Torture and Moral Equivalence
September 23rd 2006 09:47
After my catfight at Damo’s blog, perhaps I should make my stance clear. The points I made should not be even taken seriously only if because my typing was so atrocious. But yes, I think I need to make my stance on torture clear.
Can I torture somebody? Yes. I regularly torture any unfortunate creature who just happens to talk to me. Would that be helpful in eliciting info from terror suspects? Probably not. Would sleep deprivation, cold floors, belly slapping and waterboarding help? Probably yes. Most people say that information extracted after torture is useless because the victim will assent to whatever you say or give you bogus information. As I have said before, my kind of torture has not been even successful in eliciting the name of my brother’s girlfriend. So, I am not an expert. But under a theoretical chance of in formation that could save lives, would such techniques be useful? I’ll take that chance.
If the contention that information under torture is often useless, then why would CIA agents want to do it? Because they are sadists? Because American government itself is one giant torture machine? I am not impressed by such arguments. They are after information and their value and survival, both that of CIA and the Bush administration, would depend on the validity of that information. So why would they jeopardise their positions if that axiom about torture is inviolate?
The question is not about torture then. They would of course pursue other means of persuasion if and when they are available. When they are not and this is the only recourse they have, well they have to do that. What they have done in the recent weeks is ask that they be not placed in some limbo. Either provide enough legal backup for their interrogation techniques or else they will stop the program altogether.
Does that make America similar to Stalin as according to Damo or no better than Osama, as according to Ahmed? For all such questions, there is just one answer. In Roman Empire, Caesar’s wife Octavia was alleged to be adulterous. Caesar had her executed on the contention that a Caesar’s wife should be above reproach.
I have never visited America and I am not an American. But in the argument for moral superiority, I will only say this: America doesn’t have to follow a Caesar’s wife code of ethics. Either when it comes to “torturing” for information or aggressively prosecuting a war on terror.
America needs only to ask one question: is it really necessary going to all this bother? And would it really save lives? If yes, by all means do it.
Just because you are an “advanced country” or a “superpower”, doesn’t mean you have to follow ethereal standards which no one else is even willing to adopt or manifest in behaviour. There is an element of irony in having this issue back on agenda only when America is involved and is conveniently off the agenda when others are.
If the rest of the free societies whether they are in Europe or here in Australia do not do this sort of thing that’s only because they flourish under the umbrella of security you provide which means in effect, they have delegated these unpleasant duties to you; and the rest of the world which is not free, well you don’t have to explain apologise about the defence of your freedom to them.
As Ayn Rand once said “adherence to a principle is shown by the defence of its least attractive practitioners.” (Quoting from memory. I hate to quote people because that would be appropriating their words and use them in contexts they might not approve of.)
The principle here is simply, the defence of freedom. So would I be willing to torture people for freedom? You betcha. Will I do it myself? I’d do it if I could. Because I can’t, I am typing in defence of those who’d have to do it for me.
Can I torture somebody? Yes. I regularly torture any unfortunate creature who just happens to talk to me. Would that be helpful in eliciting info from terror suspects? Probably not. Would sleep deprivation, cold floors, belly slapping and waterboarding help? Probably yes. Most people say that information extracted after torture is useless because the victim will assent to whatever you say or give you bogus information. As I have said before, my kind of torture has not been even successful in eliciting the name of my brother’s girlfriend. So, I am not an expert. But under a theoretical chance of in formation that could save lives, would such techniques be useful? I’ll take that chance.
The Abu Gharib Torture Picture
If the contention that information under torture is often useless, then why would CIA agents want to do it? Because they are sadists? Because American government itself is one giant torture machine? I am not impressed by such arguments. They are after information and their value and survival, both that of CIA and the Bush administration, would depend on the validity of that information. So why would they jeopardise their positions if that axiom about torture is inviolate?
The question is not about torture then. They would of course pursue other means of persuasion if and when they are available. When they are not and this is the only recourse they have, well they have to do that. What they have done in the recent weeks is ask that they be not placed in some limbo. Either provide enough legal backup for their interrogation techniques or else they will stop the program altogether.
Does that make America similar to Stalin as according to Damo or no better than Osama, as according to Ahmed? For all such questions, there is just one answer. In Roman Empire, Caesar’s wife Octavia was alleged to be adulterous. Caesar had her executed on the contention that a Caesar’s wife should be above reproach.
I have never visited America and I am not an American. But in the argument for moral superiority, I will only say this: America doesn’t have to follow a Caesar’s wife code of ethics. Either when it comes to “torturing” for information or aggressively prosecuting a war on terror.
America needs only to ask one question: is it really necessary going to all this bother? And would it really save lives? If yes, by all means do it.
Just because you are an “advanced country” or a “superpower”, doesn’t mean you have to follow ethereal standards which no one else is even willing to adopt or manifest in behaviour. There is an element of irony in having this issue back on agenda only when America is involved and is conveniently off the agenda when others are.
If the rest of the free societies whether they are in Europe or here in Australia do not do this sort of thing that’s only because they flourish under the umbrella of security you provide which means in effect, they have delegated these unpleasant duties to you; and the rest of the world which is not free, well you don’t have to explain apologise about the defence of your freedom to them.
As Ayn Rand once said “adherence to a principle is shown by the defence of its least attractive practitioners.” (Quoting from memory. I hate to quote people because that would be appropriating their words and use them in contexts they might not approve of.)
The principle here is simply, the defence of freedom. So would I be willing to torture people for freedom? You betcha. Will I do it myself? I’d do it if I could. Because I can’t, I am typing in defence of those who’d have to do it for me.
| 94 |
| Vote |
subscribe to this blog
Comment by nagster
Cenacle
http://www.myapologetics.com/torture-could-you-do-it/
Comment by Adrian
Philosophy Blog
Comment by nagster
Cenacle
Comment by Ernestooo :)
Comment by Damo
I actually put off replying to this post to allow some time for other people to add their articulate comments. I never have believed that killing the messenger is of value. If I do believe a concept is wrong then it is the concept I will question not the person. Thus I will write briefly upon what I believe to be my point of difference about moral Torture and Moral Equivalence. (I hope spelled it right)
The title itself uses a term that begs the question: Whose Morals?
Or to put it in context: What yard stick are you using to draw up the moral code upon which you base your argument?
Is it that the ends justify the means? (Utilitarianism and Cosequentialism)
Is is because morality has no meaning after 9/11? (Nihilism)
Is it because western society superior to all others? (Nationalism and Jingoism and perhaps Racism)
Is it because might makes right? (Fascism)
Each of these question are a book in themselves but each I reject.
Comment by nagster
Cenacle
Anyway, I think I have said all I could on this topic.
The moral equivalence I am talking about is the one when people impute when they say there is no difference between obl n us or war on terrror and terrorism or banana republics and a democracy.