Because until you have tortured someone you have no idea that they are guilty or that they have any information that could be useful…In other words, if it’s ok to kill someone to prevent a harm to innocents, why wold it be prohibited to harm someone to prevent a harm to innocents?
As with terrorism as I describe in the OP. (Note that a just war will include very indirect attacks as for example when a factory is bombed that supplies ball bearings.)This was already discussed self defense has a different intent. Self defense is force to subdue an eminent danger
A ball bearing factory cannot pose an eminent threatAs with terrorism as I describe in the OP. (Note that a just war will include very indirect attacks as for example when a factory is bombed that supplies ball bearings.)
You are still thinking in terms of torture to extract confession. The most common example of interrogation is of a terrorist captured in battle and the knowledge that he has is of the organization (e.g. who are his contacts, where do they meet, what are their current objectices, etc.). Then there are the ticking time bomb situations in which terrorists often are boastful of what’s coming.Because until you have tortured someone you have no idea that they are guilty or that they have any information that could be useful…
It’s far from flawless, innocent people are often harmed, but the better analogy is war in which innocents are often killed, sometimes when the wrong target is bombed.On the other hand, self-defense does not have this problem… It is very easy to see who is killing/attacking you…
And, yet, it is a legimiate target in war if it is supporting the war effort of the enemy.A ball bearing factory cannot pose an eminent threat
from CC 2309And, yet, it is a legimiate target in war if it is supporting the war effort of the enemy.
This is all pretty consistent with just war theory. Note that it does not state that each individual act within a war must be certain of effectiveness. The fact that an artillery barrage might miss the intended military target and hit innocent civilians does not make it an immoral act.from CC 2309…
If the practice of torture is a) designed to be effective for the prevention of future harm and b) is found to be generally effective in preventing future harm then it would be consistent with just war theory even if it occassionally failed to be effective.So just war doctrines are violated, because the torture may produce no results, or no useful results. It creates a greater evil than it conquers. Better means than torture are always available.
Oh, the old “due process” thingy… I guess for you it would be fine and dandy if hundreds or possibly even thousands of innocent civilians died…because a terrorist didn’t get a public defender and the system was bogged down for months.So just war doctrines are violated, because the torture may produce no results, or no useful results. It creates a greater evil than it conquers. Better means than torture are always available.
? Paragraph 2309 “is all pretty consistent with just war theory.” ??This is all pretty consistent with just war theory. Note that it does not state that each individual act within a war must be certain of effectiveness. The fact that an artillery barrage might miss the intended military target and hit innocent civilians does not make it an immoral act.
as in an “eye for eye” your torture will be answered by your opponents torture, which will of course be answered by more torture, and on and on.If the practice of torture is a) designed to be effective for the prevention of future harm and b) is found to be generally effective in preventing future harm then it would be consistent with just war theory even if it occasionally failed to be effective.
All alternatives are better to include doing nothing.Unfortunately, better means than torture are not always available. And this may become increasingly the case with the advent of terrorism as a more common method of warfare.
Your objection is valid up to a point in that a theoretical debate about the morality of torture can be resolved without actually saying anything of much practical application. Even if we agreed that torture was in all cases immoral we won’t have agreed that (e.g.) waterboarding is wrong.I think this is a legitimate point but it is orthogonal to the definition of purpose. One can imagine a four way matrix along the two axis: harshness and purpose.
Right. It may be, for example, that there are techniques that are unpleasant but which cause no permanant harm. They might not qualify as torture simply because they are merely unpleasant but still sufficient to extract the information.Your objection is valid up to a point in that a theoretical debate about the morality of torture can be resolved without actually saying anything of much practical application. Even if we agreed that torture was in all cases immoral we won’t have agreed that (e.g.) waterboarding is wrong.
We should probably all be ambivalent.I am ambivalent on the use of torture. More specifically, I am unsure of what the Church says about it. On the one hand I recognize its usefulness in the ticking time bomb scenario and question neither its effectiveness nor that it could save innumerable lives. On the other hand, if torture is itself intrinsically evil then it cannot be used - so the question is: is it intrinsically evil? (And once we answer this question we’ll need to address the problem of defining torture.)
If torture is wrong in every case then the way to state that is to say “torture is wrong.” Once you start with “torture is wrong in these cases …” it certainly opens the door to the question of whether it is wrong in those cases not specified. No one tries to list the cases where abortion is not allowed because there are no situations where it is allowed.I think that the issue of purpose is the one that caught my attention when I read it on Ask An Apologist. It struck me that the Church teaching on torture was not explicitly prohibiting the extraction of information to prevent future harm (in contrast to the UN charter which does).
I think this is the question of whether torture is intrinsically evil. If it is then that is an absolute prohibition but if it is not intrinsically evil then there are cases where it could be used and the ticking time bomb is probably just such a situation. This brings up an interesting dilemma: the next time you watch a WWII movie where the Nazis are about to torture the local resistance fighter to learn where he planted his ticking time bomb let me know what you’re thinking about the justness of their actions.I read somewhere the distinction between mormative prohibitions and absolute prohibtions.
Not necessarily so. I have read that there are exceptions, such as to protect the life of the mother wherein the specific intent is not to destroy the child… I can’t find the source, but it is an extreme exception.If torture is wrong in every case then the way to state that is to say “torture is wrong.” Once you start with “torture is wrong in these cases …” it certainly opens the door to the question of whether it is wrong in those cases not specified. No one tries to list the cases where abortion is not allowed because there are no situations where it is allowed.
I think this is the question of whether torture is intrinsically evil. If it is then that is an absolute prohibition but if it is not intrinsically evil then there are cases where it could be used and the ticking time bomb is probably just such a situation. This brings up an interesting dilemma: the next time you watch a WWII movie where the Nazis are about to torture the local resistance fighter to learn where he planted his ticking time bomb let me know what you’re thinking about the justness of their actions.
Ender, I think that the use of Nazi’s as an illustration is invalid. It can easily be presumed that since the Nazi’s would be freely considered “intrinsically evil”, anything less than surrender on their part would be wrong.Ender
The UN charter is a complete whitewash of reality. Those dolts have sat on their hands for years while genocide has been committed in various parts of the world…and done absolutely NOTHING!It struck me that the Church teaching on torture was not explicitly prohibiting the extraction of information to prevent future harm (in contrast to the UN charter which does).
Then we are truly lost in the woods! Here is the definition of the word “ambivalence”:We should probably all be ambivalent.
am·biv·a·lence Listen to the pronunciation of ambivalenceBelieve me, I’m not favoring the opinion of the UN. Merely pointing out (as someone else did previously) that the UN has, and the CC has not, explicitly forbidden torture for the purpose of gathering intelligence (to prevent future harm). I find it very hard to believe that those who drafted the CC teaching were not aware of this use of torture and thus that they intentionally did not claim it to be intrinsicly evil. That doesn’t mean it isn’t, only that the CC has not decided the matter, yet.The UN charter is a complete whitewash of reality. Those dolts have sat on their hands for years while genocide has been committed in various parts of the world…and done absolutely NOTHING!
What I meant (obviously?) was that even if torture is permisible for the purpose preventing future harm we should find it repugnant nonetheless. We should be suspicious of anyone who might express enthusiasm for torture.Here is the definition of the word “ambivalence”: …To be “ambivalent” is to waffle back and forth conveniently or foolishly…never taking a concrete stand on an issue.
As per the first definition you posted, the word can mean that one sees good and bad things about something – not necessarily a bad thing.To be “ambivalent” is to waffle back and forth conveniently or foolishly…never taking a concrete stand on an issue.
There is no exception per se. Abortion is intrinsically evil and can never be justifiable. In the case of ectopic pregnancies, however, the fallopian tube may be removed to save the life of the mother, thus indirectly (key word) causing the death of the child. This is not technically abortion (the child is not directly harmed and the harm caused is regrettable) and is justified under the principle of double effect.Not necessarily so. I have read that there are exceptions, such as to protect the life of the mother wherein the specific intent is not to destroy the child… I can’t find the source, but it is an extreme exception.