I think nearly every person who is reading this right now believes that torture is wrong. But is this always the case? I was forced to reconsider the notion while reading the works of Sam Harris. He poses a "ticking-bomb case", which works as follows:
"Imagine that a known terrorist has planted a large bomb in the heart of a nearby city. This man now sits in your custody. As to the bomb's location, he will say nothing except that the site was chosen to produce the maximum loss of life. Given this state of affairs - in particular, given that there is still time to prevent an imminent atrocity - it seems there would be no harm in dusting off the strappado and exposing this unpleasant fellow to a suasion of bygone times."
If this situation doesn't move you, imagine your seven-year-old daughter slowly asphyxiated in a warehouse just five minutes away, while the man in your custody holds the keys to her release. If your own daughter won't tip the scales, add the daughters of all your neighbors. I know that when things get personal, 24-style torture seems like a good idea. I'm militantly against capital punishment, but if someone did anything to my girlfriend I can guarantee it'd take a whole hell of a lot to stop me from finding whoever hurt her and damaging him in ways Torquemada of the Spanish Inquisition would be proud of.
But this only works when we know that the person in question is 100% guilty. What happens when the person's guilt is a matter of some uncertainty? As Harris points out, restraint of use of torture in a situation like this "cannot be reconciled with our willingness to wage war in the first place." After all, what is "collateral damage" but the inadvertent torture of innocent bystanders? Whenever we drop bombs on an enemy country, we do so knowing that some children will be blinded, paralyzed, orphaned and killed as a result. It poses an interesting question about our nature that makes some balk at the concept of torturing Osama bin Laden, but shrug off the idea of dropping bombs on some obviously innocent people. As Jonathan Glover points out, "in modern war, what is most shocking is a poor guide to what is most harmful."
Imagine you were told that your grandfather flew a bombing mission over Dresden in WWII. Hearing this is quite different from hearing that he killed a man with a shovel. Although it's almost certain that more people were killed in more horrible ways in the first case, the second causes a more severe moral reaction.
I'm not going to make any conclusions based upon this, but I thought it was an interesting - and disturbing - concept.
What would you do in these situations?
Comments (30)
...
I'd prolly cry. And get other people to get other people to help find what we're looking for. And beat that bitch.
What's interesting about the "ethics of torture" scenarios is that torture is the only option allowed.
In the case of either scenario here, even if we must resort to beatings and gun-waving threats, that's far better than descending into odd, creative tortures that require special props. The pain of the terrorist/kidnapper is not the only issue. What is also important is our own humanity. We must never lose our humanity in the shuffle of an evil world.
The same goes for dropping bombs. "Collateral damage" is a rationale that allows people to wage war. It is a compromise of our humanity to allow ourselves to consider such a rationale, but it is also proof of our humanity. We must rationalize if we are going to make war. We cannot, however, rationalize torture. We can only make excuses for it.
I'm all for sawing, to be honest.
Or the thumbscrews. Old-school baby.
In America's most recent wars, the gov't has gone to great lengths to let the enemy know exactly when and where we would begin bombing, so that civilians would have time to flee.
There's very little that you can say is immoral no matter the circumstances, but torture comes close. It is the ultimate depravity - deliberately and willfully inflicting great levels of physical and psychological suffering on another human being sufficient to break their wills and bend them to your purposes. The torture victim is a utilized as a mere tool, a disposable means to an end, dehumanized in the greatest way possible, and the degrading and morally corrupting effect on the torturers themselves can't be overestimated. As horrid as collateral damage in wars is (and incidentally I don't think we tend to give this enough moral consideration, and I think that the high cost of innocent lives is enough to prohibit war in all but the most dire circumstances) it does not compare to the deliberate and intentional dehumanizing of a specific target inherently involved in torture.
Nonetheless, I'm sure it's possible to concoct scenarios where we'd have to say torture is justified. But even the "ticking time bomb" sorts of scenarios aren't clear examples of this; for example, you still have to contend with the noted problem that information acquired from torture is unreliable.
I have a hard time with this whole thing. I can't quite figure out what my stance on it is. I don't even want to think about it because it exacerbates my psychological problems. :(
I don't think I'd personally be able to torture someone; not only did I take a vow of nonviolence, but I don't think I could physically get myself to do it even if I felt it was acceptable.
Torture, collateral damage, physical force. If two nations are at war, the one who is acting in self-defense has license to cause damage--including collateral damage and the torture of innocent suspects in order to minimize damage to one's own. Civilians die in war--but ultimately it is the civilians who are responsible for their government. This doesn't mean a nation must destroy the civilians only--but the destruction of a nation's ability to make war. This involves the destruction of the enemy military--civilian deaths as a result are not immoral or wrong in that case.
As for torture--it should be done to gain information that is important to keeping one's own countrymen alive in special situations.
I think there are a number of factors involved in this analysis. For the last thing stated, we are detached from the people hurt by bombs, so we can praise a war hero while denouncing collateral damage. That, however, doesn't change the morality of it. That is just a peculiar case of human psychology, and rational inconsistency (i.e., we are rational in our justifications, but we come to inconsistent conclusions. Primarily because the factors involved in that justification would not be exclusive from each other, or even comparable).
In regard to the torture, I do not find the comparison to war beneficial to advocates because we can just as well denounce war. What is telling is that we make it personal to try and taint the image of torture. This gets back to the psychological issue. We are detached from general cases of torturing when it is arbitrary. When we talk about cases personal to us, we are enraged, as we should be. That is to be human. But society in general is not a human. It is a society, and we might argue that society ought to uphold standards that I, as an individual, cannot always achieve. If society does not do this, then society serves no purpose and we might as well be without any such institution. However, we are not all anarchists, and value society. Therefore, we ought to realize that my torturing someone to protect my loved ones is in no way a justification of torture, or torture in general. I am still doing an evil act, but I am justified to myself. The last 24 played on this fact a lot, as did other seasons. What Jack Bauer always struggles with is how he has to face the consequences of his actions, while we are torn between sympathizing with his humanity compared with the sanctity of a just society (and it is not necessarily unjust to punish Bauer, even if we don't like it). Another movie played on a similar sentiment: Hero. Jet Li's character could have killed the sinister King that slaughtered a country to unite it, and yet he lets the king live because the struggle of man is not above the formation of the union. Jet Li's character was killed as the (failed) assassin that he was, but had the funeral of a king or something. It played on that dynamic that while we sympathize with the problem and the punishment, we know it must hold and there is no justification for it not to hold. Hero demonstrated that nicely while killing Li's character, but honoring him all the same.
From a pragmatic perspective, Harris is wise enough to realize the obvious: torture works if we know the person has the information. One can argue that if we do, in fact, know the man has planted a bomb, then our torturing him is not so much torture as a punishment. The reason is that as it stands he will be punished severely whether or not the bomb goes off (i.e., whether or not we stop it). Therefore, it is not a preemptive strike against the man to give up information. We are punishing him for his action and possible consequences, whether or not they are as great as the bomb going off versus our stopping it with or without his assistance. Therefore, it is not torture in that we are time-relatively punishing him for his choice, with the added benefit that such punishment may also be conducive to minimizing the severity of the outcome.
Of course, such an argument has many holes, and the fact that torture does not always work. In the case of someone having the keys to save your loved one's life, we are still time-relatively punishing him by hurting (or killing) him and taking the keys. However, such an action is not to torture the man but to perform a violent act to save someone's life. There is a difference, because torture is not necessarily tied to saving lives, nor is punishing someone. My punching a bad guy in the face to take his keys and save my daughter (if I had one) is not torture. It is me saving my daughter's life. Hitting him was merely overcoming an obstacle to that outcome.
just hire the people who have the least guilt to do it. in a city that big, im sure there are quite a few psychos who'd be happy to oblige.
@chaospet - I agree completely.
Good point about unreliable information. If an interrogator depends on torture, then he has to take the other person's word for everything.
There are other, more clean and useful ways to get information. We can use our brains and investigative powers.
I think one of the issues that wasn't addressed here is exactly what is deemed as right or wrong? Each side of a war believe earnestly that they are doing the right thing. Hitler and his army believed they were saving the world by creating a more perfect race. His followers didn't really believe that the starvation, torture, and death of the subpar (as they believed they were) was inhumane simply because the ends justified the means. The situation gets far more complex in today's world and is, unfortunately, quite tied into religious beliefs. Our country wages wars based on the presumption that we are right and they are wrong. They battle back based on their presumption that we are wrong and they are right. Who gets to decide what is ultimately correct?
The problem with situations that you've posed is that to first decide whether or not we would take to extremes, we have to decide who is right. I believe the answer is subjective.
As a man of reason, I have to admit that there are times when torture gets the job done.
That being said, my moral compass has no room for it. I've never been in support of it and I could not personally do it under most circumstances. I do not have the answers.
I'll have to think about my answer to some of it. Oh well.
I wanted to let you know you were heavily mentioned in my post today: http://nidan.xanga.com/706660044/tendollar4ways/
Partly because of me, but partly because of him.
I won't pretend to have a good answer (I don't particularly care for the analysis I'm about to offer) but here goes. I have heard it said that in WWII the Nazi's would order a Jewish mother to choose between two of her children for execution (presumably to both humiliate and "prove" that Jews were so depraved as to suffer such a monstrous choice. In such a situation, who really is the monster? I would venture that it is executioner hiding behind the veil of human dignity. Might I suggest that a person who is willing to hold himself up to torture (under the guise that no civilized society would countenance such a thing) is doing the same sort of thing as the aforementioned executioner or an army that insists on using civilians as human shields. As long as one maintains such a posture, that person forfeits being treated in a civilized fashion. It is the lesser of two evils.
Such a scenario, however, assumes a great deal. We must also assume with a high degree of probability that such a person really intends something horrific and is willing to use a civilized people's mores against them. There must be a high probability that torture will yield valuable information. There must also be a high probability that no other method will work. I cannot say I've looked into the cases of torture in the "war on terror," but I don't know of anything that meets all those criteria. Now, it may be, as Mr. Cheney asserts, that there have been some such cases (whose actual disposition is classified) but that would only seem to support the notion that while torture may be justified, no policy outlining when torture is permit can be.
wow. i don't think i could ever personally torture someone, but i would probably be capable of calling someone else in to do the dirty work. Knowing for certain whether the person is guilty is always going to be a problem, unless it's completely obvious...that's the whole problem with capital punishment. well, not the whole problem, but that's beside the point.
that's a very interesting concept, and yes, it's very disturbing. Good book, though = ]
It's not torture I'm against. I'm just against my government doing it. I think "terrorism" is just an excuse for the government to trash our constitution, and I think they just like labeling anyone they don't like (say, the teapartyists) as "extremists" (and "extremist" = "potential terrorist" = "valid subject for torture"), and they would love to get the public to allow them to torture any innocent civilian who happens to stand up to their brand of tyranny.
As for war, war, by its very nature, involves the suspense of human dignity and respect for human life. In war, the only rules of engagement you should have are the ones that will help you achieve your objective (this is not Army doctrine, just my personal opinion). In the past we have generally refrained from the torture of POW's because, we reasoned (rightly, as it turns out), that an enemy who feels he will be treated decently by his captor, is far more likely to surrender than fight to the death. Our stance against torture has, historically, been a tremendous help to our cause. But when it comes to killing, do it any way you can. Gun them down. Burn their face. Stab them in the eye. Butt stroke them in the neck. Whatever it takes. War isn't supposed to be nice or humane.
The firestorm of Dresden was a horrible event. So was the London Blitz. Does the one excuse the other?
So was the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
I’m told--maybe it’s an urban legend--FDR promised never to use the Bomb. But then came give-em-hell-the-buck-stops-here Harry Truman. He thought about it and went ahead.
The battle for Okinawa, I’m told, was heinous. The code-of-honor mindset among the civilians prompted them to cast themselves and their children off the cliff into the sea--like the defenders of Masada. I saw footage of it on Walter Cronkite’s old show “20th Century” back in the 1960’s. Informative stuff. It’s like is not to be found on network TV anymore.
The conventional wisdom was the same thing would happen on the Japanese mainland. Casualities in the millions. Did they have to drop the Bomb on a population center? I can only shuffle my feet beg off from answering.
Tojo was not possessed by the same genocidal racial purity insanity that Hitler was. But the code-of-honor mindset of the military caused them to despise an opponent who surrendered. And so even though their hearts were not as wicked--for lack of a better word--as the Nazi’s--or their actions quite as severe--no crematoriums--their disregard of human life was essentially the same.
Christianity began essentially as a pacifistic movement. There was debate in the early church if a convert who was a soldier could in good conscience continue to be a soldier.
And St. Augustine, of course, tried to formulate the rules for a just war--just like the framers of the Geneva convention--trying to add a little humanity to a brutal business.
As an evangelical Christian, I must agree with Lincoln--that we should beseech the Almighty for mercy for the inadvertent or excessive violence that takes place in the legit defense of our legit interests--and for the injustice in our own land while we oppose the injustice of others’.
The Catholic’s are on the right track in this regard: according to St. Mary’s instructions at Lourdes, we should perform reparations through contrition and prayer and acts of mercy to stave off the hand of judgement.
And I don’t mean like a formalistic exercise--I mean with a sincerely broken heart.
I once spoke with a Krishna devotee in college. We both agreed on this--it’s impossible to get through life without accruing some bad karma, either through acts of commission or omission.
And I realize the incongruity of talking religion to someone with your username.
But I absolutely hear what you’re saying about the moral dilemma. And I wanted you to know that across the philosophical divide between us.
i'm sort of jumping here and there. I hope i'm conveying a clear message
I would do what ever it took to get the info I needed
I believe torture should be used as a form of punishment to those we have found to be 100% guilty of a crime. Only the most serious of crimes of coarse.
As for the Scenario, I'd simply tell the guy what I'm going to do if he doesn't tell me, I'd also tell him, that "if the bomb goes off I'll make sure you live the rest of your life in constant pain and isolation. You will have no right to die, you will have no right to happiness.".
I'm almost certain a threat like that would get him to talk.
The way I see it, torture (specific kinds) is actually more ethical than life-long isolation or death. It's better to take away a persons power than to take away their life. Perhaps they'd have more appreciation of something if they lost it, and when getting it back, they wouldn't bother abusing it.
No time to respond now, but GL, it would have been awesome to have you in my ethics class. Debates would have been much more fun.
-Guru on the Hill
@Guru_on_the_Hilldotcom - I'd love to take one without the fear of grades. I'm terrible at social sciences and social-type classes in general. But I can guarantee that I would make the debates as lively as possible.
I imagine if I were put in such a situation, I'd resort to torture. I'm not saying that it's prudent (or not). There are obviously compelling reasons on either side. But if my child's life is at stake, or if I think many innocent people are at risk because of the "guilty" person before me, I'm not sure I'd be able to exercise enough self-control to lay off it, regardless of whether it is right or wrong. Since I'm so unsure about it all, I think it'd be easier to cave. If there were any "authorities" nearby (e.g., a cop), I'd feel more comfortable with them doing it, but that may not be the case, it may be against police policy, etc.
It's not quite as sloppy if you are certain of the person's guilt and knowledge. One thing that I often think about is that the perpetrator put themselves in that position and can get themselves out. I generally support the death penalty (not bringing it up to debate, just because it bears on my point), and part of that thinking is that someone who takes in certain acts forfeits some things. Someone who plants a bomb in a city has to be aware that (s)he is taking a risk in so doing, and getting caught is a possibility and a grim prospect, though evidently one worth it for them.
How can we know that someone is guilty or knows the answer? We can't always, at least in the time frame. That's disconcerting.
I am hesitant to back any position completely. I also am bothered by people who pretend like there is no conflict or want to Monday morning quarterback.
If someone else were to go through such a situation, I think I could empathize either way. I pray I don't ever get put into a position like this, and if I do, I pray I have the fortitude to do what's right (whatever that is).
IF I were given the choice of the bombing mission or killing some one with a shovel, I'd chose te shovel, assuming I can also pick the victim!
@Elegant_Evil - The problem is can you ever prove someone 100% guilty of anything? I think not.
If I knew that the person was 100% guilty: Cut off his fingers and toes one by one, and then his wrist and ankles, arms and legs, progressively, until he is left with nothing except a head and torso. Then pluck out his eyes and cut off his ears... you know, the whole Princess Bride thing. Oh, and make sure to keep him there as long as it takes, giving his wounds time to heal and his nerves to grow back before the next amputation, such that he can feel the entirety of the pain all over again. Offer him the option of a painless death if he cooperates now.
j/k... I probably wouldn't carry it out, but I'd at least threaten him with the above and then clip his toenail. If he doesn't give in immediately, pray about what to do next. ;-(