Torture is always wrong

[Beavah 205]

Beav, thanks for your thoughts. You say that ethical mores are "grounded in" (that is, are derived from) religion.

 

Nope, that's not what I said. In da West, the most commonly described tenets of Natural Law come from da Greek philosophers, whose approach or at least argumentation was essentially secular in character, and certainly not Judeo-Christian. Religious folks at least in the west maintain that Natural Law is common to all humanity by virtue of our creation in the image and likeness of God. Natural Law is not religion-dependent, even in da view of those of us who are religious. It is not "derived from" religion; it derives from da essential character of Creation.

 

Da problem yeh have to contend with is transmission and acceptance of ideas. Da secular philosophers of Greece and other places throughout history have come up with all sorts of notions. Da ones that have been successful at building cultural consensus are those which were consonant with religious tenets and practice. That is to say, religion and religiosity are necessary for the broad transmission and acceptance of moral/ethical principles. That's what I mean by "grounded in religion." Da Greek formulation of Natural Law is only present in our culture (and in your brain) because it was transmitted and reinforced throughout the west by da Christian churches.

 

So we wouldn't disagree. In fact, we're in resounding agreement. Our natural humanity and our natural tendency to search for and deepen our relationship with God does give rise to religion. God certainly has never created a religion per se, that's a human response to the call of God. Societies slowly develop their understanding of Natural and Divine Law by their experience with nature and the divine. And they formulate and transmit their understanding of these ethical principles through religion. That may be because no other cultural mechanisms can both demand adherence and effectively resist self-interested manipulation in da long run. Human governance can demand adherence but is subject to corruption. Secular philosophy may also resist corruption but cannot demand adherence.

 

So even if it were not "True" in da capital-T sense, religion would be necessary for da survival and transmission of ethical principles within and especially across cultures.

 

Your daughter cried over da crucifixion because da many followers of the Crucified taught our culture, and indirectly her, that one weeps over the torture of another human being of any tribe. Torture is "wrong."

 

Beavah

(This message has been edited by Beavah)

[Trevorum 24]

"In fact, we're in resounding agreement."

 

I agree. At least, I think I do...

 

 

"... religion would be necessary for da survival and transmission of ethical principles within and especially across cultures."

 

I agree 100%. Thus far. I'd love to revisit this matter in another 1,000 years.

 

 

[Beavah 205]

Thus far. I'd love to revisit this matter in another 1,000 years.

 

Yah, sure. That's a hypothesis, eh?

 

But until then, good teachers teach the current consensus view of our understanding.

 

Beavah

 

[OldGreyEagle 5]

A masked person burst into your home at the dead of night, knocks over furniture and shoots a gun at you and your spouse as you scramble away from the TV set, you are able to locate and load and shoot your attacker dead. The police who investigate call it self-defense, the media who cover it call it self-defense, your religious leader tells you even though there is the commandment, You shall not Kill, it was self-defense and you did nothing wrong.

 

A person who is suspected of having knowledge of a terrorist attack is captured, it is known that unless the location of a bomb is found and defused in 3 hours, thousands will die. What do you do to obtain the location from the suspected terrorist, recognizing he may not actually know, but if he does know and does not tell you, thousands will die

[Trevorum 24]

OGE, you are asking which is the lesser of two evils.

[OldGreyEagle 5]

OGE, you are asking which is the lesser of two evils

 

 

And is this not the essence of life? There are no absolutes

[NJCubScouter 1389]

A few years ago I was listening to two people on the radio debating this exact same subject. One (who I guess you would call the "pro-torture" side) said exactly what has been argued here, torture is ok if you capture a terrorist who knows when and where the bomb will go off, how to defuse it, etc. The other one said ok, if you accept that torture is acceptable in that situation, what happens if along with the terrorist, you capture the terrorist's 5-year-old daughter, and the terrorist won't talk. Is it ok to torture his 5-year-old daughter in front of him in the hope that he will then talk? In other words, how far do you go? Or you might say, how much like a terrorist is it ok for us to act in order to protect innocent people from terrorists?

 

The first debater, by the way, really had no answer to the question about the 5-year-old girl. I think most people would draw the line between the wrongdoer and an innocent person to whom the wrongdoer has an attachment. But that doesn't bring back the thousands of people who died in the (hypothetical) explosion because you wouldn't torture one innocent child. It's really a horrifying example, isn't it? I have to tell you, I had almost a physical reaction of revulsion when I was listening to this discussion on the radio. But it shows how tough an issue this is.

[Beavah 205]

Nah, it really isn't a tough issue at all.

 

You don't torture people. Not the five year old girl, not the man.

 

There's a difference between a fellow who is a suspected terrorist who might know about a bomb and a man who is actually in your house shooting at you. Yeh can pull the trigger on da fellow who walks into the cafe with a dynamite vest on, and we'll all give yeh a medal. But in da free, civilized, and moral world we don't subject people to torture based on suspicion. Even if it costs lives.

 

Da reason is that if I can do it to him, based on suspicion, I can do it to you and your family based on suspicion. Now raise your hand if you agree that you and your relatives and children can be tortured any time the government has suspicion that you might be involved in a serious crime affecting the safety of others.

 

Let's say, for example, your name resembles a name on da terrorist watch list, and there's unaccounted luggage on your plane flight. Your nosy neighbor has been reporting you for "suspicious activity" in your garage because yeh have a workshop there and she can't see too well. Yeh might be involved in a heinous crime. Or yeh might just be a regular guy with a nosy neighbor whose luggage got screwed up by da airline. Let's install a rack at each terminal, eh?

 

And then those other countries may follow suit, eh? Not da dinky little terrorist cells, but other nations may follow our lead. Those young white American college kids are awfully suspicious, eh? That off-duty U.S. military person traveling with her family might be a spy collaborating with da insurgency. Best be safe and protect our people. Pick 'em up, no habeas corpus, off to da torture chamber. What do yeh know about that, they confessed! Off to da prison or da executioner. You distraught American parent can try to get your embassy to issue protests.

 

And da family and friends of the fellow you tortured? What do yeh suppose they're likely to do, eh? Yep, they're likely to come after you and your community and your friends and nation with everything they've got. So now yeh have 50 new terrorists. If yeh tortured my kid, yeh better believe it'd be a blood feud, and I'm a fairly calm fellow. Yeh think others won't do da same?

 

The point of Natural Law (and divine positive law) is that it's Law, eh? Da real deal, not the human imitation. Yeh can disobey, but da penalty is your soul, and the cost of severe consequences to everything yeh love and cherish.

 

Beavah

(This message has been edited by Beavah)

[NJCubScouter 1389]

But in da free, civilized, and moral world we don't subject people to torture based on suspicion. Even if it costs lives.

 

I could be "misremembering", but didn't the prior administration do exactly that? Or at least say it was ok to do exactly that? I thought that's what the whole controversy over torture in connection with the "war on terrorism" was about.

[packsaddle 753]

"You don't torture people. Not the five year old girl, not the man."

We may not agree on other things but we agree on this.

Thinking...does this mean I can't sing to my students?

"...the ants go marching two-by-two, hurrah, hurrah..."(This message has been edited by packsaddle)

[Beavah 205]

Thinking...does this mean I can't sing to my students?

 

That's not torture, eh? It's a full-out crime against humanity.

 

B

 

[packsaddle 753]

to the tune of 'Yesterday' by the Beatles:

"...Suddenly,

I'm not half the man I used to be,

bits and pieces falling off of me,

and all because of leprosy.."

 

Guilty as charged.

 

(my thanks and apologies to Helen Davies)

 

Edited: Scoutfish, none of us know for sure what we'd do in a particular situation until we have actually faced it.(This message has been edited by packsaddle)

[Beavah 205]

Och! Now we'll be discussin' the morality of leper jokes. You're not only a crime against humanity, you're downright evil.

 

What happened at the leper hockey game?

 

There was a face off in the corner.

 

What happened at the leper poker game?

 

They all threw their hands in.

 

Gosh, it's been decades since young scouts told me all those jokes. Amazing the random junk da brain holds onto.

 

Beavah

 

(yah, agree with packsaddle too... we like talking tough about torturing a fellow to get our child back. Da thing is, the folks who love their children deeply really don't have da stomach to torture a man. That takes a kind of moral callousness of a vastly different order).(This message has been edited by Beavah)

[DancesWithSpreadsheets 10]

I can't add much to Beavah's excellent post on why torture should not be condoned, but I am remainded of a favorite bit of dialog from Robert Bolt's "A Man For All Seasons" that I can't resist sharing:

 

 

Wife: Arrest him!

More: For what?

Wife: He's dangerous!

Roper: For all we know he's a spy!

Daughter: Father, that man's bad!

More: There's no law against that!

Roper: There is, God's law!

More: Then let God arrest him!

Wife: While you talk he's gone!

More: And go he should, if he were the Devil himself, until he broke the law!

Roper: So, now you give the Devil the benefit of law!

More: Yes! What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil?

Roper: Yes, I'd cut down every law in England to do that!

More: Oh? And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned 'round on you, where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat?

This country is planted thick with laws, from coast to coast, Man's laws, not God's! And if you cut them down (and you're just the man to do it!), do you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then?

 

 

Regards,

DWS

Yes, I'd give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety's sake!

 

 

[sheldonsmom 10]

My point is still there. Define torture. Is it waterboarding? Bamboo under the fingernails, playing Red Hot Chili Peppers? eating tenderfoot cooking? Without a common definition, this is a pointless discussion.