I have been writing, when I have been writing at all lately, about small children, birds, and the Divine Liturgy. As some of you may have guessed, I gave up- along with a lot of other things- public political discourse for Lent. As it turned out, not only was this not much of a penance, it was a genuine relief. I was, after all, exhausted from the last election, which was the only one I’ve ever known that strained friendships.
I am loathe to reenter the fray, but what I want to comment on really is more along the lines of moral theology than polemics. (Yes, I know that I could probably make the same claim to most of my political commentary, alas)…
There has been a great deal of controversy in the past weeks over President Obama’s release of Bush era memos describing and justifying various “enhanced” interrogation techniques. “Enhanced interrogation techniques”, of course, is a euphemism for torture, the way “collateral damage” is a euphemism for dead civilians. At least it is no longer possible to argue that a handful of rogue hillbillies were alone responsible for the abuse of prisoners. Beyond doubt, the roots of the thing were in the highest levels of the Bush administration.
Reaction to this on the Right consists of two responses. Some are still arguing that somehow such acts as denying a suspect sleep for 11 days, threatening harm to his children, hanging him from his wrists from the ceiling like in a cartoon dungeon, nearly drowning him- 183 times in a month in one instance- locking him in a dark box with crawling insects, stripping him and dousing him with ice water in a cold room, and the rest of it are somehow “not really torture”.
I hope these moral idiots remember that the next time American troops are captured by their enemies.
But the most common reaction is that, however one wants to characterize these actions, they work and are therefore justifiable. At least Dick Cheney, who will not go away, claims they work, though the quality of intelligence gained by torture is open to debate.
But let us grant, for the sake of argument, that they do work. For this reveals the real moral bankruptcy of the post-Christian milieu. In moral theology, the idea that the morality of an act is determined by the good it effects rather than by the intrinsic nature of the act, is called “consequentialism”. Consequentialism is a sort of spiritual and moral poison, for by it anything can be justified based upon the imagined good that one will obtain or the evil that will be thwarted. It is a poison that has been ingested by nearly everyone in this culture, Right, Left and Center. Nor are religious believers immune. In the last week I heard, on the radio, the consequentialist justification for torture from two Catholics, the self-proclaimed SuperCatholic and former senator Rick Santorum, and the more average Catholic pew-sitter Sean Hannity. To see these paragons of moral principle revealed as relativists would have been amusing, were the stakes not so high.
And if you doubt for a moment the breadth of the infection, think of any discussion you have ever heard among Americans about the bombing of Axis cities in World War II. Mention Hiroshima and most Americans will defend annihilating it by citing the (imagined) numbers of American lives which were saved by averting an invasion. A handful will declare that in fact dropping the bomb was not necessary because Japan would have negotiated if the US had not demanded unconditional surrender, or for some other reason. Only a tiny handful, even among Christians and Catholics, who should know better, will say that it was simply wrong because it is always wrong to intentionally kill innocent people.
Indeed, all of the horrors of the last century and of this nascent one were carried out in the name of some great good. The Nazis, after all, heralded the dawn of the the Third Reich, the thousand year reign of peace and order, under the benevolent hand of the master race. The Marxists killed their millions to bring about heaven on earth, the end of war and inequality and oppression. In our own day, scientists defend their ghoulish experiments on living human embryos to rid the world of disease, and the Wahhabi jihadists are blowing up themselves and their enemies to initiate the rule of God. In their minds they are literally blowing themselves to Kingdom Come.
Americans decry these horrors but defend the ones they themselves perpetuate for the sake of lesser goals: defense of “The Homeland”, or the spread of democracy, or the establishment of a Pax Americana.
To return to the question of torture, let’s conduct a little experiment in morality: if the “enhanced interrogation techniques” described above can be justified in the name of expediency, what else is allowed? Can we crush the testicles of the suspect’s child, as Bush administration lawyer John Yoo so infamously argued? If it works, if it saves lives, why not? Where do you draw the line, and how is that line not arbitrary?
As these moral convolutions are always done in the light of some far-fetched hypothetical situation, let me propose one such situation: if you could save the whole world by torturing a single two year old to death could you do it? How is this different from incinerating a hundred thousand civilians to win a war?
That secularists, who see only as far as the horizons of this world, can justify such amoral calculations is bad enough. That those who claim the name of Christ can do so, those who are commanded to love their enemies, to do good to those who would harm them, and to treat others as they themselves wish to be treated, is mind boggling.
Kyrie Elieson. Hospidi Pomiliu. Lord Have Mercy.
—Daniel Nichols
Dan, your reasoning and conclusions are beyond reproach. I haven’t followed the reactions of American conservatives to the release of the Bush memos; I’m saddened but hardly surprised by what you report.
One especially important point, I think, is when you mention ” threatening harm to his children,” as something that was done with prisoners. I imagine that there are people strong enough to resist torture on themselves but who would confess stuff (real or made up) to spare their loved ones. Yet will conservative Catholics go so far as to attempt to justify torturing suspects’ children because that works even better and faster? I fear that in some cases they would do so. I read about an instance in the so-called Philippine insurrection (the revolt by Filippinos against American rule circa 1900) in which American soldiers tortured a young captive to get information from his uncle. Likely the uncle would have withstood torture on himself. My only thought is, “When the Son of Man comes will he find faith on the earth?”
Daniel –
Really? Is someone forcing your hand? Why not Why not remain “out of the fray”?
I am an American Conservative Orthodox Christian who is a father of 5, and a grandfather. I am first a Christian, and then Orthodox, and finally, American.
I have attempted to respond thoughtfully to what you have said. While I haven’t been able to take all of the bite out, I really did try! Honest! All, or at least most of your blog is still there, and I have responded as you wrote point by point, and with mostly an opposing view. I have attempted to be respectful to you as I go along, please forgive if I have not been.
You wrote:
“There has been a great deal of controversy in the past weeks over President Obama’s release of Bush era memos describing and justifying various “enhanced” interrogation techniques. “Enhanced interrogation techniques”, of course, is a euphemism for torture, the way “collateral damage” is a euphemism for dead civilians”.
I respond:
This statement – upon which you build much of the rest of your argument – is deeply flawed, and I believe intellectually dishonest. Let’s be fair. Could it be that the very reason the Bush administration and others use the term “Enhanced Interrogation Techniques” because they are describing activities that aren’t definable as “torture”, in the usual sense of the word? Sure, what they did was uncomfortable and scary . . . but torture?
[you wrote]
At least it is no longer possible to argue that a handful of rogue hillbillies were alone responsible for the abuse of prisoners.
[I respond]
This is a straw man argument. I don’t recall anyone ever arguing that our American soldiers or our CIA operatives who conducted the interrogations were “rogue hillbillies”.
But I suppose I could have missed that.
[you wrote]
Beyond doubt, the roots of the thing were in the highest levels of the Bush administration.
Reaction to this on the Right consists of two responses. Some are still arguing that somehow such acts as denying a suspect sleep for 11 days, threatening harm to his children, hanging him from his wrists from the ceiling like in a cartoon dungeon, nearly drowning him- 183 times in a month in one instance- locking him in a dark box with crawling insects, stripping him and dousing him with ice water in a cold room, and the rest of it are somehow “not really torture”.
[I respond]
I don’t know how many of these things were done, and with what frequency, but it does sound to me like each of these are arguably not torture. Have you ever read about ACTUAL torture? In actual torture, the insects would be angry wasps, the children would be caputured, placed in front of the person being interrogated and actually raped, and THEN killed, slowly. The cold water would have been applied until the person was in ice, and then frostbitten, and finally , dead. And how do you “almost” drown someone? What does this mean? Did they breath in a certain amount of water and then stop? If this is the worst thing that happened, I think we’re pretty good guys, especially as compared to what real torturers do. (Hint: It includes loss of blood, limbs, skin, eyes, fingers, family members, and many times, death.)
[You wrote]
I hope these moral idiots . . .
I respond:
You are now calling us conservatives “moral idiots” How many of us do you think will change our minds or come to your form of Christianity because you have called us “moral idiots”. In reality, we are trying to do the right thing. We really are. Your beginning a name-calling campaign is surprising to me. But if you say it isn’t name-calling, it is simply an accurate description, then you have set yourself up as the moral judge. So it’s either arrogance or simple disrespect. Not sure which, but either doesn’t make me lean toward your ideas.
Also, by the left’s definition, does name calling constitute “torture”, or only “enhanced argument techniques”??.
You wrote:
“remember that the next time American troops are captured by their enemies”
I respond:
Or, we could remember what they did LAST time! (Have you not seen the beheadings?) Or what they have promised to do, or what they do to their own people (hint, many times it includes POWER TOOLS).
You wrote:
But the most common reaction is that, however one wants to characterize these actions, they work and are therefore justifiable.
I respond:
To be clear, by “work”, what we mean is “Save the lives of our childen and grandchildren from being tortured, killed, or otherwise molested” At least Dick Cheney, who will not go away,
[Jimmy] thank God!
claims they work, though the quality of intelligence gained by torture is open to debate.
[Jimmy] It is, as you say “open to debate” because the new “administration” (aren’t parentheses nice? I see how you used them later, and thought I’d try it out. It really DOES seem to change the meaning, doesn’t it)? refuses to release the evidence of the intelligence that has actually been gained.
[you]
But let us grant, for the sake of argument, that they do work.
[Jimmy]
Wow. Are you aware that this comes across as arrogance?
For this reveals the real moral bankruptcy of the post-Christian milieu.
[Jimmy] There you go again, setting yourself up as the arbiter of what is moral and what isn’t. By what authority do you speak? Have you and God made this judgement?
[you]
In moral theology,
[ Jimmy] as opposed to the “immoral theology” we conservatives use?
[you]
. . . the idea that the morality of an act is determined by the good it effects rather than by the intrinsic nature of the act, is called “consequentialism”. Consequentialism is a sort of spiritual and moral poison, for by it anything can be justified based upon the imagined good that one will obtain or the evil that will be thwarted.
[Jimmy]
What about the ACTUAL good that is obtained or the ACTUAL evil that it thwarted? Do they count?
[you]
It is a poison that has been ingested by nearly everyone in this culture, Right, Left and Center. Nor are religious believers immune. In the last week I heard, on the radio, the consequentialist justification for torture
[Jimmy]
Your definition of “torture” right? Let’s be honest here, did they actually SAY they believed “torture” was justified? I’m guessing they did not use that terminology, but you using your former argument that the enhance interrogation techniques we used are indeed torture. In other words, you think that argument is over, and you won it, and now you are going to build another argument on your former argument. Is this, again, because you and God have decided? Or just you and the entire left, who believe themselves to be god?
[you]
. . . from two Catholics, the self-proclaimed SuperCatholic and former senator Rick Santorum, and the more average Catholic pew-sitter Sean Hannity. To see these paragons of moral principle
[Jimmy]
OK, so now I know for sure that you aren’t being honest. I have listened to both, and neither of them believes in torture. It’s just that the sofites on the left believe that if we give any real discomfort to those who desire to end our way of life (including your right to have a BLOG) is torture. The pro-life Mr. Santorum losing the last election to the his manifestly morally bankrupt opponent was a sad day for Pennsylvania and a sad day for America. Also, I don’t recall either of them ever referring to themselves as “paragons of moral principle” .
. . . revealed as relativists
[Jimmy]
I do not agree that to say that enhanced interrogation techniques should be used in a time of war for the purpose of saving our way of life is moral relativism.
[you]
. . . would have been amusing, were the stakes not so high.
[Jimmy]
Ah yes, the “stakes”. The “stakes”, as the left seems to have forgotten, are our FREEDOM. Are you REALLY willing to forgo the freedom of millions in exchange for a lack of temporary discomfort for a few fundamentalist Muslim terrorist who have taken vows to kill and destroy us? Remember, these people have described us – that is ANYONE who is not a MUSLIM as “infidels”, and thus candidates to be murdered in the most vicious ways. Their stated goals are to take over our lives with THEIR way of life. Want to talk about torture? These people systematically perform an extremely painful form of female “circumcision” that keeps their women from the enjoyment of sex. This is worse than anything I have heard of that we have done to our enemies. They systematically torture and kill anyone who disagrees with them. Their way of life perpetuates and even rewards what the left would call “torture” for a lifetime for all of it’s female citizens. Do you really believe that we can talk these people out of killing, raping and torturing YOUR children and grandchildren? My guess is that you don’t have children. People with children don’t usually talk like this. Am I right?
[you]
And if you doubt for a moment the breadth of the infection, think of any discussion you have ever heard among Americans about the bombing of Axis cities in World War II. Mention Hiroshima and most Americans will defend annihilating it by citing the (imagined)
[Jimmy]
Imagined? Believe me, they would have killed us all if they could. Please tell all the American POW’s who underwent the Japanese forms of “enhanced interrogation techniques” that their pain was “imagined”. Oh wait, you can’t . . . they are dead now! They died because of their wounds. Please tell those families who’s grandfathers were lost at sea, or who lived with missing limbs or blindness or terrible fear due to the Imperialist Japanese Army, (who, remember, attacked us) that their pain is “imagined”.
[you]
. . . numbers of American lives which were saved by averting an invasion. A handful will declare that in fact dropping the bomb was not necessary because Japan would have negotiated if the US had not demanded unconditional surrender, or for some other reason. Only a tiny handful, even among Christians and Catholics, who should know better, will say that it was simply wrong because it is always wrong to intentionally kill innocent people.
[Jimmy] Here, I detect again a certain arrogance. “who should know better” . . . Are you not taking the place of the one who is the “paragon of moral rectitude”? And is the left now going to begin protecting the innocents? I thought your argument here was that we should be kind and humane to the manifestly guilty who have been arrested because they are part of organizations whose stated intent is the destruction of America, Americans, Christians and our entire way of life.
[you]
Indeed, all of the horrors of the last century and of this nascent one were carried out in the name of some great good. The Nazis, after all, heralded the dawn of the the Third Reich, the thousand year reign of peace and order, under the benevolent hand of the master race. The Marxists killed their millions to bring about heaven on earth, the end of war and inequality and oppression. In our own day, scientists defend their ghoulish experiments on living human embryos to rid the world of disease, and the Wahhabi jihadists are blowing up themselves and their enemies to initiate the rule of God. In their minds they are literally blowing themselves to Kingdom Come.
[Jimmy]
You are right about each of these evils. But please notice how none of these people are Americans, and that none of them was responding to an attack (as we are now, and were in WWII against the Japanese). Can you not see that each of these was morally bankrupt, and that (perhaps more importantly) each of them were the perpetrators of evil with an agenda of control and change JUST LIKE THE MUSLIM FUNAMENTALIST TERRORISTS WE ARE NOW AT WAR WITH? And if you want to know about torture, please read up on the techniques of any of the above. And it is the administration of the LEFT that wants to perpetuate the “ghoulish experiments” you have described. This, I believe, is the most revealing about which of the groups (left or right) are truly evil at the heart. Is it not an evil and demonic mind that believes we should protect the terrorists from discomfort while simultaneously making the horrific evil of abortion – even partial birth abortion – “safe and legal”. (Safe, of course, for the mother, not the child who is being burnt by saline, ripped apart and vaccumed from the womb in pieces while he is still alive). I must assume that you do not believe that abortion should be allowed??
[you wrote]
Americans decry these horrors but defend the ones they themselves perpetuate for the sake of lesser goals: defense of “The Homeland”,
[Jimmy] Here are your parentheses. Yes, the “homeland”, or as we like to call it “Home” or “The United States of America”.
[you wrote]
. . . or the spread of democracy, or the establishment of a Pax Americana.
[Jimmy] Oh yes, I remember those damn Republicans and their 2008 campaign slogan “Americans for a “Pax Americana”. Give me a break. Please.
[you wrote]
To return to the question of torture, let’s conduct a little experiment in morality: if the “enhanced interrogation techniques” described above can be justified in the name of expediency, what else is allowed? Can we crush the testicles of the suspect’s child, as Bush administration lawyer John Yoo so infamously argued?
[Jimmy] Ah, the old “guilty by association” argument. Not that anyone actually DID that – at least on our side. It is enough that some lawyer was engaged in an argument somewhere, and conceded to someone who was baiting him that this might be acceptable. I don’t recall ever voting for anyone named John Yoo . . . do you? If it works, if it saves lives, why not? Where do you draw the line, and how is that line not arbitrary?
[Jimmy] The “line” is admittedly fuzzy. Which is why it is tiring to hear people with ZERO military experience harping about what constitues torture and what are acceptable levels of interrogation techniques. But if I were drawing the line, I’d say we must bring enough discomfort to bring out the truth to protect our children and grandchildren from these crazy muslim fanatics. (And please let’s don’t try to equate muslim fanatics with Christian fanatics or even American fanatics – it is neither the Christians nor the Americans who have been out committing terrorist acts. In fact, the terrorist group is VERY easy to define. It is almost ALWAYS the MUSLIM FANATICS. Tim McVeigh is the only exception I can think of in recent memory. What he did was despicable and manifestly evil, but an exception.
[you wrote]
As these moral convolutions are always done in the light of some far-fetched hypothetical situation, let me propose one such situation: if you could save the whole world by torturing a single two year old to death could you do it? How is this different from incinerating a hundred thousand civilians to win a war?
[Jimmy] Or, we could deal with reality, since it is what we really have to deal with. Shall we? The right, is not interested in hurting children of any age on either side of the equation. We are interested in protecting the children, and all who are interested in freedom, that which is good, and the American way of life. We are indeed willing to make life excessively uncomfortable for those who want to kill, destroy and otherwise mutilate our children and grandchildren. This is the true question. And I unashamedly answer in the affirmative – “Yes, it is worth the extreme discomfort of our self-proclaimed enemies” to protect my daughters and sons, my brothers and sisters, and my – as you put our “homeland”. The left, on the other hand, is definitely willing to torture and even kill our very young. And not to “save the world”, but to make the life of a promiscuous young “single mother” (the lefts’ new protected class) less inconvenient. Can you be any more “morally bankrupt” than this class of people?
[you wrote]
That secularists, who see only as far as the horizons of this world, can justify such amoral calculations is bad enough. That those who claim the name of Christ can do so, those who are commanded to love their enemies, to do good to those who would harm them, and to treat others as they themselves wish to be treated, is mind boggling.
[Jimmy
] You have now changed your argument. Are we discussing how Christians should treat others in their personal lives, or are we talking about the proper conduct of war in America? These, my friend, I believe are different questions. I do not believe it is fair to throw them all together.
Jimmy–
As much of your argument rests on answering “no” to the question of whether waterboarding is torture, may I direct your attention to this statement? It’s from someone with pretty impressive credentials (click on the author’s name for specifics) in the matter of military tactics and counter-terrorism.
Also, Jim Manzi of National Review just posted this lengthy statement against waterboarding and torture in general which I think makes the secular argument against the practice very effectively. I point it out because I think it answers your concerns about the practical aspects of the situation very effectively.
Jimmy, while I don’t have time right now to respond to your very extensive rant, er, response, I would like to point out two things: I have six children, and the moral authority I represent is that of the Catholic Church, not my own. That is why Catholics “should know better”, but any Christian, who listens to the Gospels read every Sunday should know better as well. That is, unless you consider torturing your enemies a way of loving them. And yes, even non-deadly methods constitute torture under international, not to mention the moral law.
Your post is a reminder of the power of fear and how it can blind the soul to evil.
Jimmy respnded to Dan
” You have now changed your argument. Are we discussing how Christians should treat others in their personal lives, or are we talking about the proper conduct of war in America? These, my friend, I believe are different questions. I do not believe it is fair to throw them all together.”
Jimmy, are you espousing the Protestant notion that when men join together into communal enterprises, such as governments, corporations, etc., they are somehow exempt from the moral law that should govern their personal lives?
And Jimmy:
While I am not going to respond point by point to your arguments, which are at any rate familair ones, I would like to note a couple of things.
First, your idea that we are not “really” torturers because the real torturers use power tools and dismemberment is childish. Literally: it is the sort of thing I hear regularly from my children. “But I only did such and such. So and so down the street did thus and such”.
Or how about: “You call me a psychopath because I shot the child across the street. But at least I didn’t dismember him and eat him. Now Jeffrey Dahmer, that was a psychopath”. Do you see how silly this is? There is always somebody worse doing even more dreadful things.
And may ask you a question? If it is morally justifiable to threaten the small child of a suspect, could we threaten to abort his unborn baby? No? Oh, that’s right, you are prolife. I forgot.
Dear Daniel and Thomas and Maclin –
Thank you for taking the time to respond to my opposing views
I really do appreciate the link, Maclin, to the water-torture description you gave me, and also for the spirit in which you seemed to offer it. I learned something about what the actual procedure is – perhaps I would concede it is a form of torture if used in the wrong hands – I think that is the crux of the matter with that interrogation technique. Mainly, I have responded to Daniel because instead of making an actual reasoned argument that what we are doing, or have done, is torture, he simply stated it to be so, and proceeded on as though his assessment was spoken “ex cathedra”. I see this a lot from what I could call – perhaps unfairly – the liberal left, and it seems extremely arrogant to me. It is odd, because it is the left that is constantly hurling the accusation that the right is arrogant or somehow self-righteous. Perplexing.
Thomas, you ask a great question, and I have to say that I do not have a clear “final answer” kind of answer to it. But before I make an attempt at a response, I want to thank you for the way you have approached me. Very civil and respectful. Thank you.
In response to your question, (which is a difficult and complicated one that, as a Christian, I really need to wrestle with, thank you for reminding me) since I am a convert from being a cradle to protestant to being Orthodox for the past decade or so, I am sure my thinking is still somewhat protestant. My initial thought is that the way our governments treat one another is not the same as we are required, as Christians, to treat one another. Upon closer inspection, I think this might fall apart, but we live in such a broken and confused world, that I am not sure the answer is clear. The best i can do is to say I believe that sometimes, in this broken world, we must excercise a sort of wisdom that allows us to choose one evil rather than another. If this were not true, then we could conduct no wars, ever. Is it not a form of torture for someone to have to die on the battlefield, slowly bleeding to death from wounds – or to go through life blind, or maimed – because of battle? All soldiers then stand in the place of at least preparing themselves to be “torturers” at some level. But if we don’t do this, there is a VERY REAL evil out there whose stated intent is to kill and to destroy us. Should we then allow them to do this? If my home is attacked or broken into by a thief, and I see him (or her) trying to hurt my children, I will shoot to kill. I do not want to kill, but if I have to choose allowing him to rape my daughter or son or I have to kill him . . . I will choose to protect my family by taking his life. He is the perpetrator.
Forgive me if this seems un-Christian, but how could I do otherwise, and be a good father?
Mr. Daniels, First, I am genuinely surprised that you have 6 children. Good for you. Typically though, I hear the kind of passivism that I think you may be representing from people who have never felt the need to protect their children. I used to lean toward passivism myself. But when I brought it down to reality, I realized I was willing to respond – with prejudice – against anyone who wanted to harm my family.
I notice, sadly, that you have maintained your condescending tone. You say that what you are saying is spoken from the authority of the Catholic Church. (I’m guessing you mean the Roman Catholic Church?) Is this really true? Do you really have that authority, or have you been quoting form RC documents? Or is it really just your interpretation of the Roman Catholic ideas?
I would submit to you that your arguments would be easier to hear and – perhaps more importantly to you – more persuasive if you would remove the barbs of sarcasm, name-calling and generally demeaning language. That is, if you are trying to be persuasive. You may not be. You may, like Keith Olbermann, simply be trying to entertain those who already agree with you.
For instance, instead of responding to my arguments on the merits of reason and logic, you have resorted to simply demeaning them – and by extension, me – by calling them a “rant”, and also “childish” and “silly”. Also, unless I miss my mark, you took the time out to characterize me as someone who has been “blinded to evil” “through the power of fear”.
In response to your assessment that my arguments are childish or silly, I can see where you are headed, but again, I believe you are setting up a “straw man” argument, and then tearing it down as though I would stand behind something so “silly”.
What I am actually saying is that if there is someone who is intent on destroying my family, my country, my way of life, and who wants to harm my children, and I can stop him by making him uncomfortable and afraid, then I am willing to do it. Actually, I think I would be willing to do even more than that.
My concern now is that we, as Americans, are being laughed at by other countries who now know for sure just how soft we are since the documents have been released which describe our interrogation methods.
And now we are going to get even softer. I really do believe this will put us in even more danger.
This is my concern. Forgive me my brothers, if I have offended any of you. I know you are my brothers in Christ. Perhap it would have been better for me to remain silent. But please know that I submit my thoughts as mine for your consideration, and not as representing the authority of the Orthodox, or any other Church.
Pray for me
James Thomas
Dear Jimmy,
I don’t have time for a long reply to your (admittedly) tentative answer to my question, but some remarks. I am not a pacifist (nor for that matter, is Dan, as far as I know). We trivialize the notion of torture if we apply it to every instance of violence. Thus if I shoot and kill a potential rapist of my wife, I am not a torturer. If I wound him, tie him up, and proceed to stick hot irons into his skin, then I become a torturer. There is a moral difference here. And there is a moral difference between what happens in wars absent our desire and consent, and when we blind people or otherwise torture them deliberately. Of course, there are moral rules for the conduct of war, and I fully accept all of them. But even the most careful of armies will sometimes be the cause of suffering they would rather not have caused (and will have tried hard not to cause). But we pretty much know what is torture and what is not. The only argument I’ve ever seen for its use is that it is effective. Maybe, maybe not. But if it is, then why not torture a person’s children too, since that would be even more effective? The fact that it might be effective, is, as Dan pointed out in the beginning, of no moral weight at all. Unless one can make a case that torture is in itself just, then an attempt to justify it by its results is consequentialism.
Jimmy, how about a sort of mental exercise? Prescinding from the specific question of torture, ask yourself if you recognize any limits at all on what’s permissible in warfare. If you do, what are the limits?
I’ve heard it suggested, for instance, that the solution to the problem of Islamic terrorism is to reduce the problem areas–much of the Middle East, for starters–to a sheet of glass, which would partly be composed of molecules that had previously been part of human bodies. Aside from the question of whether that’s technically feasible, is there a moral problem with it?
Are there some things that are just plain wrong, no matter what good one might intend to accomplish by doing them?
One other point: I think a lot of people have been stampeded into approving torture by a rhetorical tactic very similar to the one used by abortion advocates: first you take the most extreme case you can think of, and make an emotional argument allowing for abortion in that case, and then say that if it’s ok in that case it must not be wrong in general. The emotion-getter in torture is the scenario of a captured terrorist who knows where a ticking nuclear bomb has been hidden in a major American city, which of course has not happened and is not likely to, and has very little resemblance to the situations in which we have used waterboarding etc.
Thomas –
Thanks for your reply.
First, thanks for straightening me out on the correct spelling of pacifist. I knew something was wrong, I just didn’t take the time to fix it. I wonder why it is spelled so differently from it’s root word – or at least what I thought was it’s root word – “passive”.
I am not a “consequentialist” if consequentialism means “the ends justifies the means”. But I cannot yet see my was clear to say I would never inflict pain on an enemy to get information from that enemy that I could use to save many others.
As Caiaphas unintentionally spoke prophetically of Christ, “it is expedient that one should die to save many”. Is this a good argument?
I see the difference between torture, and the normal conduct of war which can unintentionally cause torturous situations.
Your example though, would be a case of using torture in a punitive fashion. Admittedly, I think I might be tempted to do in the situation you presented, but that is not what I thought we were talking about. I thought we were talking about using what Daniel called “torture”, and what the Bush Administration calls “Enhanced Interrogation Techniques” to find information which has allegedly saved a lot of American lives from terrorist attacks.
At least, we haven’t had any on our soil since 9/11. Yes, I know that sounds like consequentialism to Daniel, and maybe you, but it could also be interpreted as being “mission oriented”. In other words, here is the mission. I will ask you one question at the end. “Did you accomplish the mission”. If the answer is yes, then I am happy.
OK, yes, that is consequentialism.
Sigh.
Moving on.
I was not equating torture with the normal conduct of war. I am attempting to respond to your question as to whether there is, or should be, a difference between the manner in which I conduct myself personally in my relationships and how we should conduct ourselves corporately, as a nation. Is there a different standard?
For instance, If the standard is “Thou shalt not kill” (commit murder?) then does it hold true that I can’t be a good battlefield soldier AND a good Christian? Must a good Christian also be a pacifist?
I’m out of time guys. Maybe I can talk more later.
Gotta run a company.
Jimmy-
The root word for “pacifist” is not “passive”, it is the Latin “pax” and its variants “pacem” and “pace”. And I am not one, by the way. I would describe myself as a near-pacifist, as I do not believe modern war is ever just. Even if there is a just cause, the nature of modern weapons and tactics (like aerial bombardment) render it unjust. I do not oppose all use of deadly force to protect the innocent, however, like a true pacifist- at least by strict definition- would. I even acknowledge that there have been just wars historically, my favorite example being when my English and Celtic ancestors fought against my invading Viking ancestors.
I did want to correct one error in your original post. You called female circumcision a Muslim practice. It is not. It is a custom in some African cultures and is practiced by nominal Muslims and Christians, as well as by animists. You will not find the custom in the Arab lands, in Persia, South Asia or Indonesia, which is where the bulk of the world’s Muslims live. The Wahhabists- our real enemies among the diverse Islamic world- are brutal, but this is one outrage they are innocent of.
Second, I would like to address your repeated attempt to lump me with “the left”. I realize that you strongly identify with the Right, therefore anyone who disagrees with you must be from the dreaded Left, but I don’t identify with either side of that sideshow. There are things I like and things I loathe on both sides. The only label I will claim is “Catholic radical”, thank you. I can only assume you are new around here or you would realize that my politics is pretty eclectic…
And excuse me if I misunderstood regarding fear and its power. You repeatedly refer to the threat of Muslim terrorists in a way that sure looks scared and scary, even using CAPITAL LETTERS! And it has led you to defend indefensible actions.
As for my rhetoric, believe me that when I call someone who looks at torture and denies that it is torture a “moral idiot” I am offering a sober description. And I’m terribly sorry if I hurt your feelings by calling justifying evil acts by pointing out others who are worse childish and silly, but I’m afraid that reminded me of the silly justifications offered by real children, in this case my own, for their bad behaviour. And really, James, do not forget that this was after you had called me intellectually dishonest, arrogant, and judgemental.
And when I said I only represented the Church it was in response to your charges of judgementalism for offering a moral critique of the torture apologists. Of course, I did not mean that I represent the Church in any official way, only that my mind has been formed by the teaching of the Church. And yes, by that I mean the Catholic Church. “Roman Catholic” is a misnomer unless one is talking only about the Latin Rite. I myself am a Byzantine Catholic. I worship in the same rite as the Orthodox, and my spirituality has more in common with the Orthodox than with Roman Catholics, as does my theology. My ecclesiology, however, is another story. I recognize the Roman primacy, though I don’t think it has always been exercised wisely and has been over-defined.
Jimmy,
Sorry if my example of the rapist confused the discussion. I was focusing on what I thought was your equating killing in war, which often results in great suffering, with torture.
(By the way, pacifist comes from Latin pacificus, peaceful.)
You wrote, “As Caiaphas unintentionally spoke prophetically of Christ, “it is expedient that one should die to save many”. Is this a good argument?”
I hope I’m not responding in a demeaning manner to say that I’m astonished that a Christian would attempt to use this as an argument for torture. Caiaphas cynically believed that it was better to sacrifice someone that, for all he knew, was not deserving of death, for the sake of saving the Jewish people. That God drew the greatest possible good out of that evil no way affects Caiaphas’ guilt.
Question to you: If an enemy surrounded a town and offered a choice: Either surrender so and so to us to be put to death (someone innocent of any crime) or we will capture and destroy your town, rape all the women, etc. Would you approve surrendering the innocent man?
Catholic moral theology absolutely forbids surrendering the man – it is always better to suffer evil than to inflict it. Death but not sin, as St. Dominic Savio said. But it still might be the duty of that innocent man to surrender himself, although not a duty that anyone could justly force him to perform.
Cardinal Newman, by the way, stated this doctrine in a startling manner, “She [the Catholic Church] holds that it were better for sun and moon to drop from heaven, for the earth to fail, and for all the many millions who are upon it to die of starvation in extremest agony, so far as temporal affliction goes, than that one soul, I will not say should be lost, but should commit one single venial sin, should tell one wilful untruth, though it harmed no one, or steal one poor farthing without excuse.”
Jimmy-
I knew I was forgetting something yesterday:
First, you take issue with my putting “Homeland” in quotes. That is because it strikes many people, not just me, as an odd phrase; it sounds like something from the Soviet Union or Nazi Germany rather than the US. I always, actually, think of it as “Der Homeland”. I can hardly believe you haven’t seen commentary on this odd phrase. You need to get out more.
Secondly, you mock my citing of “Pax Americana”. Evidently you are not aware that in 2000, when Clinton was still president, the Project for a New American Century, the neoconservative think tank, published a position paper called Rebuilding America’s Defenses. It outlined a foreign policy that would establish American hegemony throughout the world, and especially in the Middle East. Regime change in Iraq was its first priority. It was signed by Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz, John Bowman, and other men who would go on to become the architects of foreign policy in the Bush administration, where they would begin implementing the plan. The paper used the terms “Pax Americana” and “the American Peace” nineteen times . I cited it because it is the term that was used for the goal of the people who brought us war in Iraq and the torture of prisoners and the rest of the mess.
At least the world is safer for terrorists and Obama wants to reduce the number of annual abortions (ie maybe worse than US inflicted “torture”) from about 1 million to 900,000 per year. Kmiec is happy, at least.