Morality of Torture (Under Specific Conditions) **Please Read Message**

[masterjedi747]

Please read the whole message before responding to this topic.

Question: What defines “torture”, and when (if ever) would it be morally acceptable to use?

PREMISE I COMPLETELY AGREE WITH:
The ends do not (and cannot) justify the means.

I have heard (and understand) many of the reasons why “torture” should NOT be used – it is often ineffective, for one – but if you have someone who you know has information that can save the lives of hundreds of people, what can you do? What types of “torture”, if any at all, could be morally acceptable? My best personal opinion (at the moment) is that the “torture” being used would have to meet the following condition: It cannot involve the use of any serious/lasting physical damage, or be unnecessarily cruel.

I am aware that the Chatechism of the Catholic Church states the following: "Torture which uses physical or moral violence to extract confessions, punish the guilty, frighten opponents, or satisfy hatred is contrary to respect for the person and for human dignity. Except when performed for strictly therapeutic medical reasons, directly intended amputations, mutilations, and sterilizations performed on innocent persons are against the moral law.

The specification of “innocent” persons here is also interesting. But obviously mutilation of any kind is out of the question. You cannot beat up/abuse your prisoner, or push them as close to death as possible. As stated, the use of violence to extract information is out of the question.

But what about other things? Can non-violent methods be used? Can you put them in prison and make them uncomfortable? Could you threaten them at “gunpoint” even though the gun is actually empty and/or you have absolutely no intention of harming them (but you – without lying – allow them to form their own judgement incorrectly)? Could you apply a mild (but painful) electrical shock that has no capability for causing them any lasting physical harm? Could you perhaps give them a drug that makes them more willing to disclose information? What is there that makes any of these particular methods immoral?

I guess what I’m trying to determine is where the moral boundary lies. Has the Church made any more concrete statements on this matter, or is the topic partially left open for us to debate and form our own judgements? I would prefer to have more debate and less personal opinions, but any help here would certainly be appreciated.

 

[stanley123]

I am glad that the Church has changed its teaching on the use of torture. I did not agree with the previous teaching as given for example in the New Catholic Encyclopedia: “In 1252 Innocent IV sanctioned the infliction of torture by the civil authorities upon heretics, and torture later came to have a recognized place in the procedure of the inquisitorial courts.”

 

[Brendan]

One of the big issues is actually defining what ‘Torture’ is

Is sleep deprivation torture? Is that the ‘physical’ violence the CCC referes to?

If so, how much, how long do you have to keep a person awake before it becomes torture? 72 hours?, 48? 36? 24?, not letting them sleep in on Saturdays??

How about something like Sodium Pentathol (‘Truth Serum’), is it torture, is the injection itself torture, as it is ‘physical violence’?

 

[masterjedi747]

stanley123:

I am glad that the Church has changed its teaching on the use of torture. I did not agree with the previous teaching as given for example in the New Catholic Encyclopedia: “In 1252 Innocent IV sanctioned the infliction of torture by the civil authorities upon heretics, and torture later came to have a recognized place in the procedure of the inquisitorial courts.”

I don’t know all the details, so I might be wrong here, but just because one Pope “sanctioned” the use of torture, that doesn’t mean it was actually a part of Church teaching. We have had bad Popes before…just because one Pope did something wrong, that doesn’t necessarily make his actions a reflection of the teachings of the Church at that time.

Brendan:

One of the big issues is actually defining what ‘Torture’ is

Absolutely. There might even be two different “types” of torture…one that is acceptable and one that is not. But do we have any other type of authoritative instruction from Catholic sources that can help guide us in this matter, or is it still left largely open for debate at this point?

Brendan:

Is sleep deprivation torture? Is that the ‘physical’ violence the CCC referes to?

It doesn’t seem like it…just look at the next sentence. They specifically refer to “directly intended amputations, mutilations, and sterilizations”…these are VERY violent actions that are not morally acceptable even under normal circumstances, unless “performed for strictly therapeutic medical reasons”. I think the point the CCC is largely trying to make is that the ends do not justify the means…you can NEVER perform evil actions in order to achieve a desired good. And agree with that completely.

But now that I know what you CANNOT do, I’m left wondering what, if anything, there might be that you CAN do. I’m also somewhat curious as to why the CCC specified the use of torture on “innocent persons”…which makes sense, but as if it might make some difference when the person you are dealing with is clearly NOT innocent.

 

[Black_Jaque]

One thing that seems to be missing from most peoples definition of torture is the lack of choice that the victim has.

Coercion, using physical violence may be legitimate if the victim has a morally licity option to avoid the consequences. So if police need to rough up a criminal in order to get him to stop fighting back, or to get him to enter the squad car that’s not torture. Because the apprehended person has a morally licit option that would avoid the torture.

But beating someone up. Or even making him go without sleep for days in order to extract information, or just “because he’s a pig and deserves it” would be torture. The reason is because the person may not have a morally licit option to avoid the harsh treatment. If he keeps repeating “I don’t know” to all the interrogation it may truly be because he doesn’t know the answer. But the torture may be tempting him to lie just to get the torture to stop, and lying isn’t a morally licit option.

Basically torture is when you put a person in a “Catch 22” situation.

 

[pray4priests]

"Torture which uses physical or moral violence to extract confessions, punish the guilty, frighten opponents, or satisfy hatred is contrary to respect for the person and for human dignity. Except when performed for strictly therapeutic medical reasons, directly intended amputations, mutilations, and sterilizations performed on innocent persons are against the moral law.
I find it interesting that the hypothesis you posit to begin the thread is NOT covered by this statement of Church teaching.

Consider: the motivations cited include prohibiting torture for four reasons: (1) to extract confessions, (2) as punishment, (3) to terrorize, and (4) for revenge.

The situation which is always posited for debate is outside these considerations. “What if a terrorist has information regarding a nuclear weapon in a major American city, and the only way to make him talk before it goes off is to extract the information from him by torture?” Torture in this situation is not being used to further a prosecution, or punish, or terrorize him, nor for venal revenge. The “Jack Bauer” torture scenario envisions using torture to force the subject to reveal information that will save thousands, perhaps millions of lives.

Finally, I would posit that, whatever the outcome of the philosophical debate, nearly every sane person would hope that the government official on the scene would get that information any way they could, regardless of the law.

Just my two cents.

God Bless

 

[BillP]

You know I hear this ridiculous scenario all the time. I can’t imagine it ever really happeneing. If you “KNOW” the person is guilty then one assumes you have sufficient evidence to PROVE it or how can you KNOW? This scenario is a reducto ad abusrdum argument intended to “crack the door” for immoral people who want to cut corners and punish people without actually going to the trouble of proving them guilty.

pray4priests:

The “Jack Bauer” torture scenario envisions using torture to force the subject to reveal information that will save thousands, perhaps millions of lives.

Okay. What happens when you and Jack kill the guy and the Bomb goes off anyway? Then do you finally realize that the poor schlub you tortured to death really didn’t know anything? Do you think the Church approves of what you did? Are you going to be able to sleep at night?

pray4priests:

Finally, I would posit that, whatever the outcome of the philosophical debate, nearly every sane person would hope that the government official on the scene would get that information any way they could, regardless of the law.

Ask yourself, would the Church have permitted contraception or abortion if Mrs Hitler KNEW the child in her womb was Adolf? Of course not. There’s your answer on torture.

I don’t think ANY government should EVER torture ANYONE for ANY REASON Whatever. Period. You can’t do a right thing in a wrong way.

 

[Brendan]

Black Jaque:

If he keeps repeating “I don’t know” to all the interrogation it may truly be because he doesn’t know the answer. But the torture may be tempting him to lie just to get the torture to stop, and lying isn’t a morally licit option.

Basically torture is when you put a person in a “Catch 22” situation.

But that would seem to cover a myriad of other issues, such as basic imprisonment. Is incarceration alone a form of torture, as a prisoner might be tempted to lie to avoid it?

US Judges who incarcerate a person for ‘Contempt of Court’ do something similar.

Consider the case of a reporter who had a confidential source to a crime. The Judge orders the reporter to reveal their source or be held in the county jail for contempt

Now the reporter has a "Catch 22’, they can break a confidence, suffer incarceration or lie.

Now imagine the same reporter in another country. The judge orders the reporter to reveal their source or suffer beatings and electric shocks.

The reporter has the same choices, reveal, suffer or lie.

Do the situations differ only in the magnitute of the torture?

 

[Al_Masetti]

This is an all too easy issue — when we are sitting here in front of a computer screen and it’s snowing outside, but we have central heat.

NOW, move yourself to a mountain pass with six feet of snow in the Hindu Kush mountains and snipers. And you decided to take ammo and batteries instead of MRE’s. And the weather is so bad that you won’t be getting either a Chinook or any close air support any time soon. And a couple of your guys are shot and going into shock. And, you’ve captured someone who you STRONGLY suspect knows were al Qaeda’s #2 guy happens to be. Because you just raided a camp and the food was still hot. And you found his baby pictures and a note he got from his 7-year old kid. Pretty good indication, that #2 is just five minutes ahead of you and you’ve been hunting the guy for 4 1/2 years.

So you read the guy his Miranda rights and let him resume eating his meal, and he’s going to file a complaint against you because the goat gravy congealed while he was handcuffed.

 

[Brendan]

Al,

First of all, I don’t think of anyone here who thinks this is a simple moral issue.

And as far as being in very cold pursuit of bad guys, been there, done that (in Bosnia.)

But there is still something far more important that catching bad guy #2, more important than the lives of the guys in your Company, even than the folks back home.

It’s one’s own immortal soul. There is only one of those in the whole universe, and it would be a really bad thing if one traded it for some two bit terrorist ringleader.

 

[BillP]

Al Masetti:

NOW, move yourself to a mountain pass with six feet of snow in the Hindu Kush mountains and snipers. And you decided to take ammo and batteries instead of MRE’s. And the weather is so bad that you won’t be getting either a Chinook or any close air support any time soon. And a couple of your guys are shot and going into shock. And, you’ve captured someone who you STRONGLY suspect knows were al Qaeda’s #2 guy happens to be. Because you just raided a camp and the food was still hot. And you found his baby pictures and a note he got from his 7-year old kid. Pretty good indication, that #2 is just five minutes ahead of you and you’ve been hunting the guy for 4 1/2 years.

So you read the guy his Miranda rights and let him resume eating his meal, and he’s going to file a complaint against you because the goat gravy congealed while he was handcuffed.

Well there’;s a world of difference between the moral culpability of troops in the field with all the fear and hardship and emotion that that entails and the culpability of “chairborne rangers” from the West Wing, writing memos on proper treatment of “enemy combatants”

 

[Al_Masetti]

BillP:

Well there’;s a world of difference between the moral culpability of troops in the field with all the fear and hardship and emotion that that entails and the culpability of “chairborne rangers” from the West Wing, writing memos on proper treatment of “enemy combatants”

Please note: my post avoided the use of words like “moral culpability” and “combatant”. I have no interest in PowerPoint Rangers.

A bunch of suspects have been rounded up. Find out what they know and do it quickly before the information gets stale.

 

[BillP]

Al, this is exactly the kind of slippery slope I am worried about.

First its:
Al Masetti:

you’ve captured someone who you STRONGLY suspect knows were al Qaeda’s #2 guy happens to be. Because you just raided a camp and the food was still hot. And you found his baby pictures and a note he got from his 7-year old kid. Pretty good indication, that #2 is just five minutes ahead of you and you’ve been hunting the guy for 4 1/2 years.

So you justify the torture because you STRONGLY suspect him.

Soon, (in your case, what? half an hour?) its
Al Masetti:

A bunch of suspects have been rounded up. Find out what they know and do it quickly before the information gets stale.

Nope, no problem here. Give me a break.

 

[Al_Masetti]

BillP:

Al, this is exactly the kind of slippery slope I am worried about.

First its:

So you justify the torture because you STRONGLY suspect him.

Soon, (in your case, what? half an hour?) its

Nope, no problem here. Give me a break.

Hey! I merely described a situation. I didn’t make any recommendations or justifications. I made no statements of any kind. Merely described a situation. ;^)

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

stanley123:

I am glad that the Church has changed its teaching on the use of torture. I did not agree with the previous teaching as given for example in the New Catholic Encyclopedia: “In 1252 Innocent IV sanctioned the infliction of torture by the civil authorities upon heretics, and torture later came to have a recognized place in the procedure of the inquisitorial courts.”

Torture is never justifiable under any circumstances - and never was, and never will be​

How is *that *for moral absolutism ?

FWIW, exceptionless moral judgements, if there can be such things, are easier to state negatively than postively - or so it seems. When people want absolutes, they are often asking for exceptionless moral judgements or exceptionless moral criteria. One of the problems is in the definition of terms: the present discussion shows this, as does the discussion about the ethics of lying; as do other such discussions ##

 

[cathologos]

I read about half of this thread before becoming completely disgusted.

It’s very simple, folks:

Stop trying to find loopholes in Church teaching.

Stop trying to figure out the “boundaries” where the immoral becomes “moral.”

Common sense tells you when something is wrong. Trying to rationalize it away is just that – rationalizing evil away.

Just stop.

Evil is evil. It doesn’t matter if the victims are also evil; that doesn’t excuse or justify it. It just doesn’t.

“Leaders” who promote evil? Well…That’s why some of us are trying to rationalize evil, isn’t it?

Time to face reality. Evil is evil. Period.

 

[CatholicMetis]

Let me tell you something, if a terrorist group has a nuclear attack on the USA in progress and we have one of the terrorist members that has information on how to stop it then you use all necassary means to get the information. A little bit of pain on a terrorist is worth the saving of millions of lives.

 

[BillP]

CatholicMetis:

Let me tell you something, if a terrorist group has a nuclear attack on the USA in progress and we have one of the terrorist members that has information on how to stop it then you use all necassary means to get the information. A little bit of pain on a terrorist is worth the saving of millions of lives.

Well, that’s not the Catholic Church’s position now is it?

 

[Brendan]

CatholicMetis:

Let me tell you something, if a terrorist group has a nuclear attack on the USA in progress and we have one of the terrorist members that has information on how to stop it then you use all necassary means to get the information. A little bit of pain on a terrorist is worth the saving of millions of lives.

CM,

An evil action is never justified by the ends it produces.

Remember the passage about gaining the whole world, but losing one’s soul.

That is very applicable here. An evil action could never be justified, even if it means losing the whole world, and everyone in it.

No Catholic can legitimately hold a contrary opinion.

The main theological discussion here is not weither Torture is a moral evil, and thus forbidden, it is. The question is what exactly constitutes torture and how it can be recognized, and thus avoided.

 

[wcknight]

Where is Jack Bauer when you need him ???

I would never torture anyone, BUT I hope to God someone has the guts to do it should the need ever arise.

The victims in the flight that crashed in Pennsylvania, had to overcome the terorists. They literally committed suicide to save many others. They killed the terrorists and themselves. They are heroes and I expect most if not all are in Heaven.

Sometimes I think you have to be violent to prevent even greater violence.