society.
Evil is a religious concept and therefore doesn`t exist except in the minds of people who just run out of words for, "really bad behavior".
We can torture and not be evil, but we become less and less humane.
When you ask a question about human behavior and use religious judgement words, you are not going to get an answer that can tie the two together. An action that harms someone is just that. You can tack on as many words, immoral, evil, sinful etc, as you like, but the reality never changes.
Sense with non-sense never works.
Posted by Sharon B. on November 9, 2007 09:54 AMIt's strange, but not unusual.
Jones: 'It is not surprising that you would eventually find a reason to ignore the question but, that won't make it go away."
Jones is a master at avoiding answering questions. He has posted a bunch of them in this thread alone but has been too cowardly to try to answer even one of them. It's so easy to ask questions; much, much harder to have the courage to suggest an answer.
Posted by Truth on November 9, 2007 10:16 AMThe line of logic of those who support America's use of torture (in fact, going as far as calling some types of torture "moral') can be similarly applied support abortion.
To paraphrase the torture-can-be-moral argument:
Because it is possible that torture of one individual might produce information necessary to prevent a terrorist act that kills thousands, then some torture is "moral" even though the practice requires torturing a range of individuals, with no advance certainty for distinguishing those who possess the knowledge to prevent such the terrorist act from those who don't.
Same logic: abortion-can-be-moral.
Because it is possible that a specific abortion might prevent an individual from coming into world who would otherwise grow up and play a key role in some heinous terrorist plot, then abortion is "moral" even though the practice of abortion requires aborting a range of fetuses/babies (reader's choice) with no advance certainty for distinguishing who will grow up to commit the act of terrorist from those who won't.
Like the 'moral' flavor of torture, which can reduce the likelihood of torturing the -wrong- people limiting the practice to swarthy, bearded guys who were holding the Koran when captured in the Middle East somewhere, the 'moral' flavor of abortion can limit the likelihood of aborting the -wrong- fetus/babies, by only allowing abortions for pregnant wives/girlfriends who've lost the father/husband/boyfriend to American firepower.
Posted by on November 9, 2007 10:37 AMSharon B,
Let's just assume that, due to pressures of business, I am not able to go off and live in the wilderness to find out how society actually works. Let's also stipulate that since humans are animals, we are incapable of sin. OK?
Torture makes us less humane, right? Is it humane to use torture to obtain information that would save human life?
Or if torture never works, then how about this.
Is it humane to shoot down an airliner that would otherwise crash into a skyscraper as happened on 9/11?
Posted by James Jones on November 9, 2007 10:43 AMThere is no 'gray' area in torture. Either you believe in it, or you don't. If you think it is legal and called for then what is the difference between torturing anyone to get the necessary information? Torture a suspected terrorist until he gives the ino we want. Torture a suspected murderer until he confesses and save on court expenses. Torture a serial killer suspect before he kills again. Why stop there? Torture suspected sex offenders for confessions. Torture suspected robbers and theives to get confessions.
Hopefully the suspects are guilty, but we can say 'sorry' if they werent.
Then all torture will become the next step, the precedent that the next leader reads into the law. I am sure Saddam started slow in his torturing of his enemies as well.
"What this radical extremist ignores is the harm it does to the torturer. "
No, that is exactly the question. You are blinded by your bigotry.
Posted by James Jones on November 9, 2007 06:00 AM
????
Do you even review what you write? Were you trying some kind of verbal jujitsu or do you think you have stated a morally superior position by calling me bigoted? What exactly am I bigoted about? Pointing out the absurdity of American exceptionalism or your moral hypocrisy of claiming to revere all life except the people you want to torture. This is really tortured logic my little pen pal.
The old ticking time bomb analogy is pretty lame to boot. Like the switch and bait scare tactics regarding the invasion of Iraq, in the hands of this immoral administration, torture will be used on people who get picked up for j-walking. There won't be any heroic Jack Baur moments.
I noticed you also skipped over the suggestion that our president actually read his PDB's and find out from our $40 billion a year intelligence agencies where our real threats are coming from. Afraid to talk about how we have plenty of actionable intelligence but our adolescent commander who can't be bothered with details.
Only a moral weakling abandons his beliefs in the face of uncertainty. We will win this ideological struggle if we hold fast to the principles that have guided this country from the beginning. We are smart enough to protect ourselves without having to resort to torture.
Posted by Wes on November 9, 2007 12:46 PMJJ-
After reading your posts, I can only guess you believe the following:
1. The ends justify the means.
2. To save the lives of others, committing evil is okay.
I'm sorry, but that is fundamentally wrong. I would like you to answer two simple questions:
1. What if the person doing the torture is convinced the torturee knows something, when in fact they don't? "Oh well, sorry" doesn't seem to cover it.
2. What about the proven fact that people being tortured will, at some point, break and confess to anything even if innocent in order to get the pain to stop?
In both scenarios, you've committed an evil act for nothing, in which case the ends do NOT justify the means.
I think you should also consider a very apt quote here-
"The way to hell is paved with good intentions."
The minute you begin to compromise, and employ the tactics of your enemy/evil, you have lost and become THEM.
Posted by fiesty on November 9, 2007 01:29 PMJJ-
I forgot something. You essentially said in a response to my post earlier that torture is justified if saving multiple lives. Do you still think that holds true in the following scenario:
You have a deranged maniac in an underground bunker (he purchased a former missile silo), where you can't get to him at all. He's got over 500 people with him that he tricked by promising them a free tour of the renovated silo and the promise of a drawing to give it away. But then he disabled the elevator, locked down the silo, and barricaded himself in the control room. He calls up law enforcement and says that he is a satanist and Satan told him to either kill several hundred people or torture a baby. He tells the law enforcement officials to either bring out a baby and torture it to death where he can see it happen, or he will detonate a bomb killing everyone in the bunker.
Now, using your logic stated earlier, you're saying that the torture is justified to save so many lives. WIth your logic, it should be irrelevant that it's not the terrorist being tortured, but an innocent baby...
Posted by fiesty on November 9, 2007 01:40 PMfiesty
You haven't read my posts very carefully.
"1. The ends justify the means."
I did deal with that one.
Does the end justify the means is not an interesting moral question because the just answer is always - sometimes.
We first have to decide if there are circumstances in which torture is the moral imperative. Then we have to ask ourselves, "Do we dare trust ourselves to torture?"
Posted by James Jones on November 8, 2007 06:53 AM
You have clearly mistated my position.
"2. To save the lives of others, committing evil is okay."
I have no idea where you came up with that one so I will just tell you that I do not simply think committing evil is okay. The question is a lot more complicted and I have stated it in different ways. First in my response just above and also:
May a deomcracy resort to lesser evils when faced with the greater evil of its own destruction? Allan Dershowitz argues the affirmative effectively.
Posted by James Jones on November 9, 2007 05:49 AM
So if in fact youhave read my posts it is clear you do no understand them.
Now to your simple questions.
The first is not a question, it is just conjecture. The point seems to be that if we decide to torture someone that we need to be certain we have the right person. I don't think there is much disagreement about that.
The second presupposes that torture doesn't work and, as I state in my letter, if that is true then there is no moral issue and no need for a discussion. My purprose is to discuss the morality of torture even if it does work.
" I think you should also consider a very apt quote here-
"The way to hell is paved with good intentions."
I have to epeat a previous comment.
We first have to decide if there are circumstances in which torture is the moral imperative. Then we have to ask ourselves, "Do we dare trust ourselves to torture?"
Posted by James Jones on November 8, 2007 06:53 AM
There is one other thing I think you overlooked in your reading.
fiesty,
The point is that it's not just about your life. It is a tribute to you that you would prefer to die yourself then see someone else suffer.
Does that make it right to allow others die as a tribute to your morality?
Posted by James Jones on November 8, 2007 09:00 AM
I answered yours now you answer mine.
Posted by James Jones on November 9, 2007 02:00 PMfiesty,
No, I would not torture the baby in the attempt to save the lives of the people trapped in the silo. First, I don't make deals with deranged maniacs. We can't really be sure he would hold up his end of the bargain now can we? Second, even if he did release the captives, it would not establish a good precedent.
If I may say so, that's not a very interesting contruct. I have offered two others, the ticking bomb and the airlinerr heading to the Twin Towers which put the problem better.
Why don't you have a go at one or both of those?
Posted by James Jones on November 9, 2007 02:11 PMJJ:
You're still dodging the quandary posed by Truth that makes your "question" moot.
Do you understand the quandary JJ? Or do you just think answering it will render your line of questioning pointless?
Posted by Charles B on November 9, 2007 02:18 PMJames said ”Did Jesus do anything to teach that it is sometimes justifiable to do evil that good amy come of it? Yes, in the narrative of the money changers.”
You equate overturning the tables of moneylenders in the temple to torture?
James you are the most consummate blasphemer I have ever seen. Never mind the misguided fools who claim to be satan-worshippers, you are the real deal, a true blooded blasphemer. You have just defiled your saviour more than any number of Satanists could ever do.
”May a deomcracy resort to lesser evils when faced with the greater evil of its own destruction?”
They often do, but usually at great cost to themselves.
Ask yourself this James, what is the worth of anything if to protect it you must defile and debase it?
Wouldn’t the democracy be so degraded by embracing torture, that it is thereby itself destroyed?
If torturing people becomes the law of the land, then what is left of its moral character that is worth defending?
I put it to you that to inflict torture is to surrender the only thing worth defending, the core of civilisation itself.
You are either a master at playing the devil’s advocate, or you are a virgin defending her chastity by being a whore.
Methinks the latter.
Posted by on November 9, 2007 04:38 PMJones: "Is it humane to shoot down an airliner that would otherwise crash into a skyscraper as happened on 9/11?"
Yet another question which Jones glibly asks but hasn't got the guts to try to answer.
Posted by Truth on November 9, 2007 04:41 PMSkank,
OK -Let's stipulate that there are no circumstances under which torture is justified.
How about the airline question?
Would you have ordered the military to shoot down the second airliner headed for the Twin Towers?
Posted by James Jones on November 9, 2007 05:09 PMAt the end of the day all JJ's got is his self-righteous American exceptionalism.
He dug himself an even deeper hole by stating that all ethics is situational which is a direct violation of his belief that there is ultimate good and evil. Does he really believe that Ghandi or Christ would compromise their non-violence because of fear? Does he really believe that there is a situation where Christ or Ghandi would torture another human being? What a shallow phony pro-life faith. He claims to be an earnest follower of the Prince of Peace but what he really worships is the power of the bullet. Death and torture are the way to manage human conflict. If we just kill or torture a few more people then we'll have peace. This kind of rationale that the Judas for Jesus group would support. Talk about crucifying the Savior with the darkest of betrayals.
The real goal for the JJ's of the world is not world peace or reconciliation which is what Blessed Peacemakers strive for. It is to be the last person to die. "I want to kill everyone who his my enemy before I run out of resources or am taken out by radiation sickness. I am a death worshiper even though Jesus is on my lips." What a traitor to the Prince of Peace.
Posted by Wes on November 9, 2007 05:29 PMJones: "How about the airline question?
Would you have ordered the military to shoot down the second airliner headed for the Twin Towers?"
More questions from Jones that is refuses to try to answer himself. He simply wants someone to please, please provide an answer so he can criticize it. But in view of the withering criticism that has already been directed at him, he wants now to crawl in a hole and open it only to shout out yet another question. What a craven coward!!
Apparently he is taking to heart Abe Lincoln's advice: "Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak out and remove all doubt."
Posted by Truth on November 9, 2007 06:49 PMJJ- you're confusing two separate moral quandries, the saving of lives by taking lives, and the saving of lives by torture. So, since you didn't like the other post, how about one more applicable/likely (especially given the recent passing of the Military Commissions Act). If you have a suspected terrorist that you believe knows about a bomb going off in a major metropolitan area, but don't believe you have enough time to "break" him, is torturing his child justified?
Posted by fiesty on November 9, 2007 07:00 PMJames tries again with ”Would you have ordered the military to shoot down the second airliner headed for the Twin Towers?”
I might be a sociopath and quite happily sacrifice people, so the question isn’t whether my morals bear scrutiny, but whether it would be right action from any acceptable moral position.
Only a strictly non-Christian Utilitarian, would view this as a morally debatable situation.
Anyone with a deontological moral worldview like Christianity would view the deliberate shooting down of the airliner as an act of murder (as would the law), and heresy to boot – since you are presuming to take God’s place.
Even if killing only one person would save the entire planet, the Christian cannot morally do that, since it would be murder and place their immortal soul in jeopardy, whereas death is but a transition to be in heaven for the population of the planet.
You are treating death as if it were the worst of all outcomes, but since you claim Christianity, you would be denying you own belief in the afterlife – which is the more important part. Saving lives by performing an evil act could not make sense at all to a Christian. To a Christian, life is nothing if the soul is moribund.
In the war on terror our enemies operate clandestinely and our two most important weapons are surveillance and interrogation. That is why it is important Americans have a serious discussion about the morality of torture.
That is not a discussion that can't happen on this page.
Posted by James Jones on November 9, 2007 08:23 PMTerrorists activity is inherently clandestine and our two most important weapons are surveillance and interrogation. That's why it is important for Americans to have a serious discussion about the morality to torture.
That discussion cannot occur on this page.
Posted by James Jones on November 9, 2007 08:27 PMI want to address JJ's "shoot down the plane" scenario, since in reality, it is totally irrelevant to this discussion.
1. From a legal viewpoint, airline passengers agree to all FAA and federal regulations- including those authorizing aviation intercepts and shootdown of hijacked planes.
2. From a moral viewpoint, people are not forced to fly and they agree to the above regulations of their own free will. They accept the risks associated with air travel, whether it be shootdown or crashes, because of the extremely low probability of it occurring to them. They are given a choice, and aren't being forced to give up their lives involuntarily.
Thus, in the event of a shootdown of a hijacked plane, passengers are voluntarily agreeing to give up their lives to save others. Further, the method of death is fairly quick and painless. Neither of these two points hold true for torture- the person certainly does not agree to torture to save the lives of others, and the method is cruel and unusual punishment (incidentally against the constitution).
Not to mention that most of those who lives are the ones being saved do not, like me, agree with the method by which they are being saved.
Posted by fiesty on November 9, 2007 09:54 PM"Terrorists activity is inherently clandestine and our two most important weapons are surveillance and interrogation. That's why it is important for Americans to have a serious discussion about the morality to torture."
JJ- Interrogation and torture are NOT the same thing. There is a distinction.
Posted by fiesty on November 9, 2007 10:00 PMJames claimed ”Terrorists activity is inherently clandestine and our two most important weapons are surveillance and interrogation”
James, what exactly is your area of competence, if I may ask?
You are obviously not a theologian, nor a scientist, and evidently you aren’t a military strategist or tactician either.
You also don’t seem to have any background in detective work or psychology.
So what do you count yourself good at?
Surveillance and interrogation aren’t the top “weapons” – neither are weapons anyway. The most vital thing is not making enemies or starting fights unnecessarily.
Read some writings on Attila the Hun, he puts it very well.
You also need to know what has to be protected and what not - there is no point in spending effort on surveillance or any other efforts to mitigate threats against something you don’t care about.
You are also confused about interrogation. Torture should be no part of interrogation whatsoever. It has no value in collecting actionable information, and has so many detrimental side-effects that it is of no use whatsoever – not the least of which is the abandonment of the moral high ground. There are better ways to obtain information.
I doubt that anything has changed since I researched this topic two decades back.
Several hundred years worth of evidence shows it to be unreliable at best, and that always carries enormous accompanying social burdens which corrode the very thing which one seeks to protect.
JJ gave up:
That is why it is important Americans have a serious discussion about the morality of torture.
That is not a discussion that can't happen on this page.
Assuming the double negative was a mistake, we should all assume this is the closest that James will ever come to a concession speech.
Posted by Charles B on November 9, 2007 11:48 PMThat's why it is important for Americans to have a serious discussion about the morality to torture. That discussion cannot occur on this page.
If what you are really saying by this is that you can't find anyone on this page willing to agree with your position that torture can be deemed 'moral' you are perhaps correct.
But 66 posts in a dialogue that has actively continued for 3+ days, with a relatively low amount of name-calling, is as close as this or any blog comes to a 'serious discussion.'
I think you represented your position as best as you could, but you've been flying solo on this, and there have been a number of serious questions by folks opposing torture that have remained unanswered.
The current administration may share your opinion, and too bad for you none of them joined in the discussion to prop you up a bit more, but it is both telling and encouraging, that no other 'conservatives' were willing to go to the mat for this president as enthusiastically as you have by reinterpreting traditional value systems (Christian and otherwise) to conclude that torture can be moral.
In otherwords, at least in this small corner of the online world, there -has- been a serious discussion of the morality of torture. And no one should be upset that morality won out.
Posted by on November 10, 2007 03:37 PMPosted by on November 10, 2007 03:37 PM
Thanks for your comments 3:37.
I personally don't know how JJ & Stuckey get their letters repeatedly posted but it is an interesting view into the conservative mind and all its contradictions.
My last comment is that JJ's failure as a Christian is centered on his unbelief in the power of love to transform lives. His life is centered in the fear of dying in a terrorist act and because of his fear of losing his material body he will sell out his beliefs for the illusion of security. To JJ it didn't come upon a midnight clear. Fear is a greater force than love and reattaching the Centurion's ear in the Garden of Gethsemane was an act of weakness towards his slayers.
I have a poster of the Unknown Rebel standing in front of the tanks in Tiananmen Square on my wall. It represents to me the power of an idea and the courage of the unknown in all corners of the globe to be the physical manifestation of that idea. JJ can do mental gymnastics all day long justifying to himself that American Exceptionalism permits torture but those who live the idea it is impossible to sing Christmas carols about a world of one while condoning torture of another human being. It is a spiritual impossibility. Either you believe in the power of love to transform even the most soiled of souls or you don't. If you believe then you never stop trying to build a peaceful, prosperous and pluralistic world.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tank_man
Posted by Wes on November 10, 2007 10:32 PMJones: "That is not a discussion that can't happen on this page."
Certainly there can be no legitimate discussion with a person like Jones who sees his role as asking hard questions but being unwilling to provide his view of the answers. That would be an interrogation, not a discussion.
Posted by Truth on November 11, 2007 08:05 AM