i think you're right about the students thinking that torture will never happen to them. it happens to those Other people who aren't american, or who are plain unlucky, or who brought it on themselves by putting themselves in harm's way protesting a despotic regime, etc. But it wouldn't be our own people torturing every-day americans, those students' peers. This seems to be a deep assumption that a person makes that s/he will always be a part of the "us" in-group and never one of "them".
This is a really good point. It reminds me of what my colleague, who was very familiar with the USSR and its tactics would say to people here who didn't fear the encroachment on their civil liberties and rights in the name of security. When people would say to him "that would never happen to me because I would never break the law," he'd respond, "but in a police state, the police decide what the law is and whether you broke it." People in this country just don't get that. They have no idea how much they take for granted psychologically every day in order to get by.
I think that had a lot to do with the trauma experienced on 9/11. It wasn't supposed to happen "here." That happens in Israel, in the Middle East, Russia, maybe even in Southern Europe, but not HERE. So I guess all I'm trying to say is that this scary attitude toward torture may be highlighting a deep psychological defense mechanism that Americans rely on far too fundamentally: "those sorts of things don't happen here and don't happen to me."
I can't judge how horrific this is unless more information is provided.
Is the claim that torture is morally justified in ticking time bomb scenarios? That you are justified in torturing one person to save a million lives?
I am against torture in almost any possible manifestation in the real world, but I must admit that it is not out of the question that torture might be justified in very rare circumstances.
It does not seem to me to be a product of either ignorance, evil, or a refusal to understand the uniquely deep evil of torture to say that it might be permissible to save the lives of many, many people.
It took the land of the poets and thinkers a good 100 years to become the land of National Socialism. America seems to be on the same program of barbarizing itself. I really don't think that average citizens of 1950 would have been so blase about torture. We've become markedly crueler. Acting badly, or anyhow going along with bad behavior, almost seems like a form of bragging. We're proud of it.
I understand that crazy people sometimes work at making themselves crazier. I can sort of understand that. But why do apparently sane people want to promote their own inhumanity?
I think it's because we Americans seem to want to be sold a magic bullet. We want the magic potion, the instant answer. And that is the most disturbing part of the current scene around torture.
It's not as though it is part of a well thought out, rational series of plans based on the most effective ways of intelligence gathering. We are proving ourselves able to ignore giant rotting elephants in the living room, but somehow gaining more (dubious) information around the margins is going to save the day.
I have never watched the television series "24" but the premise is interesting. The world is collapsing NOW! No time to think! No time to put in perspective! Immediate band-aid NOW! no, that didn't work do THIS! do THAT!
Apparently millions of Americans live their lives just like that everyday. It is not a recipe for sustainable survival.
humbition--
Good to see you around! I think you are right that the support of torture in these highly unlikely scenarios is a worship of the magic bullet.
Good call.
I've been thinking about this question a lot, and I have two related ways of looking at it.
First, to understand the students, lets frame the issue in the way they seem to. It is a consequentialist calculus, and you have two options: commit an evil to one person and save many or commit no evil and let many die. It's the "would you kill Hitler?" choice. Put in this light, the choice has a certain degree of prima facie reasonability. Were I given these two options, how would I act? I'd probably take the former option.
There is, of course, one obvious problem. The choice is a false one. But when pushed on the question "is it ever justified" students are likely to concot a thought experiment on purely consequentialist lines. I think the question's reliance on a universal actually presses students into looking at the issue in this sort of way. They are probably willing to put the false dichotomy aside because there is a difference between "ever in principle" and "ever in practice."
The second issue is what counts as moral justification. What if the question was "is torture immoral?" I assume the answer would be unequivocally yes for that class. Can an immoral act be moral in a certain consequentialist setting? I suspect not, and would argue that torture is never moral on those grounds (which is why I gave emphasis on action earlier). Nevertheless, that's a complex question, and I don't have a knock down argument for the position I suspect is true. It strikes me as feasible, therefore, that some students would argue that "moral" changes meaning with the moral framework used to evaluate the issue, and therefore, when using a consequentialist theory, moral is defined in consequentialist terms.
One of the strongest replies to the "ticking time bomb" scenario that I've ever read is Jim Henley's article "Ticking Bombast." In just 664 words, he exposes and challenges several hidden assumptions behind the traditional framing of that scenario. I wonder if Kerry would get a different result if he included that article in the reading the next time he teaches that seminar.
I'm with jeff.maynes on this one. I can't fathom a justification for this, save on the obvious utilitarian notion, which seems like the most probable ethical paradigm to use with such an account. Yet, the "end justifies the means" way of thinking, I would say, goes against the very conception of morality. And if we universalize this maxim, don't we get a world where people torture one another whenever they think it will get them what they want? Is that the kind of world we want? Is that a world comprised of moral persons? What these students are saying is that sufficient degree is sufficient cause, but doesn't that mean any sadist is permitted to indulge their sadism? Or are we saying it MUST be for the common good? Then the common good of which group? Why is the common good of the US somehow justification whereas the common good of our enemies does not justify their torturing our soldiers? WTF?
Sorry. That was a bit long and without any real thesis to tie it together. Oh, right, goes against the very conception of morality. Why? Because "I will do evil to promote good", breaks down under its own insipid weight. You are doing evil, and if you are doing evil (by your own admission) then you are already acting wrongly, so the next portion of that sentence cannot be stated as an ethical claim, because you have already built the foundation of the statement on an immoral notion. "I will do harm" must be jetisoned altogether.
Now, Hanno or someone is going to come along and break all of this apart. I can only defend myself by saying Hanno is Dutch, and that should be sufficient to ignore his claims. Good day to you all.
I'm in Kerry's current class on Peace & Justice, in which we are reading Sister Dianna Ortiz's account, "The Blindfold's Eyes." I share the exact same fear with Kerry, especially when he recounts his seminar experience by saying, "One by one, each of them spoke. And when it was over, 18 of the 22 had said "yes." For them, at least under certain circumstances, torture was justifiable. Yes, yes, torture was a horrible thing. Yes, it was shocking. But for the sake of national security, it might be morally justifiable to do unspeakable things to one person in order to save others. In fact, it might even be morally obligatory.
In nearly 25 years of teaching, I've never been so shocked."
In my 20 years of life, I have never been so shocked to hear my peers, many of whom I respect and enjoy, accept torture as a just action. In our class, Kerry asked us: "What is torture, and can torture ever be morally justified?"
I will always answer "no" to this question. Torture can never be morally justified. Ever. Listen: even if we could apply utilitarian hedonistic calculus to terror/torture situations (the famous "ticking time-bomb" scenerio) to morally justify torture, then we are allowing torture to be morally justifiable. Circumstantial usage of torture STILL justifies torture. This cannot be allowed because that means that torture is circumstantial and appropriate in situations. A circumstantial allowance of torture leads to the misapplication or misinterpretation of "appropriate" situations.
What is torture? Torture is defined by Amnesty International as: "the systematic destruction of person, family, neighborhood, school, work, formal and informal organizations, and nation, with the purpose of controlling a population the state perceives to be dangerous. …. Torture is the worst experience a human being can endure and survive. Torture’s purpose is to change the behavior, the thinking patterns, and the personalities of the victims –many do not survive it. By taking advantage of the person’s values and fears, torturers cut the sources of personal strength needed to resist and recover."
So this is torture. Why should we even consider making such an atrocious action morally justifiable? Why should we, as humans, allow our brothers and sisters to be "systematically destroyed"? Why would we ever, EVER, want to allow torture? To gain information? To control a population? To quell a rebellion?
Perhaps the problem is not the individual which you wish to torture. Perhaps the problem is in the society which can make torture acceptable and allowable. Perhaps this is why oppressed people seek to make their oppression known through violent action? Perhaps societies which oppress are to blame for the actions which are taken against them.
I haven't seen anything like an argument against a genuine ticking time bomb scenario.
The question was, "Could torture ever be morally justified?"
So far the responses have been:
1) Jeff Maynes: Well, I think I OUGHT to do it to save a million lives, but I don't think it would be MORAL for to do it.
What does that mean? Shouldn't the concept we care about be "How I ought to act?" and not a fetishistic obsession with what is "moral" in this special sense. I think a person who refuses to torture to save a million lives does wrong, just as a I think a pacifist who refuses to fight the Nazis does wrong, even if I might find their characters generally admirable. One can be an admirable person and still perform the morally wrong action.
2) Jim Henley and others: If we say that torture is okay in ticking time bomb scenarios, then we are somehow commited to letting governments do it whenever they want.
What? Why? Why can't we make torture illegal, punishable by death? Does that change the calculus? Should I torture in that scenario, even if it means my own life? The answer is yes.
And besides, the whole claim is a non sequitur. If you are worried about the theoretical commitment, then slippery slope arguments are generally fallacious non sequiturs, as this is. If you are making an empirical claim about the precedential effects of torturing to save millions, then simply assume there are none (you do it in private and tell everyone that he gave it up willingly). Is torture justified then?
It is simply wrong to say that arguing that torture is justified in one case means that torture is justified in all cases. IRS audits and wiretaps are justified in some cases, but are not always justified, for example.
3) What if everyone did it?
Well, universalizing maxims is a tricky thing. If you universalize the maxim "Torture someone whenever you feel like it" then you plausibly would run into problems making that a universal law.
But if you make the maxim, "Torture when it is necessary to save many lives" then it isn't at all clear that this maxim can't be universalized.
Which maxim should we consider? Both? Neither?
As I said, I am against torture in every single instance that torture has been used to this point. But the question was, "Can torture ever be justified?" And to that question, I must answer a qualified "yes."
And as I said before, I don't think it is stupid or ignorant to say so.
Commenting by HaloScan
