Scenario one: A 9 year old girl is kidnapped by a gang in a South American country. A member of the gang is captured by the police, and believed to know the whereabouts of the girl. The only possible way to make him talk is by torture, and if he talks, the police will probably save the girl’s life. In this case, torture would save someone’s life, and the member of the gang is hardly innocent. Besides, it would be an equal level – a life for a life, so to speak, so surely torturing the gang member would be okay.
Scenario two: Police capture a terrorist in America who knows of plans to destroy major American cities. If they can get the information from him, then they will stop the attacks and thousands of lives will be saved. The terrorist is only one person. Thus, for the sake of many people, we will torture the terrorist and save thousands of lives.
First, I’d like to define torture. Torture is an act done to another that includes pain, including physical or psychological pain, which degrades the human dignity of the person to whom it is done. It is usually done for the purpose of obtaining information with which lives could be saved, although torture for the sake of inflicting pain is not unheard of.
A great problem in the world today is utilitarianism. People tend to look only at the desirability of the results rather than the morality of the actions which cause those results. However, it is true that the ends do not justify the means. Torture ignores the fact that every human being, even those guilty of the most heinous crimes, still have the human dignity that is inherent in them. Because they have dignity, they must be respected. Torture does not respect that dignity. Thus, certain things, including torture, are off limits.
Therefore, the gang member in scenario one must not be tortured. Yes, the girl will likely die. But, as harsh as it may sound, our job is not to take care of the universe. (That’s God’s job, remember?) Our job is not to prevent every single evil in the world. Our job is to do good and avoid evil. This is the basic principle of natural law from which all other principles stem. (Summa 94) While we obviously desire the girl the live, we must not do evil to bring that about.
Likewise, the terrorist in scenario two must not be tortured. Without torturing him, we can be fairly certain that we will not get the information necessary to prevent the attacks, and thus many people will die. But, again, the ends do not justify the means. The end goal of saving lives is good, but if the action done to achieve that goal – torture – is evil, it must not be done, no matter how much we may want to save those lives. Intentional evil – which is what torture is – is never permissible.
Pope John Paul II said regarding torture that, “The Church and believers cannot remain insensitive and passive, therefore, before the multiplication of denunciations of torture and ill-treatment practiced in various countries on persons arrested interrogated or else put in a state of supervision or confinement. While Constitutions and legislation make room for the principle of the right to defense at all stages of justice, while proposals are put forward to humanize places of detention, it is obvious, nevertheless, that techniques of torture are being perfected to weaken the resistance of prisoners, and that people sometimes do not hesitate to inflict on them irreversible injuries, humiliating for the body and for the spirit.” The Catholic Bishops also declare: “The use of torture must be rejected as fundamentally incompatible with the dignity of the human person and ultimately counterproductive in the effort to combat terrorism.”
I quote members of the Church at length not to wield the sword of Church authority, but because they put forth valid reasons why torture is wrong. Torture is “humiliating for the body and for the spirit.” How could that be justifiable? Because it is so humiliating, it is contrary to human dignity. It is evil. It is “ultimately counterproductive int he effort to combat terrorism.” If we are willing to torture others, if we are willing to do evil to achieve the end we want, then how are we any different from the terrorists? After all, the terrorists will murder – an evil act – in order to achieve a good – or at least what they perceive to be a good. How would they be any different from us if we will torture – an evil act – in order to achieve a good – the safety of perhaps many people?
I close with one final thought from Pope John Paul II: “The thought of Jesus being stripped, beaten and derided until his final agony on the cross should always prompt a Christian to protest against similar treatment of their fellow beings. Of their own accord, disciples of Christ will reject torture, which nothing can justify, which causes humiliation and suffering to the victim and degrades the tormentor.”
|
Posted at 11:42 pm EST on the 18th of June 2009 by M. T. Petra. Under Philosophy, Theology as Human Dignity, Pope John Paul II, Torture There are 11 replies. |
 |
| Pontification Ad Nauseam | ||
Is a blog of developing Christian writers, their minds, and their ideas.
Copyright MMIX. All Rights Reserved by Pontification Ad Nauseam And Its Respective Contributors. Powered by Wordpress. Pontification Ad Nauseam uses advanced web technology. For the best user experience please use Safari or Firefox 3.5+. |
Hmmm… so, what is the moral alternative to torture? What should we do instead of torture? There is probably a basic alternative. Care to offer any ideas?
Also, First post! Hooray! Wonderful!
So may I understand from this post (which I find very agreeable) that the immorality of torture lies in the fact that it is degrading to human dignity? If there were some way of administering pain that were not degrading, would it be torture? And more, would it be wrong?
What about war? Its means (intentionally killing soldiers) are usually considered justified by the ends; WW2, for example, killed many soldiers on both sides to depose an evil regime and check the slaughter of innocent people (purportedly, at least, and let’s assume for the question that it was the real motive). Should the Allies have let the Axis armies live, and risked their conquest of Europe and Asia? Or is killing soldiers in war not humiliating? What’s the difference?
I’m confused by the ambiguity of your definition of torture. How subjective is human dignity and is that defined in clear terms either by the Church or the Bible? And, that point about the sovereignty of God over the girl was excellent, I think. Rather Calvinist, but I’ll just skip over that part. :-P
Ella, killing in war is not degrading to humanity if the war is just. Check out Just War – http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Just_War – part of the problem with modern Conservatism and its component Christian constituency is that they now view war as an essentially utilitarian endeavor. I think MT would agree with me, if she’s up on her jus ad bellum Thomism, that war isn’t dire ends that need to be prevented by immoral means. (Check out this excellent article by the analytical Thomist G. E. M. Anscombe – http://www.anthonyflood.com/anscombetrumansdegree.htm – it explained a lot of those things for me.)
Situations well within the guidelines of jus in bello could conceivably cause pain and degradation — according to M.T.’s definition, torture. I’m not concluding from this that the idea of a just war is invalid or that killing soldiers in battle is necessarily immoral, but merely suggesting that, as you pointed out, the definition be refined. I know that it’s difficult to define (a friend and I spent a good part of one morning trying); I just wanted to see where M.T. draws the line.
Glad to see some intelligent discussion of this issue. A few other random points on torture to put it in context of what’s going on right now:
1) Torture has been used no to get information and prevent attacks, but to try to get information linking al queda to Iraq in order to justify our invasion.
2) American soldiers have raped women and sodomized boys in front of thier mothers the course of “enhanced interrogation.” Women have smuggled out notes requesting someone “come and kill me” after what was done to them.
3) We executed Japanese soldiers for “waterboarding” American soldiers
4) During World War Two, Germans would surrender to Americans because they knew they would be treated humanely. When faced with Soviet troops they fought to the death.
5) At least one American citizens has been tortured in the “war on terror.”
6) Even if torture is permissible, the U.S. has no jurisdiction over foreigners in foreign lands.
7) Those who support torture should consider that unless stopped now, these techniques will be used against them as well. What would you think if policiemen came and waterboarded you or raped your children in front of your eyes until you gave them a list of everyone you know who owns a Bible or a firearm?
I tell those who support torture, “Be careful what you ask for.”
A few more points, neither for nor against the post.
Torture does not get / rarely gets useful information. Sure, people will talk under pain, but they won’t always say the truth. So by torturing you’re upping your chances at getting the saving information, but you won’t ‘probably’ get it.
How ‘humane’ must we be with those we are at war with? Does blowing them up violate their dignity?
Due to the Hague convention we can’t use hollow point bullets in war. Why? Because they flatten out and rip a lot more flesh out than other bullets. Hunters use them because they take down animals, police use them because they take down criminals, but we can’t use them in war because they aren’t humane.
I see unnecessarily killing people as much more violating to a person’s dignity than torture.
Random point: torture is mentioned as being used in the Bible. Job is one of the most famous examples, going through a whole lot more than waterboarding. Oh, and the confession the devil wanted was never given.
A second example from recent reading is Ezekiel. If laying on one side of your body for 390 days, eating food you put beside you before you began, and then having to cook your food on cow manure (a concession) isn’t degrading, I’m not sure what is.
Civis: #3. If someone waterboarded my wife/family, etc. I’d kill them also. And would feel completely justified in doing so. Japanese waterboarding != US waterboarding for the most part. On the surface this may seem like me / the US making up the moral rules. The only reason I think Japanese waterboarding was wrong, and that US waterboarding can be right, is because of my complete certainty that the Japanese were wrong and that we’re right.
#7. Even if all torture is stopped in the US, torture will not be stopped worldwide (as you may have alluded to in #5).
Torture has been around a long time before the US has, and isn’t stopping now. There will *always* be a people somewhere that permits torture.
Also, statistically speaking in the scheme of human rights/dignity issues, torture is a very small problem. A tiny problem in the US. And torture of Christians/ gun owners won’t come through the current state of torture, but through evil men ripping this country completely apart.
For the record: I condone little torture. It is too often abused. Most times it is done wrongly.
I appreciate your getting right to the heart of the issue – the question is not whether torture is too mean and “un-free” for America to practice, but whether it violates the image of God in man. An astute cultural observer will recognise that, in a paradigm that sees man as only an advanced animal, there is no such convincing argument against torture (or, incidentally, for any so called “human rights”). Torture opponents must resort to a sort of Hobbesian Silver Rule of “don’t torture since we don’t want to be tortured”. But with your distinction of dignity (a better term being God’s image) in man, there is a foundation for the argument.
I would point out to the other commentators that the parallels they draw between torture and war are unjustified. Although some might argue that waterboarding is a case of ends justifying means, war is not a supporting evidence in its favor. Killing in war is not a wrong for the sake of a greater right. It is a right for the sake of a right. There is no parellel.
“Killing in war is not a wrong for the sake of a greater right. It is a right for the sake of a right.”
The men we torture are the men we manage to capture alive, we kill many of the rest. The men we torture are guilty of the same crimes as the ones we kill.
My disagreement with the poster and many commentators is that killing gets a free pass, while torture violates the dignity of man.
In a simplified sense, we kill people so they stop shooting at us (in the short run), and stop blowing us up (in the long run).
We torture people (who shoot us and blow us up) so we know how to better stop the rest of the explosions.
Torture is cruel, but there’s a good chance they’ll be able to finish their lives.
Death is also cruel, and they never get to finish their lives.
Which one steals more from the victim? There are many instances of God condoning killings, but I don’t know of one that condones torture. That might settle the question. :P
Ends justifying means is not a bad principle. It just has limited applicability. For instance, I would say that lying and stealing and killing may, on occasion, be acceptable, if the occasion is particularly demanding. I recall David pretending to be crazy in front of the King of Gath. In any case.
Bryce — I think torture is different from killing. To kill someone is, honestly, to only kill the body. We are not violating their soul. To torture someone is different. When we torture someone we are, most probably, breaking down their emotions, forcing them to violate their conscience. So just for the person involved it’s a whole different affair. To kill their body is momentary physical pain; to kill their soul is lifelong emotional pain.
I’d like to make a small point. Admittedly, having read all these posts, my fairly avid support of the legality of waterboarding, at least to a degree, has been shaken mildly.
My point…even if we entirely ban waterboarding, as well as any other forms of torture, as any of your definitions would dictate, no terrorist, no criminal would care in the least. Terrorist occurrances would more likely skyrocket than lower. Now, I know none of you were intending to say or imply that, but think of it. Even if our nation never tortured, many others would still. Now, look. We stop, they continue, perhaps even more than before. The two options, in this issue, continuing torture, or outlawing it. If we outlaw it, in this issue, no good can be done. We can do little to stop the continued torture that will exist, but if we do continue torturing, we may do good by it.
I wish it weren’t so, but I think the ends do justify the means in such a case as this, where one or more lives could be saved by torturing one person. I think if greater good can be done by killing or torturing than by sitting home watching TV, it’d better be done.
The problem with legalizing torture, or even merely waterboarding, is that, at least for me, I don’t trust Uncle Sam to do it when it needs to be done, and not when it doesn’t. If it weren’t for this, I think it’d be all for legalizing it.
As for torture, rape and sodomy being used in the War on Terror…if this is true, it is no pleasure, but a shame to bear the nationality of an American. As it is, I’m proud to be an American.
Even if waterboarding is made illegal by the government, would you obey it, if your wife, son, or daughter was in danger, perhaps about to die, and you could waterboard an accomplice? I see as little reason not to as a piranha has to start flying. Then again, that’s more of a test to see who you love more, God or your wife/son/daughter. Not one I’d even like to take.
This isn’t an issue I think I’m well-informed enough on, but I think I’ve said what I believe.
!Noah!