Torture is a Moral Issue

[pecunium]

I know I spend most of my time arguing about the practical lack of utility for torture; because that's the way the torture-mongers, and apologists, frame it.

But that's only part of the issue. The whole point of the ticking bomb is to redeem the torture as a morally valid act. "If you just talk to him, people will die. Isn't it better to hurt him a little and save lives?"

It's a forced choice, of course, with a poisoned pill. At it's heart it the sort of thing one argues about in late night bull sessions: "Would you kill Hitler to avert WW2 and save millions of people?" There is only one answer acceptable to the people who pose such things... "Yes, of course torturing someone to save a lives is the lesser evil."

At which point we are one has made the choice to join them in condoning torture. It may be posed as saving hundreds, but once you cross the line, the only thing one is haggling over is the price. They have already decided they accept torture. They want affirmation they have done the right thing.

If is interested in discussions of the actual moral question, there's a conference in June (26/27)

Torture Is A Moral Issue: Panel & Conference for People of Faith.

I'll be speaking on both days.


(if there is a recording/transcript, I'll see how one gets a copy)

Comments

[(Anonymous)]

cakmpls has the crux of that argument, I think. The fantasy "If you could have killed Hitler..." assumes sure & certain knowledge of what he did. The uses we have made of torture are based on a mere guess about what might be prevented. The analogy between the two is simply not valid. I don't know if the people who use it are being willfully dishonest, or are simply ignorant/blind to that fact (which even intelligent people can be). I have no objection to statements starting with "If...", and frequently engage in such speculation, but have learned to be cautious about using them as a basis for action.

As akirlu points out, the lesser of two evils is still evil, though sometimes it may be the best choice we can make. And sometimes it's not a good one.

I think inadequate consideration is given to such things as "If a bombing raid kills five members of the Taliban (never mind that this group is _not_ Al Quaeda) and ten innocent civilians, thus causing thirty otherwise-uncommited Moslems to support the Taliban, should it be done?". That may be, in essence, what we've been doing (and are continuing to do) in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan, resulting in the U.S. being considered, by many people, to be the lesser of two evils. I can't help thinking that there must be a better way of doing things.