Mark,
Going to the link you posted, I now take this as the definition of torture that I will use:
"any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity. It does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in or incidental to lawful sanctions."
As such, the actions at Abu Ghraib were not torture as they did not take place with "the consent of a public official acting in an official capacity." We know this because those involved were punished. Rather, what they were guilty of was abuse.
Please refrain, per the definition you yourself reference, from equating Abu Ghraib with torture again.
I like my simpler definition of torture better, precisely because doubting thomas and his ilk can't say "Abu Ghraib wasn't torture, nyah nyah nyah nyah nyaaaaaah nyah", as if that were a constructive and helpful contribution to the discussion.
The number one reason to insist on a strict definition of torture is to find loopholes in it, so as to allow the torture in spite of the definition. Which means that the number two reason to insist upon the formulation of such a definition is to permit anything to be done to any person that is not specifically itemized in the "official" definition.
The best way to avoid torturing somebody "by accident" is simply not to deliberately inflict pain on another person: practice the Gold Rule.
Doubting Thomas,
(Here's a comment exchange headed your way!)
Yeah, that's rich. Does the term semantic hair-splitting mean anything to you?
And I notice that you failed to consider the US Army Field Manuel's reference to Geneva convention prohibitions on torture. Granted, they don't define it; however, they don't limit it to behavior authorized by official policy, either.
And why, exactly, does the dictionary definition not satisfy you?
Look, it's your soul--and ultimately, it's between you and the savior. But I sure wouldn't want this slippery-slope paradigm on my conscience!
Definition 1 per Mark's post:
Something causing severe pain or anguish
Definition 2 per Mark's post:
any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity. It does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in or incidental to lawful sanctions
Syllogism per Def. 1:
Torture is anything that causes sever pain.
What went on at Abu Ghraib caused severe pain.
Therefore what went on at Abu Ghraib was torture.
Syllogism per Def. 2:
Torture is what is sanctioned by the state.
What went on at Abu Ghraib was not sanctioned by the state.
Therefore what went on at Abu Ghraib was not torture.
Axiom per Aristotle:
Something cannot be and not be at the same time.
Application:
Something cannot be torture and not torture at the same time.
Doubting thomas:
Thanks for a further illustration of the lengths to which Sophists For America will go to defend their conscience from the manifest meaning of the Church. Even my various Torture Apologists have been willing to admit that Abu Ghraib entailed torture.
Fascinating.
Thanks for allowing the opportunity to demonstrate why proper definitions are necessary. The lack of them leads to different conclusions. Contradictory conclusions are not consistent with reason. Per my understanding of Catholic teaching, what contradicts reason is not consistent with the truth and thus not consistent with God.
Therefore, per the above, I do not yet fear for my soul.
Mark,
Sophistry is never consistent with a valid syllogism. What I have presented are two valid syllogisms in form but which contradict in conclusion. But what contradicts cannot both be true and untrue at the same time. Therefore there must be a flaw in the premises. In the cases above, the flaw is in the definition.
The sophistry is claiming that this is not the case.
The flaw is: Torture is what is sanctioned by the state.
Torture is not sanctioned by the state.
Carrying on from above per syllogism 1:
Torture occured at Abu Ghraib.
What occured at Abu Ghraib was US supported.
Therefore the US supports torture.
Per syllogism 2:
Abuse occured at Abu Ghraib
The US punished this abuse
Therefore what occured at AG was punished by the US.
Diferent definitions lead to different conclusion. This in turn then leads to further conclusions which lead further and further from the each other in their search for the truth.
That last was me.
Rob,
That may be, but that is why people have been asking the question.
But it also is in one of the definitions that has been offered on the post as a definitive definition. Therefore, that is the one I took to demonstrate my point.
Does Mark have utter contempt for Jimmy Akin, or not?
Jimmy writes on his blog, "I also can't substantively engage the question of torture without a precise definition of what counts as torture in place. Not all forms of physical or psychological pressure count as torture, but the Catechism and other relevant Church documents do not offer a precise definition of what is torture and what is not..... The Catechism's discussion of torture focuses significantly on the motive that is being pursued in different acts of torture. If it means us to understand that having a particular motive is necessary for an act to count as torture then it might turn out that some acts commonly described as torture are in fact not torture... For example, the Catechism's list of motives for torture does not mention the use of physical pressure to obtain information needed to save innocent lives."
Happy Feast Day ChairofStPeter
Last me again.
No, doubting. For Jimmy makes it quite clear that he is not sure what torture is. He nowhere attempts to say "...and so the Church can be safely ignored".
He nowhere attempts to say "...and so the Church can be safely ignored".
Yeah, or "pulling out peoples' fingernails with pliars and laughing at their screams isn't torture unless it is sanctioned by the State".
What a complete moron.
Mark,
Jimmy says that what may normally be torture isn't necessarily defined as torture by the Catechism if the motive is to save innocent lives. Is that a legitimate view?
OK, let's try this again. Since Mark claims only to be concerned with following the current Church teaching on this topic, let's look at the Catechism, no. 2297, which expressly treats of "torture:"
"Kidnapping and hostage taking bring on a reign of terror; by means of threats they subject their victims to intolerable pressures. They are morally wrong. Terrorism threatens, wounds, and kills indiscriminately; it is gravely against justice and charity. Torture which uses physical or moral violence to extract confessions, punish the guilty, frighten opponents, or satisfy hatred is contrary to respect for the person and for human dignity..."
Now that's the current Catholic view of torture. Note, it does not forbid torture categorically, only when used to extract confessions, punish, frighten, or satisfy hatred. Presumably, the smart people who drafted this document knew how to say, "torture is intrinsically evil and may never be justified." But, failing apparently to consult with Mr. Shea, the Church declined to take this position. Ergo, not all torture is excluded. Torture used to gain life-saving information (such as the location of a dirty bomb or a terrorist cell, or a roadside bomb making location) can therefore be acceptable. Upon reflection, this is not so different from the traditional teaching which Mark is utterly uninterested in.
Will Mark and his holier-than-thou commentariat comrades admit that this in fact is the definition everyone has been seeking, right there in the current Catechism? Will they admit that the Church is not as absolutist as they are but is rather nuanced about moral questions such as this? Or will they cling to their neo-Waldensianism (a.k.a. Quakerism) which holds that all force and compulsion is immoral?
In sum, torture does have a definition, and what we are doing in the theater of war does not violate it, because it does not seek to coerce confessions, nor is it practiced to "punish the guilty, frighten opponents, or satisfy hatred." Where our conduct does fall into those prohibitted categories, it merits condemnation; where it does not fall into those categories, it does not merit condemnation.
Is that a legitimate view?
No.
Note, it does not forbid torture categorically, only when used to extract confessions, punish, frighten, or satisfy hatred.
I am probably a bad person for looking forward to the day that people have to justify statements like this before the King of Kings.
Geez, I thought we cleared this up in the last thread:
Anything as bad as or worse than subjecting a prisoner to an Ornette Coleman set is torture.
DT,
From The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition:
sophist-n- 1a. One skilled in elaborate and devious argumentation.
The use of syllogisms in and of itself does not make one a sophist, true.
The use of syllogisms to hide a flawed overall premise in one's flawed thinking definately renders one a sophist.
How does taking a dictionary definition of torture and contrasting it with a UN Convention definition of torture make torture a concept beyond comprehension? Your attempt to imply such a ridiculous notion is what renders your argument a sophist's gambit.
When your interested in a serious discussion on why Catholics should avoid torture, please let me know. I have no time for rhetorical gymnastics.
"How does taking a dictionary definition of torture and contrasting it with a UN Convention definition of torture make torture a concept beyond comprehension? Your attempt to imply such a ridiculous notion is what renders your argument a sophist's gambit."
They were definitions you proffered as definitive for those seeking a definition. My exercise was to merely point out that these definitions, using a very specific case, result in contradictory conclusions. This is not sophistry to point out. This is not even rhetoric. It is purely logical demonstration. The result of which is to point out that the one or both definitions are not sufficient as definitions. This is the truth. The sophistry is in trying to say otherwise in spite of using valid syllogisms to prove the point.
Mine again.
...what may normally be torture isn't necessarily defined as torture by the Catechism if the motive is to save innocent lives. Is that a legitimate view?
No, no, no, no. Fornication doesn't become not-fornication just because 007 is trying to get information from Octopussy in order to save lives.
No.
And the Catechism doesn't define torture at all, though it does provide a string of examples of where it is illicit in order to illustrate that it is always illicit (the Catechism often states a general principle and then reinforces it with specific examples).
I expect that someone who needs a definition of torture in order to be able to avoid doing (or formally supporting) it accidentally has moral issues that go beyond what can be solved by reading the Catechism.
From the Stanford website on Philosophy:
"Aristotle's logic, especially his theory of the syllogism, has had an unparalleled influence on the history of Western thought. It did not always hold this position: in the Hellenistic period, Stoic logic, and in particular the work of Chrysippus, was much more celebrated. However, in later antiquity, following the work of Aristotelian Commentators, Aristotle's logic became dominant, and Aristotelian logic was what was transmitted to the Arabic and the Latin medieval traditions, while the works of Chrysippus have not survived.
This unique historical position has not always contributed to the understanding of Aristotle's logical works. Kant thought that Aristotle had discovered everything there was to know about logic, and the historian of logic Prantl drew the corollary that any logician after Aristotle who said anything new was confused, stupid, or perverse. During the rise of modern formal logic following Frege and Peirce, adherents of Traditional Logic (seen as the descendant of Aristotelian Logic) and the new mathematical logic tended to see one another as rivals, with incompatible notions of logic. More recent scholarship has often applied the very techniques of mathematical logic to Aristotle's theories, revealing (in the opinion of many) a number of similarities of approach and interest between Aristotle and modern logicians."
From the Stanford website on Philosophy:
All this to justify an obviously specious claim that torture isn't torture unless done by the State, so no torture could have taken place at Abu Ghraib.
Keep going dude, because the bigger the letters on your "Look at me, I'm a moron" sign the funnier it gets.
Tom:
I'm afraid you are guilty of torturing the Catechism till it says what you want it to.
In brief, the word "only" is one you are inserting in order to create a dichotomy that does not exist. Torture is gravely immoral when used to "extract confessions" (meaning "I confess I know where the bomb is.")
I repeat: Gaudium et Spes (no. 27) condemns torture categorically:
"Furthermore...whatever violates the integrity of the human person, such as...torments inflicted on body or mind, attempts to coerce the will itself...all these things and others of their like are infamies indeed. They poison human society, but they do more harm to those who practice them than those who suffer from the injury. Moreover, they are supreme dishonor to the Creator."
And if that isn't clear enough, Pope John Paul II quoted that same passage in Veritatis Splendor (no. 80), calling torture (of any kind) one of "a number of examples of...intrinsically evil" acts.
An intrisically evil act is, well, intrinsically evil. It's not evil sometimes and okay at others.
And calling people names like "holier-than-thou commentariat comrades" does not change that fact.
You can rail and scream about JPII as a slave to PC fashion and Vatican II as a Council of wimps. You can insult people who point out what the Magisterium teaches. You can indulge "ends justify means" arguments till the cows come hom. You can try goofy and desperate sophistries like "It's only torture if the state sanctions it." But the fact remains true that torture is *intrinsically* evil and is not justified with "ends justify means" arguments.
Mark,
Zippy is pretty clear in saying that Jimmy Akin's views on torture are not legitimate and in fact says about Jimmy, "I expect that someone who needs a definition of torture in order to be able to avoid doing (or formally supporting) it accidentally has moral issues that go beyond what can be solved by reading the Catechism."
In your last post, addressed to Tom, you are really addressing Jimmy Akin's arguments. I have not quoted Tom or elucidated on Akin.
Are you confortable in addressing the first 6 paragraphs of your post of 3:34 pm to Jimmy Akin, instead of Tom?
In other words, are you accusing Jimmy Akin of "torturing" the Catechism?
Doubting Thomas:
Just out of curiosity, how old are you?
Zippy is pretty clear in saying that Jimmy Akin's views on torture are not legitimate and in fact says about Jimmy, ...
Um, I didn't say that about Jimmy. I said that about your statement, in which you paraphprase him, whether accurately or not I can't say.
You plan on owning your own position any time here or are you just a weenie trying to start a fight between other people?
Thomas:
Here's a little experiment for you. Go to Jimmy and ask him if he thinks the Church's teaching on torture can safely be ignored.
I'll wait here.
46
Thanks.
Are you confortable in addressing the first 6 paragraphs of your post of 3:34 pm to Jimmy Akin, instead of Tom?
I would be.
"Keep going dude, because the bigger the letters on your "Look at me, I'm a moron" sign the funnier it gets."
Interesting argument Zippy. But the fact of my argument rests on Mark and Holy Fool offering a series of definitions as valid for this discussion. All I have done is to take two that result in contradictory conclusions. Two contradictory things cannot be at the same time. Therefore there is a flaw in at least one definition offered by Holy Fool and Mark.
Whether the state needs to be involved for the act to be torture is still not proven to me either. It may be, it may not be. For the UN it clearly does need to be. Also per the McCain Ammendment on Torture which uses this definition it does need to be.
Zippy,
I'm not paraphrasing him. Go to his blog and search under "torture." He writes, "The Catechism's discussion of torture focuses significantly on the motive that is being pursued in different acts of torture. If it means us to understand that having a particular motive is necessary for an act to count as torture then it might turn out that some acts commonly described as torture are in fact not torture... For example, the Catechism's list of motives for torture does not mention the use of physical pressure to obtain information needed to save innocent lives."
Mark,
You didn't answer the question. Is Jimmy Akin torturing the Catechism in this quote?
Interesting argument Zippy.
Thanks. Go on, keep going.
Hint (if I don't give a hint you might not keep going): Holy Fool's several-page-long exegesis isn't a "definition" in the sense you are using the word, any more than "the Bible" is a definition of Divine Revelation; and the qualifier "sanctioned by the state" manifestly doesn't specify a category boundary when it comes to torture.
Now go on. What font size are we gonna get to on your sign?
DT:
I don't recall offering any definition of torture. In fact, I specifically recall saying "Consult what guidelines the military and police types use".
Re: Jimmy. As I already said, Jimmy is basically saying what we already know: that the Catechism does not give an in-depth definition of torture. So he treads lightly. Your lame attempts to turn that circumspection into a claim that the Church's teaching can be safely ignored are, like your attempts to say "It's not torture if the state doesn't sanction it", risible.
Go to his blog and search under "torture."
No. People who want to talk to me have to own their own arguments. Why don't you want to own yours?
"When you get tired of the masses haunting you for definitions of torture you don't feel qualified to give, feel free to send 'em over. If they still don't know after that, then they don't want to know."
Perhaps you didn't Mark, but this was the quote you gave offering a source where I could find the definition. In essence it seemed you offered this as one which you agreed with.
The problem I had once there was that I could quickly come to different conclusions using the varied definitions offered.
Last me again
"Thanks. Go on, keep going"
That was actually sarcasm Zippy, but its hard to convey this in an electronic format.
DT:
It may comes as a surprise, but I don't agree with or endorse every single piece of correspondence I blog.
Nice try at sophistry though. I will long remember your ingenious "Tearing out fingernails isn't torture if the state doesn't sanction it" argument as one of the most desperate piece of excuse-making to ever hit my comboxes.
I think we have a winner.
Please. Allow me to give you gentlemen an opportunity to stop your intraecclesiastical squabbling and all get back on the same page:
TORTURE IS WRONG BECAUSE, AND ONLY BECAUSE, GEORGE W. BUSH PERSONALLY ORDERS IT TO BE DONE TO INNOCENT PEOPLE IN ORDER TO KEEP HIS GREEDY, LYING, HAND IN THE WAHABBI MUSLIM COOKIE JAR.
There. Now you can all team up and commence to rip me a new one, while I step out for a beer.
Sooo... if somebody else orders torture it's not wrong?
Rob: You're a living laboratory demonstration of why pathological Bush hatred is so self-defeating. It's a form of self-indulgent emotional incontinence.
Note, it does not forbid torture categorically, only when used to extract confessions, punish, frighten, or satisfy hatred.
Actually, it does not say that. The CCC does not say "when" used, it says "which" uses. You slipped in "when" for "which".
Mark--
That was a *joke*, lighten up, for heaven's sake!
Mark,
So then the definition of torture offered by the UN and posted on Holy Fool's site (and I think was supported by you in the McCain Ammendment) is invalid?
Also please note that I have not endorsed that the state must be involved for the act to be torture. I have only used it in making an example of how radically different conclusions result from different (and in your case, unexamined) definitions.
If the definition of torture did include the state necessarily being involved, then pulling finger nails out by a non-state actor would be abuse, sadism, something. But it would not be torture.
It is interesting that you call it sophistry. However, you have not argued against any of my logical points. You have not even argued what I've said. All you've managed to do so far is step back from Holy Fool's variety of definitions.
So then the definition of torture offered by the UN and posted on Holy Fool's site (and I think was supported by you in the McCain Ammendment) is invalid?
Oh goody, keep going. Is the "sanctioned by the state" bit pertinent when the law in question is a prohibition on what the state can do, syllogism-boy? And is supporting a law the same as taking that law to be morally definitive in every way?
Mark's not on as intimate a comment-exchange terms with you as some of us are Rob. I could see you using sarcascii instead of ascii, but people say enough legitimately fruitcake things that it isn't always obvious to everyone.
And by phrasing it "which uses... to extract confessions, etc." as opposed to "when", the CCC does not appear to be giving a "motive" qualifier, but merely examples, for example, "Turpentine which removes paint, causes cancer in lab animals, and smells bad" is not an exhaustive list of the properties of turpentine, but merely a descriptive one.
If you notice, the CCC lists: to extract confessions, punish the guilty, frighten opponents, or satisfy hatred.
It omits to obtain sexual gratification, to provide perverse entertainment, and other "motives" which we could all agree do not legitimize it. Does that mean these other motives are allowable?
Zippy--
Yeah, I know. But I would've figured that one to be obvious. Again, I was wrong.
(It was really aimed at your funnybone, anyway.)
For a good night sign off. What I have sought to do is solely provide the reason I see a definition as important. Different people may have other reasons. Some may be malicious. This I do not know.
What I have done however, is to show that significantly different conclusions result from apparently similar definitions. These different conclusions then lead us to dramatically different interpretations of the truth which are incompatible.
This is not sophistry. This is simple logic. Prove the logic wrong and you are arguing fairly. Argue against solid logic, and you are arguing in a sophistical manner.
I do not think my soul is in danger yet. My spiritual director does not think so. I received communion this morning in good conscience. I do not think torture is moral. Nor do I think abuse is moral. I do not think slander is either.
Be that as it may, my only argument is this, that solid definitions lead to solid conclusions. Poor definitions lead to poor conclusions.
Good night.
DT,
Zippy gets it. Re-read his comment above (2-22-06 4:09PM)
Why is it so hard to understand? Having different definitions of torture, some of which may contradict others, doesn't render torture undefinable.
I provided these definitions in order to give the many commentors that ask for a definition food for thought. It's interesting that you used those definition to make torture more, not less, obscure.
Whatever.
If it floats your boat to syllogism-ize your way to apostasy and dissent, then I feel sorry for you. Just don't think you're convincing anyone except yourself.
It was really aimed at your funnybone, anyway.
FWIW I was LOL.
If Mark says "you say Church teaching can be safely ignored" one more time, I'll scream. No one is saying that. Some are saying the Catechism is ambiguous. Others suggest that the Gaudem et Spes quote shouldn't be read as categorical and absolute prohibition(imprisoning a criminal can be a "torment to the mind", and it is designed to violate their integrity; a judge putting someone in jail until they answer a question is trying to "coerce their will").
But my point isn't to argue the issue. It's to say that these posters (me included) are all ENGAGING with what the Church has to say, not blithely ignoring it. That's what the debate is mostly about in these comboxes. Mark is being incredibly disingenuous when he keep saying otherwise.
Just to make it clear, Mark, you could fairly comment that I and others are trying to twist, misconstrue, or obscure Church teaching. But the very fact that we keep dealing with it is the evidence that we clearly don't think it can be safely ignored.
Zippy--
It's worth quite a bit, actually. 
doubting thomas:
Could you (or someone else) help us out by providing links to (1) the definition of torture in your initial post, and (2) the place where Mr. Shea cited it as an authoritative definition (or even a good working definition) of torture?
Frank,
What I find objectionable is that whenver something happens under this Administration's watch that would fall under even the most restrictive definition of torture, it seems like the inevitable response is a search for a precise definition of torture, and then a demonstration of how the offered definitions are deficient.
It seems like an odd coincidence to me that this spirited academic interest in "engaging" the Church's teaching on torture would always correlate with news about the conduct of the war on terror. Perhaps this is a lack of charity on my part, but my suspicion is that moving the discussion in this direction has less to do with an interest in exploring the richness of the Church's teachings on the dignity of human life, and more in trying to expose the Administration's critics as leftist pnatywaists unwilling to confront the threats of today.
doubting thomas:
Understood that definitions can be important, and that differing defnitions lead to different conclusions.
Now, why did you choose to apply this analysis to the word "torture?" There are lots of things that are imprecisely defined; why zero in on the word "torture?"
IOW, how is the current understanding of the word torture insufficient for us to adequately receive and live out the Church's condemnation of it?
I gave up reading these torture combo boxes a long time ago
They are not producing anything new and they are producing a great deal of ill will.
...what may normally be torture isn't necessarily defined as torture by the Catechism if the motive is to save innocent lives. Is that a legitimate view?
The last Pope told us, formally addressing all the faithful, that torture is immoral by reason of its object. That means that both circumstances and intent (motive) are morally irrelevant. This is what the Church means by the term "intrinsically evil". It is the same principle that makes abortion immoral no matter what the circumstances or intent: in the case of rape, to save the life of the mother, etc. Abortion is an abortion, and is always evil, because of its object. Torture is torture, and is always evil, because of its object.
So no, this is not a legitimate view. An act with an evil object cannot made licit via any combination of intent and circumstances. No really, not ever. Not. Ever. Not. Under. Any. Contrived. Hypothetical. Ever.
I doubt that anybody on this site supports torture as defined in the various links provided. However, "torture" is a vague and subjective term, meaning that torture is whatever causes someone to experience "extreme pain or anguish". Obviously, that will vary from person to person. Instead of ranting against torture per se, we need to focus on specific acts that have verifiable, objective definitions.
It doesn't seem likely that anyone here would like to justify torture. Most people's hesitance to unilaterally condemn it is probably due to what we've seen happen in our courts with other abstract terms. For instance, nobody's in favor of sexual harassment or racial/ethnic discrimination, either. But when these things get defined down to include looking at somebody in a way that they don't approve of, it gets ridiculous. Some people are afraid that the ACLU will quickly work its litigious magic again, by claiming that any detainee whose food wasn't prepared to his liking, whose bed wasn't comfy enough, or who felt that his guards were "creating a hostile environment", was in fact tortured. I'm in no way advocating torture, as we understand it here. I just don't want some judges to end up deciding that putting a killer in handcuffs constitutes torture.
But when these things get defined down to include looking at somebody in a way that they don't approve of, it gets ridiculous.
I agree. But I don't think the apparently intentional bafflement over torture definitions helps here. Quite the opposite. The first step to defining deviancy down is calling into question established, well understood definitions, and insisting that we just don't know what the thing in question really is.
"As such, the actions at Abu Ghraib were not torture as they did not take place with "the consent of a public official acting in an official capacity."
Wrong, wrong, wrong.
That definition I believe is from the immigration regulations implementing the Convention Against Torture. I'm a clerk for a US immigration court so I work with this definition all the time. I can tell you right now: if someone is given electric shocks, beaten severely, etc. etc. etc. by the police forces, soldiers, intelligence services, or any government of the official, that is "tortured" for the purposes of that definition. It doesn't magically turn into not-torture because the country officially outlaws torture--most countries that routinely torture prisoners outlaw torture. It also doesn't magically turn into not-torture if by some miracle those officials are later punished. Any government official, however low in rank, will do.
I mean, think about it. If that definition doesn't apply then people can be sent back to that country regardless of the CAT. If their bodies are going to be shattered by government officials, tbat's torture, and we won't send them to that fate--whether or not the government officials in question have a signed and notarized order from the president or their commanding officer.
The later prosecution of soldiers at Abu Ghraib is irrelevant to whether it was "torture". Also, there are plenty of cases of torture where there have been no prosecutions.
forgive the typos in the above post--I hope my meaning is clear despite them.
In regards to be state sanctioned, I will try to keep simple for folks. The U.N. is mediating body between states, also known as nations outside this country. Defining torture as within what a state sanctions would be proper to the U.N., because that is the scope of the U.N.'s mission.
"I will try to keep simple for folks."
You keep simple real good!
"I gave up reading these torture combo boxes a long time ago
They are not producing anything new and they are producing a great deal of ill will."
Ditto Mary!
Mark,
You keep confusing me with Thomas. I am not arguing that we ignore the Catechism. I'm arguing that Jimmy Akin's take is better than yours.
I do find it interesting that when you think it is Thomas making the argument, your ill will knows no bounds. But when it is pointed out that the argument is Jimmy Akin's, your charity knows no bounds. Be not a respecter of men.
If I didn't know better, I'd think you're a tad bit scared to take on Jimmy, being that you can't ban him from defending himself, like you can your comboxers.
Mark,
Would you agree with Zippy's post of 6:52 pm?
"Why is it so hard to understand? Having different definitions of torture, some of which may contradict others, doesn't render torture undefinable."
It is not so hard to understand. Different definitions of torture are fine. But resulting in contradictory conclusions is not. Because contradictions can never be consistent with the truth. So there must be a flaw in at least one if two definitions lead to contradictory conclusions. Again, per the axiom, something cannot be and not be at the same time and in the same regard.
The reason for the importance of definitions is pointed out by Aquinas in his commentary on Aristotle's Posterior Analytics. Here he notes that the definition "... conceives what the thing is." By knowing what a thing is, we can then go on to form propositions that then become the premises for our arguments. Errors in definitions then result in errors in conclusions as pointed out above.
Making a proper definition, at least one as good as possible, makes our understanding more and not less precise.
"Could you (or someone else) help us out by providing links to (1) the definition of torture in your initial post, and (2) the place where Mr. Shea cited it as an authoritative definition (or even a good working definition) of torture?"
The initial link to the definition in my first post is to Holy Fool's site. But if you want another source go to: http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/...3/b/
h_cat39.htm
As for Mark's endorsement. He seems to have withdrawn it. But an implicit endorsement seems to be his posting of Holy Fool's email which states:
"Therefore, to meet both of these comboxers' needs, I've tackled the issue head-on right here.
When you get tired of the masses haunting you for definitions of torture you don't feel qualified to give, feel free to send 'em over. If they still don't know after that, then they don't want to know."
Now this may not be an explicit endorsement. However, when someone asks me something and I say go "here" to find the answer and claim "they don't want to know" if they don't accept what is given there, I hope that I have some reason to trust the "here."
"Now, why did you choose to apply this analysis to the word "torture?" There are lots of things that are imprecisely defined; why zero in on the word "torture?"
IOW, how is the current understanding of the word torture insufficient for us to adequately receive and live out the Church's condemnation of it?"
I have been commenting on this subject for a while. The why on torture specifically is threefold.
First, the desire to have a definition has been disparaged by many. They have their reasons. For the reasons I gave above, a proper definition is nonetheless important.
Second, it is one on which many people have asked. Some may very well ask for malicious reasons. Others don't I believe. They ask I believe, is because there are some forms of coercion that are licit. If we are to avoid the illicit forms of torture, then we must know what torture is. This is not semantic hair splitting. It is of real practical daily importance to people in the world involved in such matters. As such, it is not an academic matter.
Third, as you point out, the definition may ultimately be imprecise. Yes we can live with an imprecise definition. For example, the people at Abu Ghraib could have said "I don't know if this is only abuse or torture, but either are immoral so I won't do either." But as per my second point, some people don't have this option.
This is not to endorse any definition at this point. As I have claimed, I am merely trying to again state that precise definitions (at least as precise as we can make them) are essential.
Very busy today. May not have much time to comment further.
If I didn't know better, I'd think you're a tad bit scared to take on Jimmy, being that you can't ban him from defending himself, like you can your comboxers.
Yeah, because comboxers can't write what they want on their own blogs the way Jimmy can.
You plan to take a position yourself some time, or you still just pathetically trying to pit other people against each other?
Zippy,
I'm taking Jimmy's position. I've already explained that. If you attack my position on torture, you attack Jimmy's. And vice versa. He is an apologist that deserves much respect, don't you agree?
Would you agree with Zippy's post of 6:52 pm?
This is what I said in that post:
The last Pope told us, formally addressing all the faithful, that torture is immoral by reason of its object. That means that both circumstances and intent (motive) are morally irrelevant. This is what the Church means by the term "intrinsically evil".
And this is the citation:
... the Church teaches that "there exist acts which per se and in themselves, independently of circumstances, are always seriously wrong by reason of their object". 131 The Second Vatican Council itself, in discussing the respect due to the human person, gives a number of examples of such acts: "Whatever is hostile to life itself, such as any kind of homicide, genocide, abortion, euthanasia and voluntary suicide; whatever violates the integrity of the human person, such as mutilation, physical and mental torture and attempts to coerce the spirit;... - Pope John Paul II, Veritatis Splendour
(Emphasis mine).
I'm taking Jimmy's position. I've already explained that.
Good. So it is your position, then. You are welcome to go argue with Jimmy about whether the position you are taking is or is not his. But the position you are taking manifestly sets itself against Veritatis Splendour, just as the position of any pro-contraception Catholic is set against Humanae Vitae.
"Abdul Hakim Murad, a potential suicide bomber was apprehended by Phillipine authorities, who "interrogated" Murad--it is claimed--for 67 days. His interrogators broke his ribs (beating him with a chair and sticks), forced water down his throat, and put lit cigarettes on his private parts. He broke after this, and a threat to turn him over to the Israeli Intelligence Service (Mossad).
http://www.abs-cbnnews.com/NewsS...FOCUS&
oid=51153
Murad was, and probably still is, a nasty, dangerous character. He's serving a life sentence. And the "interrogation" did avert a larger terrorist plan than 9/11."
chairofstpeter, I'll ask you the same question I asked Jimmy on that thread, who didn't reply:
"Are the actions taken by the Phillipine authorities against Abdul Hakim Murad under the circumstances described (he had knowledge of a terrorist plot) properly considered to be torture?
Mark,
Do you agree with Zippy that Jimmy Akin is setting himself against an encyclical of the Pope?
Um, sorry that the link is dead. But you can easily google search for information on the Murad case.
Do you agree with Zippy that Jimmy Akin is setting himself against an encyclical of the Pope?
You might have more credibility if you stopped saying that I said things that I didn't say.
Thank you, Internet Archive. We have a working link:
http://web.archive.org/web/20041...FOCUS&
oid=51153
I mean, if you want to bring Jimmy Akin into this to fight your battle for you, you are more than capable of emailing him, and he is more than capable of commenting here too if he wants to. And I am more than willing to say the same things to him that I am saying to you. I'll wait right here while you go get him.
Here's a link to that old discussion at Jimmy Akin's blog that I quoted from:
http://www.jimmyakin.org/2004/
06...about_tort.html
Chair, I went over to Jimmy's place and commented, and let him know about the thread over here, since you seemed to be reluctant to do so. We'll see if he stops by to endorse your paraphrases.
Chair:
Yep. I agree with Zippy's 6:52 post.
Zippy,
It's not a paraphrase. It's a quote.
Anyway, we have Mark on record that he agrees with Zippy that Jimmy's views on torture are not legitimate.
Jimmy writes, "The Catechism's discussion of torture focuses significantly on the motive that is being pursued in different acts of torture. If it means us to understand that having a particular motive is necessary for an act to count as torture then it might turn out that some acts commonly described as torture are in fact not torture... For example, the Catechism's list of motives for torture does not mention the use of physical pressure to obtain information needed to save innocent lives."
Zippy says, "So no, this is not a legitimate view."
Mark agrees with Zippy.
So there you have it, people. If you agree with Jimmy's inconclusive nuance, your view is not legitimate.
Zippy,
If you want Jimmy to know about this thread, posting on a 2-year old thread on his blog probably won't get his attention. You might want to e-mail him.
The last Pope told us, formally addressing all the faithful, that torture is immoral by reason of its object.
Note that what VS forbids as intrinsically evil is not the deliberate infliction of pain as such, but "whatever violates the integrity of the human person."
Inflicting harm in the cause of justice, as one member of the rubber hose right puts it, is not categorically condemned — since just, proportionate punishment does not violate the integrity of the human person.
So: How does one distinguish torture from just punishment?
Is all pain that crosses the moderate level ipso facto torture?
Or for particularly grave offenses (eg, conspiring in the murder of innocents) might even severe pain be justified?
Chair:
I remain unconvinced that Jimmy is as ready to be roped into the service of an ends justifies the means agenda as you hope he is.
Here's a link that gives a relevant citation from the Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church:
http://www.exceptionalmarriages....il.asp?
ID=24362
Mark,
I don't think he is. And that's not my hope. Nice try, though. I know he doesn't support an ends justifies the means agenda. He is saying that *perhaps* (it's not clear) that motive is part of the definition of torture. I've re-posted so read again.
I've been very careful to not go beyond what Jimmy wrote. So, if you're going to say I have an ends justifies the means agenda on this, so must Jimmy. But you seem relunctant to say that about Jimmy directly. Why?
"The Catechism's discussion of torture focuses significantly on the motive that is being pursued in different acts of torture. If it means us to understand that having a particular motive is necessary for an act to count as torture then it might turn out that some acts commonly described as torture are in fact not torture... For example, the Catechism's list of motives for torture does not mention the use of physical pressure to obtain information needed to save innocent lives"
If you want Jimmy to know about this thread, posting on a 2-year old thread on his blog probably won't get his attention.
Whenever someone posts a comment on my blog, I get an email. But if you are concerned about it, by all means send him one.
He is saying that *perhaps* (it's not clear) that motive is part of the definition of torture.
And yet it can't be, because intrinsically evil acts are evil because of their object, and cannot be made licit by intent or circumstances.
"There are no loopholes here. There is to be no torture or other coercion."
This citation from David seems to rule out all coercion.
There are no loopholes here. There is to be no torture or other coercion. And, I continue to maintain, this is a matter of right reason - non-Catholics should be (and should have been) able to see its truth and importance.
Um, that's Kevin Miller's editorial comment, not the Compendium itself.
And yet it can't be...
Even if motive is not part of the definition of torture, severity is — and that may involve a proportionality test.
For a grave offense (eg, complicity in murder), a given penalty may not be disproportionate, excessive, or "severe" — even though it would be too severe if given for a lesser offense.
Jimmy alludes to this distinction in a comment:
"Unless one is prepared to write off all punishment and threat of punishment (which the Magisterium has not been prepared to do) then one will have to find some other grounds with which to distinguish legitimate punishment from illegitimate torture.
I can think of a number of grounds by which one might do so--e.g., causing excessive pain (i.e., pain that is disproportionate to the good to be achieved)..."
...and that may involve a proportionality test.
And yet if torture is an intrinsic evil, we know that it does not involve a proportionality test. Proportionality tests only become relevant when we employ double-effect reasoning, and double-effect reasoning does not apply to intrinsically evil acts.
David,
Thanks.
BTW, I've had this question for a while. The CCC presents itself as a Magisterial document. This from the introduction of JPII:
"The Catechism of the Catholic Church, which I approved 25 June last and the publication of which I today order by virtue of my Apostolic Authority, is a statement of the Church's faith and of catholic doctrine, attested to or illumined by Sacred Scripture, the Apostolic Tradition and the Church's Magisterium. I declare it to be a sure norm for teaching the faith and thus a valid and legitimate instrument for ecclesial communion. May it serve the renewal to which the Holy Spirit ceaselessly calls the Church of God, the Body of Christ, on her pilgrimage to the undiminished light of the Kingdom!"
The Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church does not have such an intro. Reading some of the statements in the Compendium, they seem to act more as prudential judgements (frequently again of JPII) which may be subject to alternative, yet faithful interpretations. Is this accurate?
I have a new post up at my blog on this. I think many people are confused about the nature of intrinsically evil acts. Even if we had no definition of torture at all - even if it was simply "act X" - we still know that it can never be justified by circumstances or intent, because we know that it falls into the category of intrinsically evil acts: acts which are evil by nature of their object.
Well, all of these statements, dt, need to be given their proper weight.
I think, subject to correction by my betters, that the doctrinal authority of statements appearing in the Compendium itself, would have less weight than, say, those in the documents of Vatican II or in a papal encyclical.
But not no weight at all.
I can't take anyone seriously who claims that Jimmy Akin's views are not legitimate. He a serious, committed, orthodox Catholic apologist.
David,
Thanks. That was my sense too. But I am also willing to be further educated on this subject.
if torture is an intrinsic evil, we know that it does not involve a proportionality test
Torture is intrinsically evil.
But distinguishing torture from legitimate punishment may require a proportionality test.
Pain X inflicted on an innocent or a venial offender might be torture; inflicted by an authority after a grave offense, it might be just punishment.
I can't take anyone seriously who claims that Jimmy Akin's views are not legitimate.
You mean that you don't think he has ever made a moral or theological error ever in his entire blog, including in a very tentatively toned post from a year and a half ago?
...distinguishing torture from legitimate punishment may require a proportionality test.
No, it can't. Intrinsically evil acts cannot be distinguished from licit acts by a proportionality test.
Intrinsically evil acts cannot be distinguished from licit acts by a proportionality test
What is intrinsically evil is not "inflicting pain of intensity x" but "violating the integrity of the human person."
I'm not convinced the Church teaches that all infliction of even severe pain is always such a violation.
Just so that we are clear that the distinction between torture and not-torture cannot rest on a proportionality test.
It is true that the Church has not provided a definition of torture that would (or should, I guess is the better term) satisfy all pedants all the time. It isn't especially relevant to any legitimate moral question that the Church hasn't provided such a definition, but it is true that She hasn't provided such a definition.
As for Mark's endorsement. He seems to have withdrawn it.
In that case, then that particular definition would seem to be moot. Still, if your point was that it's not a very workable definition of torture for our purposes, I'd agree. It's not surprising that the definition of "torture" in the Torture Convention should be limited to torture that's done under color of law; there's no good reason why a sadistic torture-murder by a private individual should be a crime under international law. But what we're looking for is a definition of torture under the moral law, which should be something quite different.
I would also agree that the quest for a definition is not a waste of time, or a sign of willingness to engage in torture. Simply saying "I know it when I see it" just won't cut it. (Also, I'm not sure that reference to U.S. Army field manuals is quite good enough either, though it might be a good starting point; I frankly don't think the U.S. Army was trying to define what is and is not moral when it issued that manual, nor would I necessarily trust them to rule authoritatively on that subject.)
As for Mark's endorsement. He seems to have withdrawn it.
You guys seem to have a genius for putting words in people's mouths.
Mark: Here's a letter I got. It goes with this other letter I got.
Reader: So you endorse everything in that letter, eh? Well, then! Here's a highly absurd argument based on your complete agreement with the letter you posted. It turns out that pulling people's fingernails out is not torture if the state doesn't sanction it! I'm a bloody genius!
Mark: Um, actually, Both letters were about torture so I thought I'd post them together. I'm not "endorsing" either letter especially.
Reader: Ah! So you withdraw your endorsement! I *see*!
Remind me never to go up against a Sicilian when *death* is on the line. Gee, you're clever and smart! Who can match wits with you?
doubting thomas, maybe I missed it, but, I repeat: that definition appears to be from the US regulations interpreting the convention against torture. I am a clerk for the U.S. Immigration courts, the body that has dealt with those regulations more than any other in this country. I am telling you, with 100% certainty, that your interpretation of that definition and application of it to Abu Ghraib, is flatly incorrect. See explanation above. Did you have any response to this I'm not seeing? If not, I fail to see what your complete misinterpretation of the definition proves about anything. There is no law people can't misinterpret, particularly if they're looking for confusion rather than clarity.
to repeat:
"As such, the actions at Abu Ghraib were not torture as they did not take place with "the consent of a public official acting in an official capacity."
The soldiers at Abu Ghraib WERE public officials acting in an official capacity. They were acting unlawfully--committing crimes, even. But that is not unusual for torture. Torture is officially illegal in many, many, many countries where the police, military and intelligence services routinely torture prisoners. It is still "torture", and it is still illegal for the United States to deport people to countries where they will face it. Saddam's trial right now--if he is convicted, his victims will not cease to be torture victims. And the same applies to lower ranking state officials as well. This is not a close question. I don't know where you got your definition from, but it's just not right.
As I said, I work for the courts that interpret the torture convention most frequently--I also wrote my law school thesis on the subject. But you needn't defer to my authority, the ordinary meaning of the words of the definition is clear enough.
Simply saying "I know it when I see it" just won't cut it.
Though I generally agree with Seamus' posts, I think that is a wee bit of a straw man. Saying "we know what it is well enough that there is no excuse for doing it by accident" isn't quite as simplistic as saying "I know it when I see it", though as with pretty much all moral questions there may be an element of the latter involved in the former.
I've said it before and I'll say it again: I have no problem at all with people talking about torture definitions, etc. I wouldn't be doing it myself if I did. What I have a problem with is the claim, expressed or implied, that we are pathetically unable to avoid torturing prisoners on accident without a better definition than what we already have. I also have a problem with expressed or implied attempts to approach torture as an act as closely as possible without technically committing torture.
Mark e-mailed me and said that I might want to weigh in as some folks were suggesting, based on what I've written, that the Church can be safely ignored on the subject of torture.
I haven't been able to read all 119 comments (thus far) in this combox, but I would clarify that this is certainly not my opinion.
I believe that the Church has exercised its authentic magisterium in condemning the use of torture, and this cannot be safely ignored.
The problem is that the Magisterium has not yet provided us with a precise description of what counts as torture, and thus it is presently a matter of debate whether particular practices are or are not torture.
I may have time to say more about this on my blog next week, but I hope this clarifies matters for the present, at least regarding my taken on the matter.
Thanks, Jimmy. That's pretty much what I took you to mean.
I also would hold that, whatever torture is (when properly defined), it is intrinsically evil and thus cannot be justified by circumstances.
The question is whether all things that are regarded by some as torture actually are torture.
It may turn out that some things that some individuals call "torture" are not actually torture, just as some things that are commonly regarded as the sin of theft are not actually the sin of theft (e.g., taking food from a person who has plenty when you are starving and he will not sell it to you).
Jimmy writes, "Mark e-mailed me and said that I might want to weigh in as some folks were suggesting, based on what I've written, that the Church can be safely ignored on the subject of torture."
Mark,
Why would you write that to Jimmy? Who is suggesting that Jimmy said that the Church can be safely ignored on the subject of torture? Certainly not me. Could you point me to a quote or suggestion from me or anyone else on this blog that said Jimmy is saying we can safely ignore Church teaching on torture?
I certainly agree with Jimmy's two posts above. I'm happy that an esteemed apologist has posted on your blog on this subject. I am eager to see his future post on his blog. A great man like Jimmy will certainly give us something useful to consider, as opposed to the gotcha games played over here.
"The soldiers at Abu Ghraib WERE public officials acting in an official capacity. They were acting unlawfully--committing crimes, even. But that is not unusual for torture."
Katherine,
The wording is:
"..with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity."
Having been a Naval officer since 1985, (and now in pasture) I know that when one acts, one is either acting in according with official policy or contrary to it. If one is acting contrary to policy then one's act's are unofficial - outside an official capacity.
To draw an analogy. Priests abused minors. Priests are officials of the Church. Therefore abuse is officical Church policy?
Alternatively, police officers who are officials of the state sometimes take bribes. Bribery is therefore state policy?
Mark,
This is good to know. Now we can doubt your endorsement of any links you provide unless specific endorsement is stated?
But good to see you don't endorse the flawed definitions Holy Fool provides.
I certainly agree with Jimmy's two posts above.
Then you agree that if X is torture, then it can't become not-torture just because it is intended to save lives?
What is X?
Is taking food from another person without their permission always stealing?
Is placing a person in a stress position for 7 minutes always torture?
What is X?
It is irrelevant what X is in particular. If X is intrinsically evil then it can never be made licit by a change of intent or circumstances, as Jimmy affirms above. I am just trying to clarify whether or not you affirm it.
Is placing a person in a stress position...
That question is a good example of why the infinite definitional regress game is nonsensical. "What is a stress position?" "What do you mean by 'placing'?"
I take Jimmy to be saying that someone might claim that failing to provide cream puffs with the coffee is torture, and that when someone uses the word "torture" invalidly that way then all bets are off. I agree with that.
But since we know that torture is intrinsically evil we know that it has not been defined correctly if the difference between torture and not-torture is only a change in intent or circumstances. I am just trying to see if you have come around to affirming that.
After a while, one gets the distinct impression that some would insist that the Ten Commandments are useless as a guide to moral behavior just because philosophical questions can be raised about what it means to steal, what it means to bear false witness, what it means to commit adultery, what it means to covet thy neighbor's goods, etc.
"As for Mark's endorsement. He seems to have withdrawn it.
You guys seem to have a genius for putting words in people's mouths."
I'm confused. So Mr. Shea has *not* withdrawn his endorsement of the definition of torture contained in the Torture Convention? Or maybe he never endorsed it in the first place?
Could someone please explain what is going on here? I'm not being sarcastic. I really want to find out what Mr. Shea said with regard to the Torture Convention and its usefulness as a source of a definition of torture.
I'm confused. So Mr. Shea has *not* withdrawn his endorsement of the definition of torture contained in the Torture Convention? Or maybe he never endorsed it in the first place?
Mark can speak for himself of course, but I think the word "endorsement" is being used equivocally here. My interpretation of events is that Mark linked to some stuff for a particular purpose. That purpose was "if you are an honest seeker, and are honestly confused about what torture is, here is some stuff to read that might be helpful". I did not take his purpose to be "if you are a sophist, and you are looking for propositions that you can use in a game of 'gotcha' intended to confuse rather than clarify the torture issue, then here is some syllogistic ammunition for your childish game".
Having been a Naval officer since 1985, (and now in pasture) I know that when one acts, one is either acting in according with official policy or contrary to it. If one is acting contrary to policy then one's act's are unofficial - outside an official capacity.,
That's not what "acting in an official capacity" means. If a copy, wearing his uniform and driving his squad car, pulls you over for speeding and then, on finding that you are a pro-abortionist/anti-abortionist/peacenik/
warmonger, or adherent to whatever cause he happens to dislike, throws you in his squad car and takes you to a secret location where he and a bunch of his like-minded buddies (also police officers) work you over with rubber truncheons, then leave your broken body in a ditch, I think that could constitute torture under the Torture Convention definition, even though the cops' action was contrary to official policy. The relevant factor is whether they were using their positions as police officers to torture you, not whether those actions were sanctioned by the police department as such.
Mark can speak for himself of course
I'd find it very helpful if he would, or if doubting thomas could show me where Mr. Shea posted a link to the Torture Convention.
Knowing that torture is intrinsically evil may not tell us what torture is, but it tells us quite a bit about the sorts of things that cannot define the difference between torture and not-torture.
For example, the difference between torture and not-torture cannot be a difference in the remote intent of our act: so the difference between the intent to punish, the intent to get information, the intent to save lives, etc - none of those remote intentions can possibly be relevant to whether or not an act is an act of torture, because an intrinsically evil act is rendered evil because of its immediately chosen object, the thing we choose to do right now, the means we employ to accomplish what we are trying to accomplish; and not by the reasons we are doing it, the intent, the thing we are trying to accomplish by employing this particular means.
Zippy,
You didn't answer the questions. Do you want to have a discussion or not? I'd really like you to answer, if you can, instead of questioning my motives.
Is taking food from another person without their permission always stealing?
Is placing a person in a stress position for 7 minutes always torture?
Is taking food from another person without their permission always stealing?
No. It depends on what you mean by "taking", "food", "from", "another", "person", "without", "their", "permission", "always", and "stealing".
Is placing a person in a stress position for 7 minutes always torture?
No. It depends on what you mean by "placing", "a", "person", "in", "stress", "position", "for", "7", "minutes", "always", and of course "torture".
Oh, and "is", too.
Seamus,
Mark has a blue "here" which, when you click on it leads to Holy Fool's blog that gives the UN definition.
Now this in and of itself may not imply endorsement but his initial defense of his position was not to deny endorsement, but to address the issues I raised. It wasn't until about the 40th post that he said he did not endorse the definition.
Now answer mine.
If X is intrinsically evil then, no matter what X is, it can never be made licit by a change of intent or circumstances, as Jimmy Akin affirmed above. Do you also affirm this?
Seamus,
Also here are two defintions of official capacity:
A federal employee is participating officially in an activity or organization if assigned by a superior, working on official time, travel costs are covered, using a government vehicle, in official uniform, on federal premises, or invited to participate as a result of one's official position.
www.partnershipresourcecenter.org/resources/
partnership-guide/appendix-b.html
An official (from the Latin Officialis, person -or object- related to an officium, see that article) is, in the primary sense, someone who holds an office (i.e. function, mandate, regardless whether it carries a working spece with it) in an organisation, of any kind, but participatng in the exercise of authority (either his own or that of his superior and/or employer, public or legally private). ...
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Official_capacity
Here is an issue of equivocation. Per the first definition you may be correct. Per the second I believe that I may be. A person who abuses authority is never acting in line with his authority. He is outside the capacities (legitimate function) of his authority. That is what we were taught in the Navy.
But as per the differenct definitions, different conclusions will be drawn. Again supporting my initial (now largely lost) point.
Zippy,
Apparently, you aren't interested in what is actually true. Too bad. I kinda think it's important. Oh well. If you ever want to re-enter the actual discussion, let me know.
Zippy,
Your logic is sound, but it doesn't address the crucial question:
Is deliberately inflicting intense pain ipso facto torture and hence intrinsically evil?
Or might intense pain ever be a just penalty...in which case it might be distinguished from torture in its object.
Zippy,
Is the problem you have with syllogisms or with Mark having been interpreted as holding to a given point?
It wasn't until about the 40th post that he said he did not endorse the definition.
Yeah, but he is really clear in the original post that he provided the link for the purpose of helpful reading, not for the purpose of childish semantic games. Like I said, you are equivocating on the word "endorse" when you imply that Mark went from "endorsing" to "not endorsing". And obviously so.
Actually the email posted does not define itself as "helpful reading" but rather as:
"When you get tired of the masses haunting you for definitions of torture you don't feel qualified to give, feel free to send 'em over. If they still don't know after that, then they don't want to know."
Now if I say to someone I tell you this and if you don't accept it you don't want to know that is establishing a rather strong authority for what will be said. That is a bit more then saying here is some helpful reading.
Last post mine.
But the argument doesn't hinge on whether Mark endorses it or not. It remains true that the two definitions posted on Holy Fool's blog lead to contradictory conclusions.
Katherine and Seamus have taken one legitimate road to deny the conclusion I draw. This hinges on the equivocation of the term "official capacity."
Given the definitions I give above, both points may be defended. However, this still points to the essential role that definitions supply in drawing conclusions.
again me.
Is deliberately inflicting intense pain ipso facto torture and hence intrinsically evil?
Or might intense pain ever be a just penalty...in which case it might be distinguished from torture in its object.
Whether a prisoner deserves intense pain or not is irrelevant. We all deserve intense pain, as one look at the Cross makes clear.
The pertinent perspective in a moral evaluation of an act is the perspective of the person doing it. Assume that we have a prisoner who deserves punishment. There are many different means we could employ in order to punish that prisoner, and we have to choose one. So "as punishment" is a modifier of the intent of the act, not its object. It cannot be the thing that makes the difference between torture and not-torture.
I think you made a valid point up in the thread when you suggested that ...what is intrinsically evil is not "inflicting pain of intensity x" but "violating the integrity of the human person."
I have two further comments on it though. First, the latter precludes the former. Second, while we might talk in everyday terms about "pain of intensity X" that isn't really the way that qualia work. Torture is an attempt to induce certain qualia (intense suffering) in a prisoner. I suspect that there may be ways to violate the integrity of a person which would be illicit, but not torture strictly speaking though I think that thinking about these things too much sullies the mind of the person doing the thinking.
Finally, I reiterate that none of this changes the fact that we know what torture is sufficiently well, without any of this discussion being at all necessary, to be able to avoid doing it by accident.
This hinges on the equivocation of the term "official capacity."
No, it hinges on you being wrong about the meaning of the term. Neither Seamus nor Katherine equivocated.
If they still don't know after that, then they don't want to know.
Right. If you still don't know what torture is now, it is because you don't want to know.
Actually the email posted does not define itself as "helpful reading" but rather as:
You are trying to change the subject. What Mark said about it was this.
I have no problem with people who ask "What is torture?" in a sincere effort to distinguish between torture and legitimate forms of coercion ("Put your hands over your head and get in the squad car."). In short, I do not fault those who ask questions to find things out. But I have nothing but contempt for the project of asking questions to *keep* from finding things out. If you are doing the former, I have no objections. I also have little help to offer ...
Surreal.
Mark has a blue "here" which, when you click on it leads to Holy Fool's blog that gives the UN definition.
Could you please tell mere where I can find that "blue 'here'"? Perhaps you meant to include a link in your post, but it didn't show up.
Seamus,
If your go to the quote in Mark's original post:
"There may be exceptions; I'm willing to concede that some may actually want a clear concept on which many can agree. Therefore, to meet both of these comboxers' needs, I've tackled the issue head-on right here."
Then click on the here at the end of the quote which is in blue. It will take you to Holy Fool's site which will tne give you a link to the UN Convention.
Zippy,
The use of the word equivocation is that K. and S. are using one sense and I am using another. They both have valid definitions given above. The only question is how the UN uses it.
Zippy,
And in order to help us find out what torture is, he refers us to H.F.'s site which gives the UN definition. And then, given my original post, we achieve a conclusion that many do not like.
But here, let me ask you this. Why is it so important to you if what went on at Abu Ghraib was abuse or torture. Both we agree are immoral and it was punished. Why does such a conclusion offend?
Mark,
If you have the time, I'd appreciate it if you could respond to my post at 7:45 this morning. If you can't, I'll understand why.
DT,
Still confusing rhetoric with logic, I see. I'm disappointed. I'd hoped that you'd offer a serious discussion on torture. Instead, you play shell games.
Your conclusion that my definitions are "contradictory" rests on your interpretation of acting within an official capacity. You erroneously hold that anytime a public official deviates from the policy of his superior, he no longer acts within an official capacity. Katherine and Seamus have already pointed out to you why you're wrong. You even do so, yourself, though you don't know it. Here's a hint: an official that acts outside of his authority still acts as an official; his legitimacy is what's in question, not his role. Corrupt officials are corrupt because they violate the authority of an office in which they act officially.
But I'm sure you have a sure-fire rhetorical solution to this minor problem. You'll find a way to employ it so that you can construct another comforting syllogism that upholds your unstated, but clearly implied thesis: We can't effectively define torture.
I'll leave you to your amusement, then. But before I go, you should know one thing: The Holy See doesn't see the contradiction, either.
Need more? Go here
Otherwise, enjoy the slip-sliding-away!
The use of the word equivocation is that K. and S. are using one sense and I am using another.
That isn't what "equivocate" means. Equivocation is when the same speaker uses the same word in different places as if he attached the same meaning to it, when in fact he is attaching a different meaning to it. Dictionary.com recommends a link-through to the word lie for synonyms.
doubting thomas:
Thanks. I found it. That said, I think it's a bit of a stretch to say that Mr. Shea was "endorsing" the Torture Convention definition of torture by linking to a blogger who linked to it (and at least appears to have endorsed it). The definition found in the Torture Convention isn't a good definition for purposes of Catholic moral theology, because it's limited to torture done under official auspices. But I think it's wrong to say that the Torture Convention doesn't apply to anything at Abu Graib because whatever bad happened there was contrary to official policy. Under any reasonable reading of the Torture Convention, it applies to any torture done by a state actor. Otherwise, if a cop beat me up at a traffic stop and I sued the city for damages, the city could say, "Hey, we aren't liable; beating up speeders isn't part of the cop's job; in fact, it's strictly forbidden; so the cop wasn't beating you in his official capacity." Such an argument would be laughed at in any court in the land (and might even get the city's lawyer sanctioned for making a frivolous argument).
Zippy:
In response to my statement that "Simply saying 'I know it when I see it' just won't cut it," you said that "Though I generally agree with Seamus' posts, I think that is a wee bit of a straw man."
If you really believe that's a straw man, I just thought you ought to know that some imposter using your name made pretty much exactly that here:
http://www.haloscan.com/comments...8607296/
#429203
Chair:
Zippy has already responded. Jimmy was initially enlisted in *your* (not his) cause of trying to show that, for sufficiently good ends, torture was okay. Zippy showed that this argument is crap. Jimmy concurs that it is crap. You and d.t. are the only people here trying to maintain the validity of this crap argument. The question "What is torture?" is a valid one (provided it is not asked with the intention of perpetually pettifogging so as to essentially claim "O it's all so complex! I guess we'll never be able to know what torture is, so the Church can safely be ignored.") The question "Isn't some torture okay if it's for a good enough end?" is crap. You were clearly attempting to enlist Jimmy in that project when you cited him here:
http://www.haloscan.com/comments...3121345/
#430319
Your goal was to claim that he was agreeing with you that with the right motives, the intrinsic evil of torture was okay. Jimmy has now made it clear that this is not what he was saying and you were misreading him. So your attempt to press him into the service of the argument is in ruins.
Are we clear now?
But here, let me ask you this. Why is it so important to you if what went on at Abu Ghraib was abuse or torture. Both we agree are immoral and it was punished. Why does such a conclusion offend?
It isn't that it offends, it is that it is wrong. If you were saying that an abortion isn't really an abortion, it is contraception, I would disagree with you there too even though both acts are evil.
If you really believe that's a straw man, I just thought you ought to know that some imposter using your name made pretty much exactly that here:
And again, saying that there is an element of "I know it when I see it" in this (and virtually every) moral question is not the same as "simply saying 'I know it when I see it'", the latter being what you suggested "just won't cut it."
Seamus: torture is like Jazz, though that was Rob's contribution not mine. You can come up with all sorts of descriptions for it, and all kinds of definitions; but in the end it rests on qualia, and our knowledge of it rests on a presumption of shared qualitative experiences and knowledge of those shared qualitative experiences.
So like Jazz, you know it when you see it, or you don't. Like Jazz, you would have a Hell of a time getting a computer to recognize it as having a distinct boundary from other sounds. And like Jazz, it is torture, hah!
But that isn't quite the same as saying "you know it when you see it", full stop.
Mark e-mailed me and said that I might want to weigh in as some folks were suggesting, based on what I've written, that the Church can be safely ignored on the subject of torture.
If Mark said that, then Mark is a moron.
Mark,
We aren't clear.
You write, "Your goal was to claim that he was saying that with the right motives, the intrinsic evil of torture was okay."
I have never written anything like that or believed anything like that. Please retract. If you can provide me a quote where I have written that, I'd appreciate it, and I'll retract, because that certainly isn't my position.
What Jimmy wrote, and what I agree with, is: "The Catechism's discussion of torture focuses significantly on the motive that is being pursued in different acts of torture. If it means us to understand that having a particular motive is necessary for an act to count as torture then it might turn out that some acts commonly described as torture are in fact not torture... For example, the Catechism's list of motives for torture does not mention the use of physical pressure to obtain information needed to save innocent lives."
Do you disagree with what Jimmy wrote? If not, you and I are in agreement, and there's no need for more acrimony.
If you could take a stab at my 9:20 post to Zippy, that would also be fun to read.
Again,
Here is the definition I am going by:
An official (from the Latin Officialis, person -or object- related to an officium, see that article) is, in the primary sense, someone who holds an office (i.e. function, mandate, regardless whether it carries a working spece with it) in an organisation, of any kind, but participatng in the exercise of authority (either his own or that of his superior and/or employer, public or legally private
Note that an official holds a mandate to exercise an authority. Unless the authority includes the right for a police officer to beat someone, I don't think they are acting as an official.
As per whether someone can sue the state, that is up to the law. If an officer in the military acted outside his authority, if it can be shown that the superior did not ignore such actions and appropriately trained the junior, the senior officer would not be held responsible. That would be because the junior was outside his mandate or authority.
So competing definitions of official capacity are still defensible and one is not per se proven as wrong.
Frank,
I've asked Mark to provide me a quote of mine that proves his thesis. His response is his 2:00 pm post.
He provides no quotes. He links to a post of mine in which all I do is quote Jimmy. And for Mark, it's "clear" enough that by quoting Jimmy, I'm twisting Jimmy and supporting torture.
So, Frank, maybe you can find this phantom quote where I'm supporting ends justifies the means. You just gotta laugh.
BTW, Jimmy won Apologetics Blog of the Year. That's great for him.
Chair:
As written, I disagree with what Jimmy wrote, for motive is irrelevant in the case of an intrinsic evil. The thing is, Jimmy makes clear that he disagrees with it too in the entries above. People don't always phrase themselves precisely in blog entries, particularly when they are tentatively exploring new ideas. I think Jimmy made a mistake if he was saying that, with the right motives (e.g. saving lives) torture is justified. However, the language he uses is, in fact, fuzzy. With clarification, however, he makes it clear that what he means is that "torture" needs definition (no argument here) and that torture, properly defined, is *always* an intrinsic evil and that not good motives or ends can ever justify it.
As written, I disagree with what Jimmy wrote, ...
I would point out that you don't even have to disagree with his blog rumination from a year and a half ago that some seem to wish were dogmatics canons of a Council, because he phrased it (in typically cautions JA fashion) as an "if...then" statement. If we have concluded that the "if" clause is false, because torture falls into the class of acts which are intrinsically evil and thus can never be justified by motives, then JA's statement still isn't itself false. It just reaches a different conclusion from the one Chair wants it to reach.
Mark writes, "I think Jimmy made a mistake if he was saying that, with the right motives (e.g. saving lives) torture is justified."
He never wrote anything like that. Neither did I. And his posts late last night do not contradict what he originally wrote. In any way.
His theft example is a preview of what he will write on his blog.
Jimmy writes, "It may turn out that some things that some individuals call 'torture' are not actually torture, just as some things that are commonly regarded as the sin of theft are not actually the sin of theft (e.g., taking food from a person who has plenty when you are starving and he will not sell it to you)."
So, again, Mark (if you have the time):
Is taking food from another person without their permission always stealing?
Is placing a person in a stress position for 7 minutes always torture?
To argue my point further, the use of definitions are equivocal here as two groups are using different definitions of the word. Both definitons are valid but neither has been proven better than the other.
Let me give an effort on why my interpretion is better.
Perhaps official here is being used in a analogical sense. For example, I can say a person is a healthy, a diet is healthy or a urine is healthy. Does it mean they all have health. No. Therefore are they equivocal. No. Because there is some relationship here. A person participates in health, a diet preserves health and a urine is a sign of health. So how are they related. They relate to a primary thought, that of health which is a state of normal body functions.
Now we can say that there is a official building and a state official. Are they all the same? No, but they relate to the primary meaning of an mandate authority (state, ecclesial) So an official building is where state authority is exercised and a state official is a person who exercises authority. Authority is then the primary analogate meaning acting with a mandate.
Given this understanding, if someone acts outside their mandate, they are acting outside their authority.
Now there will be immediate disagreements. So be it. But I have given a reason for why my understanding is the appropriate one. Now you can argue why my experience in the militarty, and my understanding of the analogous way official may be understood in in error. I will respond on Monday as I am now off on other activities for the rest of the day and weekend.
Before going, H.F., the site you link notes the Vatican endorses the convention. Then in some measure it endorses the definition given. What it does not do is resolve the issue of official capacity. So no slippery slope indicated yet.
Have a good weekend all.
Zippy,
My point isn't to dogmatize Jimmy Akin.
Here was why I did what I did: The fact is some here have been very unfair to others, willing to accuse others of supporting torture, torturing the Catechism, etc. By using Jimmy Akin's quote, I was able to find a very well respected apologist isn't quite so clear and dogmatic as the Magisterial posters at CAEI. I knew no one would call him names and accuse him of not caring about the faith.
Remember, bearing false witness is also intrinsically evil.
Chair:
He keeps accusing people of saying "the Church can be safely ignored..." because he knows that in fact it's the opposite and the people who regularly read his blog are typically those who would never want to contradict Church teaching on anything. We just have trouble accepting that the Church is saying what Mark and Zippy say it's saying.
I think he says it because he knows it drives us nuts, not because he really believes it's true. So I apologize for my slur above -- I was temporarily driven nuts.
To argue my point further, the use of definitions are equivocal here as two groups are using different definitions of the word./i>
And again, you aren't using the word "equivocation" correctly.
italics...
"We just have trouble accepting that the Church is saying what Mark and Zippy say it's saying."
So you have trouble with authoritative statements from Gaudium Et Specs, the Catechism of the Catholic Church, and Veritas Splendor?
Because, to my admittedly limited understanding of the english language()Mark and Zippy have based their summary of the Church's teaching on those statements.
The fact is some here have been very unfair to others, willing to accuse others of supporting torture, torturing the Catechism, etc.
If you are referring to me, and I made a specific statement you think I should retract, by all means quote it back to me and I will consider it.
I knew no one would call him names and accuse him of not caring about the faith.
You knew no one would call him names etc. because he wrote one careful if-then sentence in a blog rumination a year and a half ago? And this somehow shows that you have been treated unfairly? This whole thread is just a grievance thing for you? This is your whole point?
That last one (02.24.06 - 3:01 pm) was mine!
Note that an official holds a mandate to exercise an authority. Unless the authority includes the right for a police officer to beat someone, I don't think they are acting as an official.
This is just silly. The Convention was clearly intended to make sure that states clamped down hard on state actors employing torture. If it meant what you claim, then torture, within the meaning of the Convention, would *never* be committed by any citizen or agent of a state that was a party to the Convention. That's because if they were private citizens, the definition wouldn't extend to them, and if they were government officials, policemen, soldiers, etc., they'd be acting contrary to official policy, as expressed in their country's ratification of the Torture Convention. It would therefore turn out that, by ratifying the Convention, the country had undertaken to ban -- nothing, because the very act of ratification would have taken any act by its agents outside of the scope of the Convention.
No, when people use their official position to torture people, then it's "torture" for purposes of the Convention. The fact that they are acting contrary to policy, or even to explicit orders, is irrelevant.
Fool:
OK. But where does any poster say "Church teaching can safely be ignored when it comes to torture"? Rather the project seems to be to reconcile the words of the teachings with what people's consciences are telling them about justice. That project may be criticized, but it is specious to say that Church teaching is being characterized as irrelevant to the moral questions involving torture.
And again, saying that there is an element of "I know it when I see it" in this (and virtually every) moral question is not the same as "simply saying 'I know it when I see it'", the latter being what you suggested "just won't cut it."
Since you have endorsed the view that "You know the former [i.e., torture] when you see it," I take it that the only real sense in which I've employed a straw man is my use of the word "simply"?
He never wrote anything like that.
Yes, he did
"For example, the Catechism's list of ****motives**** for torture does not mention the use of physical pressure to obtain information needed to save innocent lives."
I was looking at the word motives. You were looking at the language about "physical pressure".
For the umpteenth time, I am not qualified to pronounce on what methods do and do not constitute legitimate coercive techniques. I am neither a cop nor a military interrogator. I refer you to standard reference manuals written for people in these fine professions. Whatever was standard procedure *before* the War on Terror and the need to defend the Bushies made torture-excusers get all baffled about how to define torture will serve just fine.
My point is not and never has been that all coercion is torture. That is the point made by Obfuscators for Torture, not me. My point (like Jimmy's) is that when we do have something properly defined as torture it is *never* morally licit and not motive or good end can make it so. Nor can shoddy and stupid sophistries like "It's not torture if the state doesn't sanction it."
I was temporarily driven nuts.
Comments boxes have a way of doing that to people.
So, again, Mark (if you have the time):
Is taking food from another person without their permission always stealing?
Is placing a person in a stress position for 7 minutes always torture?
Mark,
I too was looking at the word motives. And Jimmy has not retracted that. His statement on his blog and his statements on your blog are not in any way contradictory.
My hypothetical questions above (derived from Jimmy's example of theft), illustrates the point he is trying to make.
My point is not and never has been that all coercion is torture. That is the point made by Obfuscators for Torture, not me.
I think we've reached a tipping point. Now if Mark will only agree that the degree of "coercion" must be proportional to the harm which is sought to be prevented. By the end of the thread he'll be agreeing that two minutes of a drowning sensation is permissable to save the lives of the orphanage inhabitants he sneered at in his original post. It is after all, at least as respectful of the human dignity of the terrorist as the "vaporizing them into a red mist" he has so poetically advocated elsewhere.
No Frank. Waterrboarding is torture. Your attempts to bullshit that away notwithstanding.
Chair:
You are still playing definitional games by trying to get me to pronounce on what constitutes torture when I have made clear that I am not qualified to do so.
I take it that the only real sense in which I've employed a straw man is my use of the word "simply"?
Right. There is all the difference in the world between saying that a proposition applies and saying that that proposition is all that can be said.
Anon 8:47 pm is me.
I think we've reached a tipping point. Now if Mark will only agree that the degree of "coercion" must be proportional to the harm which is sought to be prevented.
Only if "torture" and "coercion" are the same kind of thing, differentiated only by degree. But if you were saying that then you would be begging the question, wouldn't you?
Zippy,
(Cribbed from a course)
"Let us take a second look at the beginning of the Categories, where Aristotle distinguishes between univocal and equivocal uses of a word. A word is used univocally when it is used at least twice but has the same meaning in both cases. For example, a man and an ox are both called animals, and the word "animal" has the same meaning, "sensitive living thing," in both cases. Thus, the word "animal" is used univocally. Aristotle says that a word is used equivocally when it is used at least twice and is used with at least two difference meanings. Let us look closely, however, at the example he uses. He writes:
Thus, a real man and a figure in a picture can both lay claim to the name "animal," yet these are equivocally so named, for though they have a common name, the definition corresponding with the name differs for each.
Notice that in this example, the definition of animal which we apply to the picture and the man, while not exactly the same, is not entirely different. The man is a sensitive living thing, and the picture of a man is an image of a sensitive living thing. In the example Aristotle gives, the meanings are not entirely the same, but neither are they entirely different.
But it is not always the case that the definitions of words used equivocally are somewhat the same. A flying mammal and the club used to hit a baseball are called bats equivocally, and the two meanings have no relation to each other. So sometimes the different meanings of words used equivocally have no relation, sometimes they have some relation.
St. Thomas uses this distinction to identify two kinds of equivocal uses of a name. He writes:
And this way of being common is a middle between pure equivocation and simple univocity. For in those things which are named analogously, there is neither one meaning, as there is with univocals, nor totally diverse meanings, as in equivocals.
St. Thomas here is talking about analogy. When the word used twice has two entirely different meanings, that is pure equivocation. But when a word is used analogously, the two meanings are neither the same, nor entirely different; rather, they are partly the same, and partly different. The picture of a man is called an animal, not with the same meaning as when I call a real man an animal, and not with an entirely different meaning, but a meaning that is partially the same and partially different. It is not a "sensitive living thing," but it is a "picture of a sensitive living thing."
The next thing to notice about the many meanings of a word used analogously is that there is an order among the meanings, a priority of some over others. St. Thomas writes:
In all names which are said analogously of many things, all must be said with respect to one. Therefore, it is necessary that it be put in the definition of all. And since the meaning which the name signifies is the definition, as Aristotle says in the fourth book of the Metaphysics, it is necessary that the name be attributed in the first place to that which is put into the definition of the others, and secondarily of the others, in the order in which they are closer to or farther from the first thing.
St. Thomas is saying that when the same word is used analogously, and therefore has many different but related meanings, there is always some meaning that is first, and that the other meanings fall into an order, a series, which is determined by how closely they are related to the first meaning.
A good example of this is the use we make of the term "medical." We talk about medical doctors, medical students, and medical insurance. If we were to define the term in each case, we would get many different meanings, but they would all point back to the first meaning: that which makes us call the doctor "medical." Thus, the meaning of medical which is applied to the doctor is the first meaning of the term and the meaning that is contained in all of the others. Then, when we look at the other uses of the term, we find that some are closer to the original use, while some are farther away. The meanings of a student being medical is much like that of the doctor, but the meaning of insurance being medical is much farther away. Thus, there is an order in which, first the doctor is medical, then the student, and finally the insurance. There is always an order among the many meanings of a word used analogously.
Since we need to be practical about logic, we must ask why we use words analogously. What is the purpose of analogy? Some of the modern logicians do not see any purpose for analogy, and so want to eliminate it. All equivocation, they argue, is an invitation to confusion The ideal language would assign a different word or symbol for each different meaning of definition. Thus, the presence of analogy in our language is a sign of its imperfection and an accident of its irrational origins.
Aristotle and St. Thomas would answer that the order in the meanings of analogous names points out the purpose of analogy. That order is the order of knowledge. St. Thomas says that we name things as we know them, and since we know them in a certain order, we name them that way. We could put all this another way: some things are very familiar to us, they are part of our everyday experience, while others are hard to understand. But the ones that are hard to understand are sometimes like the things that we are familiar with. So we use the familiar things to make the unfamiliar more understood. We use the same name for both in order to point out that likeness and increase our knowledge. This is the purpose of analogy.
We can clarify this with an example. The nature of sight is clearer to us than the nature of intellectual understanding, which is very obscure. But since seeing is like understanding, we can use seeing to make the nature of understanding clearer to our minds. How, then, do we point out this likeness between sight and understanding? We use the same word to name them. We say not only that we see colors, but that we "see" what someone means when they say something. In this latter case, we use the term "see" with a second meaning, different from but related to the first. The analogous use of the word "see" helps us to grasp better what understanding is.
Analogy, then, is not only not a hindrance, but an aid to knowledge. In fact, it is often an indispensable aid. When something is entirely outside of our ordinary experience, the only way that we can name it is by analogy, since every first meaning of a term comes from our experience. Since God is entirely outside of our ordinary experience, the only way we can name God, that is, assign an attribute to God, is by an analogy to that attribute in our experience. When we say "God is wise," we give to that word "wise" a meaning that is derived from, but secondary to, the meaning which the word has when we say "Socrates is wise." Every name of God is analogous, and without analogous naming theology would be impossible."
I first said that we were using the senses equivocally, that is we were applying different definitions to official. This is true. But thinking on it, as stated above, for us to understand official capacity, we must use the logic of analogy refered to above.
Nonetheless, whatever sense of official we use, the UN definition given by Holy Fool is poor or our understanding of torture is poor.
Mark asks above if pulling finger nails out is torture. Later (I believe Seamus) makes the point if a cop pulled me over an pulled out my finger nails would this not be torture.
Per the UN definition the first is not and the second (using a broad sense of official capacity is.) Again proof of the importance of distincitions in defintiions.
Later (I believe Seamus) makes the point if a cop pulled me over an pulled out my finger nails would this not be torture.
It sure wasn't me. I said almost exactly the opposite:
http://www.haloscan.com/comments...3121345/
#430927
Distinction without a difference.
Commenting by HaloScan
