Mailbag: Who Says Torture is Immoral?
Subject: Legalized Torture
To my statement "Torture is morally evil," I received the following response:
Says who? Who says what is evil or moral?
We, as humans say what is evil or moral. If torture weren’t considered a moral evil, then we wouldn’t find people condemning it when their enemies engage in torture. In fact, acts of torture are readily touted as proof that the enemy is barbaric, or even sub-human, but then some of these same people sometimes turn around and pretend that this justifies their using torture or other barbaric tactics against others. They don’t realize that they are being hypocrites.
There is no serious disagreement that torture is a moral evil; there are only hypocrites who search in vain for rationalizations as to why they should be allowed to use it against people they don’t like.
Civilized society doesn’t tolerate torture, and for good reasons: it doesn’t work and it dehumanizes both those who inflict the torture as well as those who must suffer through it. There’s no good reason to engage in torture, which may be why those trying to defend torture are only able to offer extreme hypotheticals in their arguments — hypothetical situations which are too unlikely to occur to take seriously and which are inadequate to justify torture in the more pedestrian cases that we do face.
Torture is wrong, both ethically and pragmatically. It is only defended by those who don’t care that it doesn’t work or who lack the ethical skills necessary to perceive that the deliberate infliction of severe suffering or pain is evil and should not be allowed.
If pulling off a fingernail will save the lives of people i care about, i’m ok with that, in the same way that i’m ok with a cop using force to arrest a murderer who tries to escape arrest.
This is a false analogy. First, no one argues that it is wrong to use force to capture or restrain criminals — the question before us is whether we should use torture to punish or extract information from criminals (or alleged terrorists, or just people who might have information about possible terrorist plots). Second, there is never any guarantee that torture will save people’s lives; on the contrary, torture’s poor track record indicates that it almost certainly won’t. Therefore, the issue is also whether we will deliberately inflict physical pain and suffering in the hopes that it might lead to information which could save the lives of some people.
Once we correct these errors in the attempted analogy, we find that the Todd’s ethical calculus fails entirely. A person who is “OK” with torturing someone who may or may not be a terrorist, who may or may not know information which will save people’s lives, and whose suffering probably won’t produce any viable intelligence, is not behaving ethically. If Todd can’t use a valid analogy to make his case, then it’s arguable that he must not have a valid case to make.
Letting innocents die to keep the blood of the guilty off our hands is just as evil as torture, if not more so.
This isn’t even good as a slogan, much less as an argument on behalf of torture. First, there is no evidence that torture prevents “innocents” from dying — we know that torture doesn’t work while non-torture methods of interrogation consistently work. If a person really wants to keep innocents from dying, they will use methods of extracting information which have a proven track record. Interrogators only resort to torture either because they don’t know what they are doing or are sociopaths who like causing pain in others.
Perhaps more importantly, however, the use of torture in America’s “war on terrorism” would reduce America to the same ethical level as those being fought. We cannot ultimately defeat a barbaric enemy by becoming as barbaric as they. This is rather like someone suggesting that America should adopt fascist tactics in order to defeat fascist Germany. It exhibits no confidence that ethical, moral, and democratic institutions will eventually win — but if that’s the case, then why support America over the terrorists? If anyone can be accused of giving “aid and comfort” to the enemy, it is those who encourage us to adopt the same unethical tactics or undemocratic methods as the enemy.
What the above is saying is that it’s OK to engage in evil, barbaric practices against others so long as that prevents evil, barbaric things from happening to us. But in that case, the purpose isn’t to prevent evil, barbaric practices; we no longer have any moral authority and we no longer have any good reason to claim that our cause is the one that’s just and right.
There must of course be limits and accountability.
I wonder why Todd says this — I see nothing in his words that would justify such limits. It seems to be pretty common for defenders of unethical or undemocratic tactics to eventually insist that some limits are “of course” necessary, but it’s not so common for them to explain what those limits are, much less why the limits should be drawn there instead of where they are usually drawn — for example, drawn against any torture whatsoever.
If torturing a convicted terrorist is OK, why not also a suspected terrorist? Why not someone simply suspected of having information about possible terrorism? Why not torture the families of suspected terrorists? We can always argue that “letting innocents die to keep the blood of the families of the guilty is just as evil as torture, if not more so.” This argument is obviously immoral, but no less immoral than the one actually offered above — if we adopt one, we have no good basis for denying the other.
I also wonder if Todd really believes that there must be “accountability” in light of the fact that the Bush administration does all it can to avoid being accountable to either the judiciary or the legislature when it comes to this so-called “war on terrorism.”
But it is silly for those who have no responsibility for protecting us, and no power to change the way we are protected, to whine about it.
“I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a man who rises and sleeps under the blanket of the very freedom that I provide, and then questions the manner in which I provide it. I would rather you just said thank you, and went on your way, Otherwise, I suggest you pick up a weapon, and stand a post.”
Thank you, Col. Jessep, for that truly enlightened perspective. In response, let me just point out that as an American citizen and voter, I not only have the right to speak out against unethical behavior by my government, but in fact I have the responsibility to do so. If the American government tortures someone in the interest of so-called “national security,” it is ultimately behaving in my name and this makes me partially responsible — not culpable, but responsible.
Part of being adult means taking responsibility for what goes on around you, even including somethings you cannot directly or immediately stop. Part of being a citizen in a democracy means taking responsibility for what your democratically elected government does in your name, even when you didn’t vote for those in power.
You’re not the one who has to deal with the results of using or not using torture, so it’s easy for you to say.
I am in no special position as a citizen of America — if there are risks to America from terrorists, then I’m in about as much risk as the next randomly chosen person. So, if I’m at no particular risk if torture is not used, then the claim that we must be willing to torture suspected terrorists in order to protect Americans must be false. Therefore, a primary excuse used to defend the use of torture is wrong — or Todd is wrong.
To be honest, I think that they are both wrong. I do have to deal with the results of using torture because as an American citizen, I am responsible for what my government does in my name. Only by taking responsibility for our government can we take control of our government — the government is us, after all, not some entity that should exist independent of us. If we don’t take responsibility for it and for ourselves, then we guarantee that our government will get out of control and behave in the most unethical manner possible.
Like, for example, by engaging in torture.
To my statement “then the “enemies of the state” are all those of us who still believe in freedom and liberty,” Todd responded:
Melodramatic?
That was no more “melodramatic” than “If pulling off a fingernail will save the lives of people i care about, i’m ok with that.” Personally, I’ll take “melodrama” in the service of liberty over callous melodrama in the service of causing even more suffering in the world.
i’ll amend that for you: then the “enemies of the state” are all those who care more about partisanship than about the security of the nation or those who are ignorant of what it takes to make it possible to be free to make such statements.
Opposition to torture isn’t a partisan issue, unless one political party has become so morally corrupt that it cannot distinguish between protecting liberty and destroying it through becoming as evil as those we fight. The mere suggestion that taking a principled stand against torture is anything other than a minimally necessary position in order to be an ethically mature person is a sign of just how much politics in America has degenerated. One might as well claim that the statement “bribery is a form of political corruption” would only be made by those who care more about partisanship than unity in the face of America’s enemies.
I don’t need my words amended by anyone who cannot comprehend basic ethical principles, like for example the ethical principle that inflicting unnecessary suffering is wrong. Make no mistake, torture is unnecessary suffering — both on a pragmatic and on an ethical level.
It’s unnecessary on a pragmatic level because, unless there is unequivocal proof that it will work in a particular case and that no other method is available, it simply can’t be claimed that it’s necessary. Thus far, no defender of torture has ever manage to do this — they only offer non-existent hypotheticals.
More importantly, it’s also unnecessary on a moral level because there is no moral justification for devaluing humanity in the name of saving lives. I would not torture a terrorist to save innocent lives for the same reason that I would not torture an innocent baby to bring peace to the world: doing so would destroy the moral framework which allows us to make judgments such as “ensuring peace is morally good.” Once that moral framework is obliterated, then it’s no longer possible for us to treat the consequences of our actions as “good,” much less “good enough” to justify those horrible actions.
We don’t need to act unethically by torturing others in order to remain free. The Western liberal democracies persevered against threats from fascism and totalitarian communism without having to officially sanction torture, and Western liberal democracies can persevere against religious totalitarianism in the same way. It’s an oxymoron to claim that we must abandon our foundational ethical and political principles in order to preserve them.
Note: the above message from Todd was originally posted a comment here. I am using it as a Mailbag feature because blog comments are a similar sort of feedback to email comments and, after all, I do receive copies of these comments in my email.
More selections from the Agnosticism / Atheism Mailbag...
Comments
Wow Austin, you’re sounding like a libertarian! Or at least a civil libertarian.
Good article & reply.
I had to cut this down a great bit, it was 5 pages, so I won’t be addressing everything.
“We, as humans say what is evil or moral. If torture weren’t considered a moral evil, then we wouldn’t find people condemning it when their enemies engage in torture. In fact, acts of torture are readily touted as proof that the enemy is barbaric, or even sub-human, but then some of these same people sometimes turn around and pretend that this justifies their using torture or other barbaric tactics against others. They don’t realize that they are being hypocrites.”
It is a GIVEN that morality is social contract, there is no need to point out that. What is not given is what specifically is or is not moral. There is no objective standard, only what people agree on in a given time and place.
You made an unequivocal statement, as if you were *the* moral authority. You stated an opinion/belief/thought/feeling as if it were 2+2=4. It doesn’t matter how many people agree with something if they are all wrong, or if it is not a right/wrong issue. Most people believe in some sort of god, does that make them right? People once believed that it was morally acceptable to own other humans as slaves, we changed our minds. Maybe someday we’ll stop eating animals, or start eating humans. On this side of the border they think X, on the other side Y. Morals change over time and from place to place. Morals and ethics occur within individuals. Sometimes, if we are lucky, enough people will agree on something like “murder = bad”. But what they are really saying is “I don’t want to be killed”.
It is very easy to say, while sitting at the keyboard this = good, that = bad. You’re speaking in absolutes in a world that is not only *not* black and white, but spectral.
We could also say that abortion kills an innocent child, but some would claim that it’s “just a fetus, it has no rights/consciousness” or that sometimes the potential mother and child would be better served by not carrying it to term. That end, to some, justifies that mean, and I would agree with them. We can claim that medical experiments, that cause immense pain and death to countless animals, is evil. But the doctors will tell you that killing a thousand rats today will save countless human lives over the course of human existence. It is just a matter of where you draw the line. You draw it here; I draw it a little further back. As a vegetarian I’ve heard people ask me if I’d kill and eat an animal to save my life, or that of someone I care about. I freely admit, yes, I would. But that doesn’t make me a hypocrite; it means I draw the line here instead of there. I’d rather be a hypocrite with a full tummy than dead and self-satisfied. What doesn’t bend, breaks.
“Once we correct these errors in the attempted analogy, we find that the Todd’s ethical calculus fails entirely. A person who is “OK” with torturing someone who may or may not be a terrorist, who may or may not know information which will save people’s lives, and whose suffering probably won’t produce any viable intelligence, is not behaving ethically. If Todd can’t use a valid analogy to make his case, then it’s arguable that he must not have a valid case to make.”
*Attempted* analogy… is that the post-graduate level equivalent of “Whatever!”? Uses big words != right. You can do better than Dismissiveness.
My analogy was spot on, committing a small evil act for the greater good is just as widely accepted an idea as “torture == evil”. The death penalty (which I don’t care for) causes suffering to someone who may not be a real threat (read: needless), but many cultures accept it. Not liking/agreeing with does not mean “wrong” or “false”. It just means you disagree. We get to do that here.
“Perhaps more importantly, however, the use of torture in America’s “war on terrorism” would reduce America to the same ethical level as those being fought. We cannot ultimately defeat a barbaric enemy by becoming as barbaric as they. This is rather like someone suggesting that America should adopt fascist tactics in order to defeat fascist Germany. “
Godwin’ed in the third post!
Why is “war on terrorism” in quotes there? Which word are you contesting, “war” or “terrorism” or both?
“It exhibits no confidence that ethical, moral, and democratic institutions will eventually win — but if that’s the case, then why support America over the terrorists? If anyone can be accused of giving “aid and comfort” to the enemy, it is those who encourage us to adopt the same unethical tactics or undemocratic methods as the enemy.”
Ethical, moral and democratic institutions don’t “win”. I’m not sure we support America so much as “us”, just as they support their subjective “us” over them. Check out the essay on the Monkeysphere theory. I have zero confidence that institutions will win. Being the “good guy” and occupying the moral high ground doesn’t win anything. You might win, or you might lose and feel good about yourself. I’m not saying it isn’t important to have those institutions, just that they don’t determine the outcome.
“What the above is saying is that it’s OK to engage in evil, barbaric practices against others so long as that prevents evil, barbaric things from happening to us. But in that case, the purpose isn’t to prevent evil, barbaric practices; we no longer have any moral authority and we no longer have any good reason to claim that our cause is the one that’s just and right.”
Of course we have moral authority, we have you. Austin will tell us what is right and wrong and being right is enough to win. Our aura of self righteousness will protect us. No one ever hurts good people, ever!
There must of course be limits and accountability.
“If torturing a convicted terrorist is OK, why not also a suspected terrorist? Why not someone simply suspected of having information about possible terrorism? Why not torture the families of suspected terrorists? We can always argue that “letting innocents die to keep the blood of the families of the guilty is just as evil as torture, if not more so.” This argument is obviously immoral, but no less immoral than the one actually offered above — if we adopt one, we have no good basis for denying the other.”
Slippery slope fallacy.
>>But it is silly for those who have no responsibility for protecting us, and no power to change the way we are protected, to whine about it.
“I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a man who rises and sleeps under the blanket of the very freedom that I provide, and then questions the manner in which I provide it. I would rather you just said thank you, and went on your way, Otherwise, I suggest you pick up a weapon, and stand a post.”
“Thank you, Col. Jessep, for that truly enlightened perspective. In response, let me just point out that as an American citizen and voter, I not only have the right to speak out against unethical behavior by my government, but in fact I have the responsibility to do so. If the American government tortures someone in the interest of so-called “national security,” it is ultimately behaving in my name and this makes me partially responsible — not culpable, but responsible.”
The enemy sees you as culpable, but that’s another matter.
Sure, speak out all you want. You have both right and responsibility to do so. But, you should admit to being an uninformed armchair quarterback while doing so. You are not the one who would have to explain to the families of the deceased that “we could have saved your loved one, but to do so we’d have to violate our principles, our principles. I hope that knowing that helps you feel better”.
You’re not the one who has to deal with the results of using or not using torture, so it’s easy for you to say.
“I am in no special position as a citizen of America — if there are risks to America from terrorists, then I’m in about as much risk as the next randomly chosen person. So, if I’m at no particular risk if torture is not used, then the claim that we must be willing to torture suspected terrorists in order to protect Americans must be false. Therefore, a primary excuse used to defend the use of torture is wrong — or Todd is wrong.”
Excuse - A reason I don’t like.
That paragraph makes no sense to me because you (as random citizen could be at risk and) are worth protecting, particular risk or not.
“To be honest, I think that they are both wrong. I do have to deal with the results of using torture because as an American citizen, I am responsible for what my government does in my name. Only by taking responsibility for our government can we take control of our government — the government is us, after all, not some entity that should exist independent of us. If we don’t take responsibility for it and for ourselves, then we guarantee that our government will get out of control and behave in the most unethical manner possible.”
Slippery slope fallacy. But better, because you qualified the statement.
To my statement “then the “enemies of the state” are all those of us who still believe in freedom and liberty,” Todd responded:
Melodramatic?
“That was no more “melodramatic” than “If pulling off a fingernail will save the lives of people i care about, i’m ok with that.” Personally, I’ll take “melodrama” in the service of liberty over callous melodrama in the service of causing even more suffering in the world.”
You didn’t read the statement you quoted, or just ignored the part about *preventing* suffering. I’m talking about situations where *someone* is going to suffer. Will it be the terrorist suspect, or the passengers of flight 376 to Dulles? You get to write one of two letters, one that authorizes torture or the one that explains to the families why their loved ones are dead. Which do you choose? Non-existent hypothetical, sure, but it illustrates the intent. Melodramatic, fine. But no more melodramatic than martyring *someone else* so you can feel good about yourself. It costs you nothing to stand on principle. Don’t worry, unethical people will do their best to make sure you get to hold and express that position and my right to disagree with you.
“I don’t need my words amended by anyone who cannot comprehend basic ethical principles, like for example the ethical principle that inflicting unnecessary suffering is wrong. Make no mistake, torture is unnecessary suffering — both on a pragmatic and on an ethical level.”
Explain necessary suffering, please.
Oh, right, because there is only one ethical standard… yours. Sorry, mea culpa. I’m so stupid and unethical for caring about my people more than those who want to kill my people. Oh, look Nascar is on!
“It’s unnecessary on a pragmatic level because, unless there is unequivocal proof that it will work in a particular case and that no other method is available, it simply can’t be claimed that it’s necessary. Thus far, no defender of torture has ever manage(d) to do this — they only offer non-existent hypotheticals.”
Hypotheticals allow for discussion when real world examples are not readily available. Even if torture is not very effective, I say keep all the tools in the bag, just in case. I could also say that those who refute torture can only offer sentiments about having the moral high ground no matter who dies. Don’t worry, it is only hypothetical people at risk.
“Note: the above message from Todd was originally posted a comment here. I am using it as a Mailbag feature because blog comments are a similar sort of feedback to email comments and, after all, I do receive copies of these comments in my email.“
This was fun. Slow day at work today….
No, I made an unequivocal statement because I made a true statement.
No it wasn’t, and for precisely the reasons I explained. A valid analogy is one where the things being compared are comparable on the relevant points; your attempted analogy was not valid.
No, Godwin’s law is about Nazis, not fascism. If you are going to try to claim Godwin’s law, it might behoove you to educate yourself about it.
For the same reason that I commonly put “war on drugs” in quotes.
Certainly they do.
Given your failure to explain what sorts of limits and accountability there should be, and why you would draw the lines in particular places rather than others, my questions are legitimate. A “fallacy” is a reasoning error in an argument and what you are responding to is a series of questions designed to demonstrate illustrate your failure, not to construct an argument.
No more or less so than everyone else in the nation.
Yes, I can see that it made no sense to you. The point is that I am in no less of a position of having to deal with the results of using or not using torture as every other random person in America.
You don’t know what a fallacy is, much less what the slippery slope fallacy is. The statement that I, as a citizen, must take responsibility for what my government does in order because otherwise it will not be controlled and will behave unethically is not an argument, much less a fallacious one.
You don’t know for sure that someone is going to suffer in anything except a non-existent hypothetical. In the real world, decisions aren’t like what you portray them. Evaluations about whether torture is ethical must be based on the real world, not a world you dream up in your imagination.
Suffering, without which, something necessary cannot be achieved. Torture cannot qualify as necessary suffering, first, because it’s effectiveness is too small to justify thinking the goal cannot be achieved without;, second, because much more effective alternatives exist; third, because there is no moral justification for such debasement of humanity. This is why the hypotheticals like what you offer are invalid: they always portray the suffering as necessary when, in the real world, the suffering inflicted by torture has never been shown to be necessary.
If it were, then it would be employed much more widely. If torture were effective and necessary, there are many criminal interrogations where it could be brought to bear. Why isn’t it? Why don’t police routinely use torture? Because it’s immoral. Why is it immoral? Because it’s the infliction of unnecessary suffering.
It’s a question about caring about basic ethical standards. You aren’t a genuinely ethical person if you only apply them to “your” people and not “other” people whom you suspect of wishing you ill. A person who is willing to limit basic ethical considerations to “us” as Americans is no different from someone who will limit them to “us” as Christians, “us” as whites, or “us” as males. Obviously it’s not unethical to have a preference for those to whom you are closest to, but that’s not at all the same thing as simply abandoning basic ethical principles in your dealings with “others.”
Real-world examples of whether torture is called for are available. We don’t need to make things up.
Refusal to torture is actually part of the of the UMCJ. So, according to you, the military has committed itself to only offering sentiment about having the moral high ground no matter who dies.
Just some pieces of personal opinion not already covered in Austin’s reply above.
Todd, sticking to one’s principles and keeping the “moral high ground” are more than mere feel-good sentiments which can (or should) be tossed out the window whenever they become inconvenient. There is long-term value in sticking to your principles even when immediate circumstances say it would be easier or more pragmatic to ditch them.
Take the notion, “torture is wrong.” If you amend that to add, “…except when it accomplishes a greater good,” then it’s not really a principle, just a sentiment that makes you feel good when you don’t have to torture anyone and makes you feel justified when you do. Something isn’t much of a principle if you abandon it whenever it becomes inconvenient, or when bending the rule is easier than following it.
“Slippery slope” can be a fallacy, but it can also be a legitimate concern. The big problem with breaking principles such as “torture is wrong” is that doing so sets a precedent which makes future incursions much more easy, and can even lend justification to breaking the principle. Not only does breaking the principle become easier, but it also becomes easier to allow ever-bigger exceptions to it. Like a bad company stock, a slide down the slippery slope quickly devalues the principle in question. That is the danger of allowing exceptions to principles, not that you might not “feel good” about doing so.
If you find yourself frequently having to justify bending a rule or making exceptions to your principles, then maybe you need to re-examine the rule or principle in its entirety. Obviously some principles, like “xtians deserve a priviledged status,” are going to meet a lot of challenges (both moral & pragmatic) in a secular, diverse society such as ours. A xtian who holds this principle can either keep making exceptions to it (even though he may not like those exceptions), but with enough exceptions it stops being a principle and becomes merely a sentiment. Or, if he’s smart, he can re-examine the principle altogether, and decide that either his principle is wrong or that the rest of society is wrong.
The principle that torture is wrong should be examined in a similar manner. If we say, “sure I don’t like torture, but we should allow exceptions for X, Y, and maybe Z,” then “torture is wrong” is just a worthless sentiment, nothing but a feeling held by a bunch of people. If we want to treat “torture is wrong” as having any real value, then we should consider it as a principle. Either there is something fundamentally unacceptable about the use of torture, or there is nothing fundamentally unacceptable about the use of torture. There really isn’t much, if any, of an excluded middle here, as the ultimate logical conclusion of any middle ground leads to torture being acceptable.
Todd, in a couple places in your reply above you seem to accuse Austin of being right for arbitrary, holier-than-thou reasons. (E.g. “Of course we have moral authority, we have you. Austin will tell us what is right and wrong” or, “Oh, right, because there is only one ethical standard… yours. Sorry, mea culpa.”) But the case against torture can be made from both a practical and ethical standpoint, and I believe Austin has managed to do both. If it’s high-and-mighty to examine torture as a valued principle rather than a worthless sentiment, then so be it.
Andrew, while I agree with your and Austin’s ultimate conclusions here, I’m not entirely persuaded by your arguments with regard to principles. Saying that a principle is not a principle unless we brook no exceptions leaves us for all practical purposes with very few principles we can actually use. Most people at first blush can accept the principle that “lying is wrong.” However, everyone except Immanuel Kant makes exceptions to this all the time - not just to save lives, but often for things as trivial as saving people’s feelings (oh that dress looks nice dear). Vegetarians would say that they adhere to a principle of not eating meat. If someone holds a gun up to the head of the vegetarian and says “eat this burger or I’ll shoot you” we wouldn’t call them unprincipled or say that their principle was really nothing more than a “feel-good” platitude - I think just about all but very few vegetarians would have a presumed exception to the no-meat-eating principle to save a human life, particularly their own.
Todd’s problem isn’t that principles by definition can never have exceptions. Todd’s problem is that he doesn’t adequately justify his exceptions. Maybe none of us can justify any exceptions to a stated principle that “torture is wrong” but that’s different from saying that no exceptions are even theoretically possible.
There are philosophers who would agree with you intelligently (I’m sure they make arguments that I’m not qualified to dissect), but I’m not sure this approach is the best one to confront those who defend torture in some circumstances like Todd. I think the best approach is to show why his exceptions are not justified.
All of the following responses to Mr. Cline’s statements are made with the assumption that no God exists.
“Cline: We, as humans say what is evil or moral.”
If that is true, then anyone can decide whether to use torture or not. Who are you to bind your subjective morals on anyone but yourself or the group you belong to?
“Cline: If torture weren’t considered a moral evil, then we wouldn’t find people condemning it when their enemies engage in torture. In fact, acts of torture are readily touted as proof that the enemy is barbaric, or even sub-human, but then some of these same people sometimes turn around and pretend that this justifies their using torture or other barbaric tactics against others. They don’t realize that they are being hypocrites.”
But the fact that enemies use torture justifies their right to use it. And closer to the core issue here — just what is wrong with barbarianism or hypocrisy, if someone decides to use it against someone else? I may not like it, but nobody has any right to say they can’t do it if they want to.
“Cline: There is no serious disagreement that torture is a moral evil; there are only hypocrites who search in vain for rationalizations as to why they should be allowed to use it against people they don’t like.”
I absolutely disagree. If I wish to use torture against someone or a group of people, then the only rationalization I need for using it is because — I want to. My best chance for succeeding in such a practice here in America is never to get caught.
“Cline: Torture is wrong, both ethically and pragmatically. It is only defended by those who don’t care that it doesn’t work or who lack the ethical skills necessary to perceive that the deliberate infliction of severe suffering or pain is evil and should not be allowed.”
If someone enjoys inflicting severe suffering or pain on someone, then they have the right to do it.
“Cline: A person who is “OK” with torturing someone who may or may not be a terrorist, who may or may not know information which will save people’s lives, and whose suffering probably won’t produce any viable intelligence, is not behaving ethically.”
What makes your ethic any higher than any other individual’s own opinion of what is “good” or “evil”? And why should anybody’s suffering have anything to do with the matter?
“Cline: …we no longer have any moral authority and we no longer have any good reason to claim that our cause is the one that’s just and right.”
I would argue you or anyone else never had any moral authority to begin with.
“Cline: So, if I’m at no particular risk if torture is not used, then the claim that we must be willing to torture suspected terrorists in order to protect Americans must be false. Therefore, a primary excuse used to defend the use of torture is wrong — or Todd is wrong.”
Risk is not a governing factor in determining what “ethical” standards to be used in absence of God — personal preference is. If someone wants it done, that’s the only reason needed. You have nothing to back up your claim except “you don’t like it.”
“Cline: Opposition to torture isn’t a partisan issue…”
…It’s a personal issue.
“Cline: It’s unnecessary on a pragmatic level because, unless there is unequivocal proof that it will work in a particular case and that no other method is available, it simply can’t be claimed that it’s necessary. Thus far, no defender of torture has ever manage to do this — they only offer non-existent hypotheticals.”
Your explanation fails because it *is* necessary for someone who *thinks* it is. Why is this so hard for you to understand?
“Cline: It’s an oxymoron to claim that we must abandon our foundational ethical and political principles in order to preserve them.”
But we never had any to begin with. The Declaration of Independence proves that — doesn’t it? Everyone who signed their name on that document appealed to Nature’s God, The Creator, The Supreme Judge, The Divine Providence — and you know that such an entity either doesn’t exist or can’t be known. So, we are in essence following the *opinions* of influential people who died long ago. You know that opinions don’t establish what’s right or wrong, so the only thing that ultimately counts is *my* opinion. The same goes for you. You are being inconsistent, hypocritical and unreasonable by trying to bind your opinions on anyone. And ultimately, there’s nothing right or wrong even with you being that. It just is.
————————————-
Seriously, I really do disagree with torture, but I have a reason to say it’s wrong for anyone to engage in such practices – because God states it. Because He sets the standard for all that is good, I can appeal to Him and universally claim that it’s wrong for anyone to engage in torture. But when that Authority has been removed, then your opening statement is true, and you have no right or reason to tell anyone else what to do — like, for example, by engaging in torture.
If the only reason you have not to torture is because some god has told you not to torture, then the actual suffering which people experience isn’t the reason you don’t torture. This must mean that the suffering of others plays no role in your moral decision and also that you don’t really care whether others suffer or not. We must conclude that all you care about is whether your god condemns that suffering or not. This is also presumably true in all moral situations, not just the question of torture.
If this is your best argument for why your theism is better than my atheism, or for why theism is a superior basis for morality, than thank you for posting it. I don’t think I could do a better job at explaining why theism is actually detrimental to morality.
“This must mean that the suffering of others plays no role in your moral decision and also that you don’t really care whether others suffer or not.”
Christians are commanded to love their enemies in Matthew 5. True love is demanded to all people, though most will reject it: to desire that they obey the Gospel and have their souls saved. So, I do care whether others suffer or not. The reason suffering exists in this world is *because* of the sin of man.
There is nothing in New Testament Christianity that can pose a spiritual danger to any individual, except the rejection of it. The proof is in the commands and examples given to us by the lives of Jesus and the apostles in the Scriptures.
“If this is your best argument for why your theism is better than my atheism, or for why theism is a superior basis for morality, than thank you for posting it. I don’t think I could do a better job at explaining why theism is actually detrimental to morality.”
It is illogical why any atheist would think someone’s belief in God would be detrimental to morality; he must believe all morality is subjective. God provides the only true, objective basis for moral truth. Either God exists or He doesn’t. If not, then He is a product of man’s imagination, and so man subjects himself to someone else’s version of “right” and “wrong”.
The course of human history alone — modern and ancient — is proof that mankind has disqualified itself from making any claim to moral authority. Since the source of atheism / agnosticism / secular humanism is derived from nothing but human reasoning (I.e. an individual or collective opinion on what is good or evil), it can’t be trusted based on historical evidence. So mankind’s faith must be rooted in the spiritual instead of the carnal.
If the only reason you love is because you commanded to, it isn’t much of a love. This also doesn’t address what I wrote: if you refrain from torture only because you are commanded to, then the suffering of others doesn’t matter except insofar as you are ordered to care. That isn’t genuine caring. Insofar as Christianity teaches that these forms of love and caring are genuine, Christianity is detrimental to the development of genuine love and caring.
No, many atheists have defended non-subjective morality. People who have researched the subject know this. Even if that weren’t the case, though, you aren’t making a valid argument. Again, people who have researched the subject know this.
Prove it.
Cline: “If the only reason you love is because you commanded to, it isn’t much of a love. This also doesn’t address what I wrote: if you refrain from torture only because you are commanded to, then the suffering of others doesn’t matter except insofar as you are ordered to care. That isn’t genuine caring.”
But caring can only be genuine if it is sincere and authenticated through an external, objective law called God’s Word. “If you love Me, you will keep My commandments.” (John 14:15) Now, if I were doing or refraining from something just because I had to, it would be an imposter love — it would be pragmatism. Because only God can see the heart, humans can only judge it by words and actions. I refrain from torture not only because I know is it wrong, but because it violates the principles of love. Not “love” the way you see it, but Biblical love. I obey not only because I am commanded, but because I *desire* to. Wouldn’t you consider that genuine?
Cline: “Insofar as Christianity teaches that these forms of love and caring are genuine, Christianity is detrimental to the development of genuine love and caring.”
You have yet to give any objective evidence to prove that statement.
Chris: “It is illogical why any atheist would think someone’s belief in God would be detrimental to morality; he must believe all morality is subjective.”
Cline: “No, many atheists have defended non-subjective morality. People who have researched the subject know this. Even if that weren’t the case, though, you aren’t making a valid argument. Again, people who have researched the subject know this.”
I have also “researched the subject”, and believe my argument to be perfectly logical and valid.
Chris: “God provides the only true, objective basis for moral truth.”
Cline: “Prove it.”
First, a few choice quotes from the “Atheism vs. Agnosticism” page:
Cline: “Atheists are thought to be closed-minded because they deny the existence of gods, whereas agnostics appear to be open-minded because they do not know for sure. This is a mistake because atheists do not necessarily deny any gods and may indeed be an atheist because they do not know for sure — in other words, they may be an agnostic as well.”
No, the terms are being confused here. An atheist positively denies any existence of a deity.
Cline: “Agnosticism is not about belief in god but about knowledge…”
A more appropriate way to phrase that would be *lack of* knowledge — or more specifically, “an undecided belief in God.”
Cline: “Thus, it is clear that agnosticism is compatible with both theism and atheism. A person can believe in a god (theism) without claiming to know for sure if that god exists; the result is agnostic theism. On the other hand, a person can disbelieve in gods (atheism) without claiming to know for sure that no gods can or do exist; the result is agnostic atheism.”
That doesn’t make any sense. As stated before, an agnostic is *uncertain* about his belief in God – which makes it *not* an either/and belief – but rather, a *neither/nor* belief. Let the reader note that it is an impossibility for the agnostic to remain uncertain about the existence of a deity and, at the same time, believe or disbelieve the existence of it: for if someone is undecided on an issue, they are not certain about it. So there is no effective difference between the “agnostic theist” and the “agnostic atheist”. Both, by definition, are agnostics.
So we now have three definite positions: atheism, agnosticism and theism.
From the “Life is Material, not Supernatural: We Are Material, Natural Beings” column:
Cline: “…life is material and natural, we don’t have anything like an immaterial or immoral soul, and an immaterial, disembodied “mind” like gods are supposed to have just isn’t possible. When all available evidence points away from a particular position, that doesn’t necessarily mean that it’s false, but it is unreasonable to believe it.”
Then why do you use such words as love, caring, good, evil, justice, hypocrisy, compassion, etc. — to describe the human condition? These words directly point to the immaterial — something that can’t be physically touched — and you use them all the time to try to prove your case. To be consistent, you would have to not refer to such things at all. You do believe in love, don’t you? Can you give *objective* proof that it exists? If you can’t, then “it is unreasonable to believe it”, is it not? But the reason morals do exist is because they come from somewhere outside the physical realm, for there is no way to objectively explain such things from the physical.
From the “Faith is Unreliable & Unreasonable: Faith is Not a Source of Knowledge” page:
Cline: “What this means is that we need some standard independent of these religions themselves. If we’re going to evaluate a group of religions, we can’t rely on something internal to just one of them; instead, we must use something independent of them all: something like the standards of reason, logic, and evidence. These standards have been amazingly successful in the realm of science for separating the theories which are likely true from those which turn out to be useless. If religions have any connection to reality, then we should be able to compare and weigh them against each other in at least a similar manner.”
Blind faith is unreasonable, yes. But not all faith is blind. And while faith is indeed not a source of knowledge, it is a perfect compliment to reason, logic and evidence. Further, it is impossible to live in this world without faith. Everyone uses it to some degree. Do you disbelieve every news report you read in the paper? If you don’t, then you admit that you put a certain degree of trust — or faith — in those reporters to give you the truth.
Do you believe that your philosophy is superior to any other religion? You may quote “evidence” to support your belief. However, that evidence may either be true or false, since you haven’t seen *all* of it. So in order for you to believe — you must put your faith into it. But if you don’t, then it can’t be said that you believe it. And if that’s true, then why should anyone believe your argument?
So we are left with only three tenable conclusions on the objective moral truth issue (specifically, torture):
If you are an atheist, then you must deny that there is an objective reason to absolutely oppose torture since you *know* there is no external law (God) prohibiting it.
If you are an agnostic, then you must deny that there is an objective reason to absolutely oppose torture since you *don’t know* there is an external law (God) prohibiting it.
If you are a theist (specifically a Christian), then you must affirm that there is an objective reason to oppose torture since you *know* there is an external law (God) prohibiting it.
There is much more that could be said about this issue, but based on the evidence I must conclude that rejection of the existence of God is an unreasonable position to take.
Please prove this.
Well, if you have researched the subject then you must be able to refute all of the cases where people have argued for objective morality without basing this on god. Please explain how you have done so in each case.
You are mistaken. It’s not appropriate to presume to tell atheists what atheism is.
A lack of knowledge is not the same as an “undecided belief” because belief and knowledge are not the same thing.
You stated it, but you are mistaken - agnosticism is about knowledge, not belief. Someone who tells me they are an agnostic tells me they don’t or can’t claim to know for sure if any gods exist or not. That doesn’t tell me what they do or do not believe. Belief, which is the mental acceptance of some proposition as being true, is perfectly compatible with both knowing that the proposition is true and with not knowing for sure if the proposition is true or not. It may even be compatible with knowing that the proposition is false, depending on what one thinks about the psychological phenomenon of denial.
This requires that a person be unable to believe something without also being certain that it is true. You are claiming that it’s impossible for a person to say either “I’m not certain if this is true or not, and I don’t believe it” or “I’m not certain if this is true or not, but I still believe it.” Please support this claim.
Do they? Please prove that these abstract concepts cannot have a material origin and require the existence of immaterial, even supernatural, beings, realms, etc.
Not in the sense that Paul defined it and Christian theology has traditionally used it. Any attempt to claim otherwise commits the fallacy of equivocation.
No. I don’t believe that my philosophy is superior to Religious Humanism, for example.
Please prove this.
Please prove this.
I’m still waiting for you to prove your claim that “God provides the only true, objective basis for moral truth.” You make many assertions, but you don’t support them. You disagree with what I have written here, but you don’t do me the courtesy of providing any arguments as a rebuttal - you just state your disagreement and then proceed to assume that you’re right and that there is no need to explain how or why.
In the future, I will not respond directly to such posts. If you won’t take the time to support even your most basic claims, then it’s not worth my time to respond.
“We, as humans say what is evil or moral”.
Austin, humans don’t always agree on what’s moral or evil. If torture is only wrong because we humans say so, doesn’t that mean that humans who say it’s okay have every right to do it? The Bush Administration seems to think it’s okay, and they’re all human. If they’re wrong, then some things must be right or wrong regardless of human opinion, in which case your response to that e-mail doesn’t make any sense.
Humans have also disagreed on whether the Earth orbits the sun or vice-versa. So? The mere presence of disagreement does not entail that there is no right answer, or that some opinions cannot be wrong.
No, that conclusion does not follow from your premise. In fact, it’s a contradiction: torture denies the basic dignity and autonomy of human beings upon which the ability to make moral determinations is based. If you accept as a premise that humans can be legitimately tortured, you cannot accept as a premise that humans have the dignity and autonomy necessary to make moral determinations… like whether torture is moral or not.
The contradiction here is akin to thinking that it’s a legitimate expression of democracy to take away the voting rights of a minority. Democracy is not mere majoritarian decision-making. Thus voting to take away the democratic rights of a minority is a contradiction of the foundation of the democracy upon which the legitimacy of the vote itself was supposed to be founded. Accepting the legitimacy of voting denies the legitimacy of voting to take away others’ rights.
The position you articulate furthermore requires assuming that it’s impossible for one side or another to articulate a superior supporting argument. Notice that you don’t even consider any possible arguments — all you do is repeat, in multiple forms, the existence of disagreement.
Once you accept, even in principle, that a superior and compelling argument might even be possible, then the mere fact that there exists disagreement is irrelevant. Instead, all that matters is the quality of the arguments being offered. This is precisely the problem with Chris: repeated assertions without a shred of support or proof. The quality of his arguments was practically non-existent, which means that his disagreement is ultimately meaningless.
You said humans decide what is moral and what isn’t. If that’s true, then how can any human ever be wrong about morality?
It’s possible to be wrong if you contradict yourself and pursue conclusions or policies which are incompatible with your premises.
“It’s possible to be wrong if you contradict yourself and pursue conclusions or policies which are incompatible with your premises”.
So if I understand correctly, you mean the administratian is wrong to contradict the premise that assume they accept (that causing suffering is wrong). Am I right? If so, why then condemn the actions of those who don’t accept those premises. Do you think Hittler accepted these premises?
Do you think Hittler accepted these premises?
I don’t think Hitler had a coherent system that allowed him to reach the conclusions and policies he did. Furthermore, as I note above, “There is no serious disagreement that torture is a moral evil; there are only hypocrites who search in vain for rationalizations as to why they should be allowed to use it against people they don’t like.”
Cline: “…it’s a contradiction: torture denies the basic dignity and autonomy of human beings upon which the ability to make moral determinations is based.”
But you, Mr. Cline, have stated your premise: that humans decide what is good or evil. By that alone, proof of human dignity or autonomy is objectively non-existent. Perhaps you can tell us what the objective exception to this premise is; otherwise, your subjective “moral” claims ring hollow.
Cline: “If you accept as a premise that humans can be legitimately tortured…”
That is not the premise being discussed, Mr. Cline. You need not resort to sophistry to try to “prove” your point. That humans can be legitimately tortured is a *consequence* of the premise proposed, “We, as humans say what is evil or moral” — the one that was stated by you.
Cline: “Once you accept, even in principle, that a superior and compelling argument might even be possible, then the mere fact that there exists disagreement is irrelevant. Instead, all that matters is the quality of the arguments being offered.”
The quality of the argument is not the issue here; rather, it is whether the premise stated — humans decide what is good or evil — is true (atheist), unknowable (agnostic) or false (theist). In accordance with the above premise, I invite you to refer to last part of post #10 to help you understand why neither the agnostic nor the atheist can logically hold any position that says or suggests that torture is objectively wrong.
Feel free to support this implication.
It was a premise I was discussing. If you weren’t, feel free to explain how this one wasn’t relevant.
It is for me: if in an argument one’s conclusion contradicts one’s premises, then one’s argument and position can be rejected.
I responded to your comment #10, and I pointed out that you refused to support your most basic claims. I see you are still at it, though after an 8 month break. I’d have thought that after so long, you’d have come up with a way to do so.
Chris: “But you, Mr. Cline, have stated your premise: that humans decide what is good or evil. By that alone, proof of human dignity or autonomy is objectively non-existent.”
Cline: “Feel free to support this implication.”
Since “humans decide what is moral or evil”, perhaps you can tell me why this “implication” does not “support” itself.
Chris: “That is not the premise being discussed, Mr. Cline.”
Cline: “It was a premise I was discussing. If you weren’t, feel free to explain how this one wasn’t relevant.”
Since “humans decide what is moral or evil”, what is wrong with the person or group who accepts “as a premise that humans can be legitimately tortured”, other than only your own dislike for such individuals?
Chris: “The quality of the argument is not the issue here”
Cline: “It is for me:…”
In other words, the “quality” (I.e. goodness or badness) of your argument takes precedence over the prevaricating nature of it.
Cline: “I responded to your comment #10, and I pointed out that you refused to support your most basic claims.”
You responded, but did not give an answer because the correct answer would require you admit that while torture may be wrong for you, it is not wrong for another who simply believes it is the right thing to do.
Even if it were, you’d be able to show how.
Already addressed this above.
No, the quality of an argument points to the soundness of one’s position.
I’d ask you to support this claim, but it’s become clear that you are unable or unwilling to support any of your claims. You had eight months to figure out how to support your earlier claims and didn’t come up with anything.
Chris: Since “humans decide what is moral or evil”, perhaps you can tell me why this “implication” does not “support” itself.
Cline: Even if it were, you’d be able to show how.
It “shows how” to people who do not believe that all moral truth is relative.
Chris: Since “humans decide what is moral or evil”, what is wrong with the person or group who accepts “as a premise that humans can be legitimately tortured”, other than only your own dislike for such individuals?
Cline: Already addressed this above.
No, you simply denied it.
Chris: In other words, the “quality” (I.e. goodness or badness) of your argument takes precedence over the prevaricating nature of it.
Cline: No, the quality of an argument points to the soundness of one’s position.
In which this “soundness” (I.e. goodness or badness) of a position held *still* takes precedence over the prevaricating nature of it.
Chris: You responded, but did not give an answer because the correct answer would require you admit that while torture may be wrong for you, it is not wrong for another who simply believes it is the right thing to do.
Cline: I’d ask you to support this claim, but it’s become clear that you are unable or unwilling to support any of your claims.
Seeing that, in your view, no describable objective law regulating torture exists and since “humans decide what is moral or evil”, no supporting claim is really needed for the person or group who defends torture as a good thing, right?
What you should be able to “show how” is how the implication “supports itself.” Evidently, you can’t.
I explained why I denied it. I’m not going to do it again — if you can’t be bothered to engage what I wrote already, it would be a waste of time to write it out again.
I’d ask you to support this claim, but I think we both know you won’t bother.
I’d ask you to support this position, but once again I think we both know you won’t bother. You haven’t invested a single moment in attempting to support any of your assertions and that makes your posts little more than trolling. Further such posts will be deleted. You can make an effort to support your claims, or you can find another site that tolerates such behavior.