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

[marcadam]

Brendan:

CM,

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

This isn’t true as I understand it. As noted before, imprisonment is in fact evil, yet the state may seek to imprison an individual for any number reasons, toward the specific ends of punishment (incapacitation, deterrence, restitution, retribution, rehabilitation).

It is not only the state that is thusly limited. For instance, caregivers of children often find themselves inflicting some punishment for their own good.

Given this knowledge and the documentation cited by the OP, the debate is centered on the scope of what constitutes “torture” per se. There is also a debate as to what may be allowable not for punishment but the extraction of information that may save lives.

Statements like the following:

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

seem to me fundamentally unserious in this context, since what is being discussed is not the objective evil of the scenarios, but the moral culpability and moral boundaries of the actors.

That being said, I tend to think that these discussions tend to unseriousness in general: witness the progression of this thread. The specific question was: what discomforts or threats can be made upon another human being; secondarily, in what contexts and for what purposes? From there it has digressed into all manner of speculation and particular circumstances and unfounded absolutism.

I don’t know the answer to this question. There are a myriad factors involved, as well as the inventiveness of man in re inflicting torture and the possibility of cataloging all such activities. Since some evil is clearly allowed (e.g. imprisonment, death for punishment) and some is clearly prohibited (e.g. “amputation, multilation, sterilization”) then it remains to be seen the status of other actions (e.g. sleep deprivation, simulated asphyxiation) and in what contexts they may be applied (e.g., extraction of information).

All that said, I don’t see this discussion getting very far on an open internet forum.

 

[masterjedi747]

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.

I really don’t think I understand your position here at all. What in the world does their choice have to do with the morality of torture? Either what you do to them is moral, or it is not…but they are always going to have their own free will, and thus you cannot force them to choose to do an evil action (such as lie)…that’s totally up to them, and it’s their own responsibility, but the choice is always theirs.
Black Jaque:

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

I’m sorry…but that definition just isn’t going to cut it. Look up some examples of “Catch 22” situations here, and tell me how any one of those could possibly be considered “torture”.
Black Jaque:

But beating someone up. Or even making him go without sleep for days…just “because he’s a pig and deserves it” would be torture.

Yeah, and that example in particular would DEFINITELY be immoral, since you REALLY don’t have a valid reason to do anything like that to him. It’s a completely different “torture” scenario.

pray4priests:

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.

And I would tend to agree with you…AS LONG AS there are no clearly immoral methods (such as mutilation, blatant lying, or murder) being used to extract the information.

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.

Regardless of government law? Perhaps. But regardless of the moral law? Absolutely not.

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?

Here’s an example: What if you SAW him doing something, but he DESTROYED the evidence, and your word alone on the matter is not sufficient to PROVE him guilty in a court of law? Now you KNOW that he is guilty, but cannot PROVE it sufficiently to everyone else.

BillP:

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?

You’re not SUPPOSED to torture the guy to death in the first place. How can you get information from him if he’s DEAD? And I’m arguing, by the way, that you should ONLY be using methods of “torture” that CAN NOT result in the serious injury or death of the person in question…so your point is irrelevant anyway.

BillP:

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.

There’s your answer on ABORTION…but it has absolutely nothing to do with torture.

 

[masterjedi747]

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

How is *that *for moral absolutism ? ##

It seems to me exactly like saying that “Murder is never justifiable under any circumstances - and never was, and never will be.” This is absolutely TRUE, but fails to account for the fact that KILLING is not entirely synonymous with MURDER, and (since it is different) can therefore be morally justified under certain conditions. Part of the problem here is that we haven’t figured out for sure what types of actions really DO fall under the category of torture. Is torture, like killing, a broad category of which certain forms are acceptable while others are not? Or is torture, like murder, an intrinsically evil subset of a much broader category of actions…and if so, what is that category?

cathologos:

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.”

This isn’t about finding loopholes or pushing the limits…it’s about determining WHERE those boundaries ARE, and how they should influence our actions. If you haven’t noticed, the question isn’t nearly as obvious as we all wish it was. Evil is evil, certainly. But we haven’t determined that the actions in question truly ARE morally evil in the first place.

wcknight:

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.

That is NOT suicide. They killed (not murdered) the terrorists in self-defense. But they did not INTEND to cause their own deaths, even though they may have accepted that it was inevitable. They would have rather saved the plane if they could have…and I’m sure they certainly tried to so do. But if they really HAD commited suicide to stop the terrorists, then that WOULD have been immoral, since it violates the principles of double effect.

marcadam:

Brendan:

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

This isn’t true as I understand it.

Yes it is. It is a fundamental basis for determining morality. You cannot perform a morally evil action in order to achieve a desired good. The ends never justify the means.

marcadam:

As noted before, imprisonment is in fact evil, yet the state may seek to imprison an individual for any number reasons…

For instance, caregivers of children often find themselves inflicting some punishment for their own good…

But those are not MORAL evils, so they don’t apply to the type of situations we’re talking about.

marcadam:

Statements like the following:

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

seem to me fundamentally unserious in this context, since what is being discussed is not the objective evil of the scenarios, but the moral culpability and moral boundaries of the actors.

I’m not entirely sure what you mean…perhaps you mean we’ve gotten off topic (and I would agree)…but the statement that you have quoted there technically IS true, regardless.

marcadam:

All that said, I don’t see this discussion getting very far on an open internet forum.

UNLESS we could gain some insight from reliable Roman Catholic moral theologians…which is part of what I was hoping someone might be able to turn up here. But you’re right…at this point, all we have is a bunch of personal beliefs and opinions…unfortunately nothing concrete or specific that we can completely resolve the issue with. Until the Church speaks out (or already has spoken out) more specifically on this matter, it seems that all we’re going to be able to do is discuss the validity of our own personal opinions.

 

[stanley123]

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

How is *that *for moral absolutism ?

Then how do you explain that the Catholic encyclopedia says that torture was authorised by a Catholic Pope, and that the inquisition used torture?

 

[Brendan]

marcadam:

This isn’t true as I understand it. As noted before, imprisonment is in fact evil, yet the state may seek to imprison an individual for any number reasons, toward the specific ends of punishment (incapacitation, deterrence, restitution, retribution, rehabilitation).

It does not follow that imprisonment is an evil.

Freedom, according to Aquinas, is defined as the ability to do good. That is in no way inhibited by a just imprisonment .

So where is the evil?

It is not only the state that is thusly limited. For instance, caregivers of children often find themselves inflicting some punishment for their own good.

Punishment for wrongdoing is an instance of Justice, and thus again, not an evil.

Unjust punishment is a sin agains the Virture of Justice, and thus is sinful, but that only applies to specifically unjust punishment.

Given this knowledge and the documentation cited by the OP, the debate is centered on the scope of what constitutes “torture” per se. There is also a debate as to what may be allowable not for punishment but the extraction of information that may save lives.

I agree that we are discussing the boundries of when physical or moral violence becomes an evil act.

But the core premise remains, an evil act can never be justified by the ends it produces.

An evil act will always remain just that, evil.

seem to me fundamentally unserious in this context, since what is being discussed is not the objective evil of the scenarios, but the moral culpability and moral boundaries of the actors.

I disagree that the core premise of our discussion is the moral culpability of the actors, but rather the moral boundries of the act itself.

A moral agent might engage in an evil moral act, with little or no culpability. But a lack of culpability does not render the act itself morally licit.

That being said, I tend to think that these discussions tend to unseriousness in general: witness the progression of this thread. The specific question was: what discomforts or threats can be made upon another human being; secondarily, in what contexts and for what purposes? From there it has digressed into all manner of speculation and particular circumstances and unfounded absolutism.

I agree in that I would prefer the conversation to reflect the core point, the moral boundries of the act itself. Context and intent have some bearing on the moral licity, but I would disagree to the weight you are placing on it.

 

[Al_Masetti]

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.

Instead of using global statements and generalizations, could you provide specifics that we can use as guides?

Like, is the use of “trick questions” considered to be torture?

Like, is the use of waving headlines from “Human Events” torture?

Like, is waving a clear plastic one-liter container containing water and red food coloring and saying it’s really pig blood… is that torture?

 

[marcadam]

Brendan:

me:

This isn’t true as I understand it. As noted before, imprisonment is in fact evil, yet the state may seek to imprison an individual for any number reasons, toward the specific ends of punishment (incapacitation, deterrence, restitution, retribution, rehabilitation).

It does not follow that imprisonment is an evil.

Freedom, according to Aquinas, is defined as the ability to do good. That is in no way inhibited by a just imprisonment .

So where is the evil?

I think the problem is I am construing “evil” in a broad, almost natural sense. Imprisonment, the physical incapacitation of an individual, is clearly seen as an objective evil, that may be justly applied in certain situations where it is not a moral evil. I think you are taking the word “evil” to itself imply moral evil, which I did not.

Punishment for wrongdoing is an instance of Justice, and thus again, not an evil.

But these actions are intrinsically evil on a certain level: they include the application of pain, discomfort, restriction of freedom. They aren’t amoral in nature, since they could be applied unjustly. But again, as you say, when justly applied there is no moral evil.

I agree that we are discussing the boundries of when physical or moral violence becomes an evil act.

But the core premise remains, an evil act can never be justified by the ends it produces.

An evil act will always remain just that, evil.

I retract my calling this observation “unserious,” but as other than a reminder, I do think that it is unhelpful, inasmuch as it is the core ethic that is (I hope) undergirding everyone’s understanding here. Of course an evil act is an evil act: but when does violence necessarily become an evil act? That’s the question under examination.

what is being discussed is not the objective evil of the scenarios, but the moral culpability and moral boundaries of the actors.

I disagree that the core premise of our discussion is the moral culpability of the actors, but rather the moral boundries of the act itself.

A moral agent might engage in an evil moral act, with little or no culpability. But a lack of culpability does not render the act itself morally licit.

You are absolutely correct, and… well, I’m not sure what I was smoking when I wrote that. The moral boundaries of justly applicable violence are precisely what we’re after. I think I meant the objective physical evil of the violent acts taken out of context… which is perhaps what I thought you meant… now I’m just confusing myself.

Summing up, I think we agree here and our differences on this point are ones of terminology. Since I’m the one who’s usage appears to be out of line, I’ll make the corrections.

 

[marcadam]

“Murder is never justifiable under any circumstances - and never was, and never will be.” This is absolutely TRUE, but fails to account for the fact that KILLING is not entirely synonymous with MURDER, and (since it is different) can therefore be morally justified under certain conditions. Part of the problem here is that we haven’t figured out for sure what types of actions really DO fall under the category of torture. Is torture, like killing, a broad category of which certain forms are acceptable while others are not? Or is torture, like murder, an intrinsically evil subset of a much broader category of actions…and if so, what is that category?

Yes! This seems like precisely the terminological stumbling block in front of all this discussion. It doesn’t help that the word “torture” is itself fairly inflammatory, conjuring groteque images of medieval machinery.

Of course, we can’t just sit here and come up with our own usage, since we may only end up equivocating with others who are unaware of or reject our usage. Therefore, as an exercise, I propse we all go out and find a documented legal definition of torture. I expect there will be some differences.

I’ll kick it off with this from Article 1 of the UN Convention Against Torture:
UN:

For the purposes of this Convention, torture means any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity. It does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in or incidental to lawful sanctions.

Now, of course all this hinges on the word “severe” which may be interpreted in any number of ways, and presumably the judgement of whether a particular act constitues “torture” as here defined falls to the disputant states and UN arbitration as set out further down in the document. Thus, it is neither fairly unhelpful on the “boundary problem”, nor even on defining the “broader category” of violent action that would be analgous to “killing” as set out above.

Also note that this definition only “engages” when the actions are

inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity.

However, I don’t take these to be limiting to the concept of torture per se, only to the kinds of torture of interest to the Convention. In fact, I think that we could all agree that any “pain or suffering” inflicted by a private individual for any reason cannot be justified: in other words, the just application of violence is solely the domain of the state, if at all. (Any objections?)

Nonetheless, for the purposes of the question MJ (I hope you don’t mind that appelation) set out above, the clear answer of this document (and probably the UN and other large human-rights organisations) is that torture is a subset of a broader category.

Happy hunting!

 

[Brendan]

marcadam:

I think the problem is I am construing “evil” in a broad, almost natural sense. Imprisonment, the physical incapacitation of an individual, is clearly seen as an objective evil, that may be justly applied in certain situations where it is not a moral evil. I think you are taking the word “evil” to itself imply moral evil, which I did not.

I am taking the word evil here in it’s moral context.

But these actions are intrinsically evil on a certain level: they include the application of pain, discomfort, restriction of freedom. They aren’t amoral in nature, since they could be applied unjustly. But again, as you say, when justly applied there is no moral evil.

I would venture that because they can be used justly and unjustly they ARE amoral in nature. Almost by defintion.

Used justly, the serve justice, and is thus a moral good, used unjustly, they serve a moral evil.

I retract my calling this observation “unserious,” but as other than a reminder, I do think that it is unhelpful, inasmuch as it is the core ethic that is (I hope) undergirding everyone’s understanding here. Of course an evil act is an evil act: but when does violence necessarily become an evil act? That’s the question under examination.

100% Agreed

As determined, there is definately a boundry that can be crossed where Justice is not longer served, but Unjustice occurs

You are absolutely correct, and… well, I’m not sure what I was smoking when I wrote that.

Well pass some this way, the way work is going today, I could use it

Summing up, I think we agree here and our differences on this point are ones of terminology. Since I’m the one who’s usage appears to be out of line, I’ll make the corrections.

No, I think we’ve cleared it up.

The problem is, I think we got to the point where any ‘decision’ is out of the realm of Authority either one of us has.

The CCC is really nebulous and unfortunately not much of a help.