Ethics versus rationality

[Charlemagne_III]

No it is not. Else there would no thing called a just war.

I think this represents a warped description of the Church teaching on just war. In particular the “…all weapons…” part.

It appears that with you I will have to parse my language more carefully, as you seem to be very artful at deliberately finding ways to frustrate my meaning.

 

[o_mlly]

I think perhaps inadvertently you have just made my case?

Waterboarding is justified by “urgent necessity,” just as stealing another’s food may be justified by "urgent necessity. "

Glad I could help. My view is that torture as an intrinsic evil is never justified as a means. Whether water boarding is torture is a prudential decision. Simulated drowning does not violate a person’s human dignity but most certainly causes high anxiety. It is questionable as a method of extracting truth when a falsehood is just as likely extracted as the truth.

 

[Usagi]

Glad I could help. My view is that torture as an intrinsic evil is never justified as a means. Whether water boarding is torture is a prudential decision. Simulated drowning does not violate a person’s human dignity but most certainly causes high anxiety. It is questionable as a method of extracting truth when a falsehood is just as likely extracted as the truth.

“Does not violate a person’s human dignity”? Really?

I also don’t really think there’s a question as to whether waterboarding is torture. It only seems to have gained this nebulous maybe-not status when we started wanting to use it on people. As I’ve noted before, it involves subjecting someone to intolerable suffering and threatening to continue until he complies.

 

[Usagi]

I think perhaps inadvertently you have just made my case?

Waterboarding is justified by “urgent necessity,” just as stealing another’s food may be justified by "urgent necessity. "

Not everything can be justified even by urgent necessity. To steal from the surplus of someone who has refused to help you is one thing, because all things ultimately belong to God and are meant for all people. Stealing from another person who would then starve, even to keep from starving oneself, would not be moral.

Likewise, I may if necessary kill someone who is an immediate threat to me, though even then the goal is to end the threat – if the encounter ends with the assailant running away or incapacitated but alive, I dont get to finish him off even though it would have been acceptable if I had killed him outright.

That I may kill or injure someone in war does not mean that I may therefore use all possible methods in the name of a war. Besides the Church, even nations have laws and moral principles regarding the conduct of warfare, and treatment of those you have captured is an important one. Yes, part of the reason for that is to form a pact between established militaries so that everyone treats prisoners decently, but even if you know the other guy doesn’t abide by the rules that doesn’t give you license to be as bad as he is.

 

[inocente]

In your post that I answered you were talking about violence pure and simple, not torture.

Tell me where the Catechism of the Catholic Church condemns waterboarding.

That would be most interesting because it once advocated burning at the stake.

No, and I already quoted the CCC to you in post #59, JPII’s apology for past cruel practices in post #50, and that George W may still be prosecuted for crimes against humanity by his approval of waterboarding. Burning at the stake is also a crime against humanity.

That will not be a comforting thought when hundreds of nuclear weapons are dropped all over the world because no one had the nerve to take on the perpetrators of the final Armageddon by torturing them into submission.

To me that thought of torturing into submission is not just unChristian, it’s blasphemy against the Holy Spirit, since by not comprehending that your willingness to violate another child of God is a sin, you will never seek forgiveness and so can never be forgiven.

But perhaps you didn’t mean it as it came out, or perhaps Catholics are taught that torturing others is a virtue. Please cite where your catechism authorizes you, in any circumstance, to violate another human being.

 

[o_mlly]

“Does not violate a person’s human dignity”? Really?

I also don’t really think there’s a question as to whether waterboarding is torture. It only seems to have gained this nebulous maybe-not status when we started wanting to use it on people. As I’ve noted before, it involves subjecting someone to intolerable suffering and threatening to continue until he complies.

Just or unjust imprisonment violates human dignity so we can dispense with that argument as it relates to water boarding. Further water boarding does not inflict “intolerable suffering.” The prisoner survives – tolerates – the ordeal as is the intention of his jailers.

But I respect your opinion as the issue is one of prudence. What forms of “inconvenience” may be inflicted on prisoners? None?

 

[Charlemagne_III]

That I may kill or injure someone in war does not mean that I may therefore use all possible methods in the name of a war. Besides the Church, even nations have laws and moral principles regarding the conduct of warfare, and treatment of those you have captured is an important one. Yes, part of the reason for that is to form a pact between established militaries so that everyone treats prisoners decently, but even if you know the other guy doesn’t abide by the rules that doesn’t give you license to be as bad as he is.

Have you completely lost sight of what we were talking about?

Arbitrary and capricious torture is certain prohibited by the moral law.

But urgent necessity is altogether different. If you know an enemy combatant has knowledge of a pending assault that will kill hundreds or thousands, you sure cannot be content to engage in the comfort and superior attitude of armchair morality.

So you are going to say let the thousands die because we mustn’t make life uncomfortable for two or three enemy combatants who will undergo waterboarding and most likely survive the torture?

 

[Charlemagne_III]

But perhaps you didn’t mean it as it came out, or perhaps Catholics are taught that torturing others is a virtue. Please cite where your catechism authorizes you, in any circumstance, to violate another human being.

scborromeo.org/ccc/p3s2c2a5.htm#2309

Just wars bring about horrendous evils far graver than waterboarding. Surely you know that.

The Church teaches that weapons must be used that do not have graver consequences than are necessary.

Waterboarding is hardly so grave as nuclear warheads or smashing planes into tall buildings.

The second paragraph of your post smacks of smug moral superiority. You might have made a memorable Grand Inquisitor?

 

[davidv]

Have you completely lost sight of what we were talking about?

Arbitrary and capricious torture is certain prohibited by the moral law.

But urgent necessity is altogether different. If you know an enemy combatant has knowledge of a pending assault that will kill hundreds or thousands, you sure cannot be content to engage in the comfort and superior attitude of armchair morality.

So you are going to say let the thousands die because we mustn’t make life uncomfortable for two or three enemy combatants who will undergo waterboarding and most likely survive the torture?

It seems to me that this implies that urgent necessities render any and all actions moral, including immoral ones. Is this what you are saying?

So until the issue of what is torture and is it immoral, the question of necessity is not on the table. To determine the morality of an action, the question is whether the planned action is moral. Any immoral act cannot be converted to a moral one with good intentions.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

It seems to me that this implies that urgent necessities render any and all actions moral, including immoral ones. Is this what you are saying?

So until the issue of what is torture and is it immoral, the question of necessity is not on the table. To determine the morality of an action, the question is whether the planned action is moral. Any immoral act cannot be converted to a moral one with good intentions.

Are you altogether convinced that it is a moral act to save the lives of hundred or thousands of possible victims (as at 9/11) because you saw their lives were not worth the effort to save, since part of the effort would involve waterboarding (which in this context I would regard as a venial sin rather than a mortal one - if it is even a sin at all.

Waterboarding is an instrument of war against a violent aggressor who wants to take innocent lives. And that instrument is used with far less violent severity than the usual instruments of was (bombs, tanks, machine guns, hand grenades, etc. which kill and maim by the hundreds of thousands).

These are my last words on this topic. Enjoy answering them.

 

[Bradski]

The problem, which Charles seems to have wanted to ignore (past tense, as he has apparently decided to opt out of the discussion) is that very rarely is anything certain in this life. WMDs in Iraq is the best example. Of course they were there! Of course we should go to war! Yes, it will cost lives, but we are certain of our facts! Well, we all have 20:20 vision in hindsight.

So where does one draw the line in regard to torture? Must you be absolutely certain that the person you are torturing has the information you need to prevent casualties? If thousands are at risk, then what degree of certainty is acceptable? Must it still be 100%? Are you going to be the person who said: ‘Well, we were pretty sure, but not 100%…’ when the casualties run into the 1,000s? Can you torture someone if you are 95% certain? What is the figure when it becomes unacceptable?

And what if you are 100% certain but he won’t talk? Can you threaten harm to his family if he won’t talk? What price the temporary discomfort of his wife if it saves thousands? Or maybe his daughter. Or perhaps his child. Hands up all those who would tie the kid down and stuff the towel into his mouth?

A society that advocates torture is not a society that is worth saving.

 

[davidv]

Are you altogether convinced that it is a moral act to save the lives of hundred or thousands of possible victims (as at 9/11) because you saw their lives were not worth the effort to save, since part of the effort would involve waterboarding (which in this context I would regard as a venial sin rather than a mortal one - if it is even a sin at all.

I cannot answer the question as the focus is still on the intent while ignoring the means.

Waterboarding is an instrument of war

Really? Is it a moral means?

against a violent aggressor who wants to take innocent lives. And that instrument is used with far less violent severity than the usual instruments of was (bombs, tanks, machine guns, hand grenades, etc. which kill and maim by the hundreds of thousands).

Still not relevant since the morality of the means, in and of themselves, has not been adequately addressed.

These are my last words on this topic. Enjoy answering them.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

So where does one draw the line in regard to torture? Must you be absolutely certain that the person you are torturing has the information you need to prevent casualties? If thousands are at risk, then what degree of certainty is acceptable? Must it still be 100%? **Are you going to be the person who said: ‘Well, we were pretty sure, but not 100%…’ when the casualties run into the 1,000s? Can you torture someone if you are 95% certain? What is the figure when it becomes unacceptable? **

A society that advocates torture is not a society that is worth saving.

We do the best with what knowledge we have. Those who choose to twiddle their thumbs while Rome burns live in a society that cannot be saved.

 

[Latias]

We do the best with what knowledge we have. Those who choose to twiddle their thumbs while Rome burns live in a society that cannot be saved.

Terrorist groups use cells as a means of preventing infiltration. How do you know that a given person in a terrorist group would likely have the information of interest, given the structure of the terrorist group? Also would you know of the existence of a plot?

Yes, you have to do the best with what you have. Such information for averting an attack could come from ordinary police investigation or military intelligence. Of course, the onus is on you to show how torture can effectively supplement those means. .There is no point in claiming that torture could have averting some terrorist attack, when such criticism would be better focused on identifying the shortcomings of intelligence gathering techniques of a particular agency or how the targeted group had effective counterintelligence.

 

[Bradski]

We do the best with what knowledge we have.

Exactly. You advocate torturing someone with ‘what knowledge we have’. That knowledge may be incomplete. It may be doubtful. It may be completely wrong. But can you risk not acting?

If it’s a cast iron certainty and the guy won’t talk, then why not temporarily put some pressure on his family? Would you do it to save hundreds? Or does it need to be thousands?

 

[inocente]

scborromeo.org/ccc/p3s2c2a5.htm#2309

Just wars bring about horrendous evils far graver than waterboarding. Surely you know that.

The Church teaches that weapons must be used that do not have graver consequences than are necessary.

Waterboarding is hardly so grave as nuclear warheads or smashing planes into tall buildings.

The second paragraph of your post smacks of smug moral superiority. You might have made a memorable Grand Inquisitor?

That section of the CCC speaks of “legitimate defense by military force”. Torture is no more a legitimate defense than rape, forced abortion or death camps.

Anyway it seems waterboarding is now illegal under US law, by approval of your President, Congress, Senate, armed forces and CIA.

*"After 9/11, we did many things out of fear and anger, including torture. This legislation is an attempt to right that wrong and an acknowledgment that torture is ineffective in producing actionable intelligence,“ said Anderson [CIA agent].

“Our Nation has paid a high price in recent decades for the information gained by the use of techniques beyond those in the field manual – and, in my view, that price far outweighed the value of the information” - Gen. David Petreaus, former Director of the CIA*

Suggest you read the USCCB on the imperative for Christians to not violate the dignity of the person (and for anyone who doesn’t know, dignity is not airy-fairy, it’s basic to Christian and secular ethics, morality and law).

So you’re against your Church, your government, your armed forces, your intelligence services, human rights and international law. Well done.

As for blasphemy of the Spirit, here’s a thought experiment. Suppose next time you’re at Eucharist, as the wafer touches your tongue, you decide to think about all those you would torture into submission (post #72) and how you would torture them. Now if you think that would be a good thing to do, I suggest you talk urgently to your priest. But if you think it would be wrong, then it’s wrong all the time.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

So you’re against your Church, your government, your armed forces, your intelligence services, human rights and international law. Well done.

As for blasphemy of the Spirit, here’s a thought experiment. Suppose next time you’re at Eucharist, as the wafer touches your tongue, you decide to think about all those you would torture into submission (post #72) and how you would torture them. Now if you think that would be a good thing to do, I suggest you talk urgently to your priest. But if you think it would be wrong, then it’s wrong all the time.

Judgmental armchair moralists like yourself really weary me.

In times of war, whether declared or undeclared, many horrible things must be done to assure the triumph of good over evil. Christ planned his own crucifixion to be used as a weapon against Satan.

If I had been in charge of waterboarding someone who would have provided vital information to prevent another 9/11, I might have saved hundreds or thousands of lives. If I had failed to waterboard the culprit, and many had subsequently died horrible deaths because I had self righteously refused to waterboard him, I would feel unworthy of letting the Eucharist touch my tongue.

Now here’s a thought experiment for you. If you knew millions of Jews and others were going to be slaughtered by Hitler, and you were in a position to stop the slaughter by killing Hitler yourself, would your self righteous moral comfort zone be wonderfully enhanced by your self righteous refusal to do so?

I think the Church and all the governments of the world would have been relieved had you taken the wind out of Hitler’s sails.

You would be saddened but O.K. with letting Hitler rage on? :tsktsk:

You have engaged me again with your policy of surrender to evil for the last time.

Enjoy your rebuttal.

 

[inocente]

Judgmental armchair moralists like yourself really weary me.

In times of war, whether declared or undeclared, many horrible things must be done to assure the triumph of good over evil. Christ planned his own crucifixion to be used as a weapon against Satan.

If I had been in charge of waterboarding someone who would have provided vital information to prevent another 9/11, I might have saved hundreds or thousands of lives. If I had failed to waterboard the culprit, and many had subsequently died horrible deaths because I had self righteously refused to waterboard him, I would feel unworthy of letting the Eucharist touch my tongue.

Now here’s a thought experiment for you. If you knew millions of Jews and others were going to be slaughtered by Hitler, and you were in a position to stop the slaughter by killing Hitler yourself, would your self righteous moral comfort zone be wonderfully enhanced by your self righteous refusal to do so?

I think the Church and all the governments of the world would have been relieved had you taken the wind out of Hitler’s sails.

You would be saddened but O.K. with letting Hitler rage on? :tsktsk:

You have engaged me again with your policy of surrender to evil for the last time.

Enjoy your rebuttal.

I’m not a pacifist, I would kill him.

Killing in self-defense is allowed by your Church, your government, human rights and international law.

Torture, for any reason, is not allowed by your Church, your government, human rights and international law.

If any act, no matter how inhuman, is allowed in the name of the greater good then nothing remains by which to distinguish Christian ethics, and Christ’s sacrifice is rendered worthless. But agreed, I’ve not enjoyed this visit to the dark side, see you around.

 

[o_mlly]

… Now here’s a thought experiment for you. If you knew millions of Jews and others were going to be slaughtered by Hitler, and you were in a position to stop the slaughter by killing Hitler yourself, would your self righteous moral comfort zone be wonderfully enhanced by your self righteous refusal to do so?

I think the Church and all the governments of the world would have been relieved had you taken the wind out of Hitler’s sails. …

The Church has teachings on the morality of tyrannicide. In First Things, George Weigel noting that “Thomas Aquinas, had a theological rationale for morally defensible tyrannicide” reports that “Pius [XII] was complicit in a variety of plots, initiated by patriotic, anti-Nazi Germans, to assassinate Hitler and replace the Nazi regime with a government that would make peace with the West.”
firstthings.com/web-exclusives/2015/10/pius-xii-co-conspirator-in-tyrannicide