The Torture Question

[Alindawyl]

And I find this contradiction regrettable. The Church has situations when killing others is justified, but not for torture in a state of war. I’m sorry, but that does not compute.

It computes perfectly. If one is attacked, one is required to defend one’s self with force proportional to the threat. If resisting will result in deaths and not resisting will result in deaths, then there will be deaths regardless. Plus, as evil must always be resisted at least somewhat proportionally to the threat it represents, then putting their lives at risk in the course of defending our own is permitted.

Remember that the first criteria for a just war assumes we are dealing with an aggressor. If we are the aggressor rather than the one being attacked, then our actions are automatically not justified before we even get to the other three criteria.

Apply the criteria for just war to torture. By initiating torture on a person we already have in captivity, how are we not the aggressor? What direct threat does that person present to us? What lasting, grave and certain damage are they causing? What other means have we tried in dealing with them? Do we have serious prospects for success? How will the use of torture not produce an evil or disorder greater than the evil (what evil?) to be eliminated?

In the real world, outside of hypothetical thought experiments where we already have certainty due to knowing the end result, guilt, and threat involved in advance, I don’t really see how torture would meet those kind of requirements.

 

[KC91]

Is this a real story?

 

[Alindawyl]

Is this a real story?

No, he said up front it was hypothetical.

 

[rwoehmke]

If the bus company was any kind of company and communications went down they would know within a short distance where any of their buses should be long before the final two minutes and alternative action taken. Was the kid innocent? I would say no,but that does not render torture any more reliable as a source of immediate action. It’s not against the Geneva Conventions.because the Church does not approve, but mainly because it is an inhumane exercise in futility based on fear and most of the civilized world knows it… If I weren’t against the death penalty, I would say we have a few government leaders who deserve to be strung up.

 

[baylee]

It computes perfectly. If one is attacked, one is required to defend one’s self with force proportional to the threat. If resisting will result in deaths and not resisting will result in deaths, then there will be deaths regardless. Plus, as evil must always be resisted at least somewhat proportionally to the threat it represents, then putting their lives at risk in the course of defending our own is permitted.

Remember that the first criteria for a just war assumes we are dealing with an aggressor. If we are the aggressor rather than the one being attacked, then our actions are automatically not justified before we even get to the other three criteria.

Apply the criteria for just war to torture. By initiating torture on a person we already have in captivity, how are we not the aggressor? What direct threat does that person present to us? What lasting, grave and certain damage are they causing? What other means have we tried in dealing with them? Do we have serious prospects for success? How will the use of torture not produce an evil or disorder greater than the evil (what evil?) to be eliminated?

In the real world, outside of hypothetical thought experiments where we already have certainty due to knowing the end result, guilt, and threat involved in advance, I don’t really see how torture would meet those kind of requirements.

How is a terrorist (who has already proven to be an aggressor by previous attacks) with plans for his next attack …not an aggressor?

 

[holyrosary11]

define “torture”.

When the US does things to get info… things some call torture, I dont’ feel sorry for the “victims” , those who do things like 911 or plan things like tht

and if we are not strong and resolute in our dealings with these diabolically influenced killers, they will … Surprise Surprise…

keep doing it.

Pretty basic human nature…

 

[Just_Lurking]

For an act to be moral, both the ends and the means must be moral. In the case of the OP, the ends are moral, but the means (i.e., torture) are not. Therefore the act is immoral.

Any Catholic who thinks otherwise is a “cafeteria” Catholic.

 

[RobbyS]

The question of torture has no bearing whatsoever on this situation. In combat, any enemy who is not a casualty or in custody (and even sometimes when in custody) is a threat, regardless of appearances. The kid’s actions were directly witnessed by the soldiers in question, so there was no doubt that he was an enemy who had just tried to kill them. He did not stand and surrender but ran. For all they knew he was running back to the alley to get another weapon, or had three friends there all ready to open fire the second anyone pursuing him turned the corner. Situations which happen all too frequently in combat.

A sad and regrettable action, but 100% justified.

I beg to differ. Waterboarding does not rise to the same level of violence as this killing, and it can be construed as an act of self-defence.

 

[holyrosary11]

For an act to be moral, both the ends and the means must be moral. In the case of the OP, the ends are moral, but the means (i.e., torture) are not. Therefore the act is immoral.

Any Catholic who thinks otherwise is a “cafeteria” Catholic.

i’m sorry but if i am understanding you correctly and i believe i am… this is wrong.

What if one must choose between two (supposed) “evils”…?

The good of saving a person or persons’ life/lives (innocent persons) far outweighs the so-called good of not “torturing” someone who is a potential murderer, who has, as OP’s hypothetical scenario shows… the intention of committing murder…

the Catholic Church supports THIS statement of mine.

 

[vz71]

I have read several posts that claim there to be torture going on in the OP hypothetical situation. And thus the claim of immorality.

However, I yet to see anyone show precisely what makes this immoral.

Precisley what actions taken are immoral and how?

It is a grand thing to lay claim to the CCC being in agreement with your particular opinion; but if you cannot show it in precise terms, it is still an opinion…and the CCC may or may not agree.

 

[Just_Lurking]

i’m sorry but if i am understanding you correctly and i believe i am… this is wrong.

I disagree. Catholicism is quite clear on this.

What if one must choose between two (supposed) “evils”…?

The choice is between torturing, which is evil, and not torturing, which is not evil. So there is no choice between two evils.

The good of saving a person or persons’ life/lives (innocent persons) far outweighs the so-called good of not “torturing” someone who is a potential murderer, who has, as OP’s hypothetical scenario shows… the intention of committing murder…

You are still confusing the means and the end. It doesn’t matter how much good comes out of doing an evil act. The evil act is still immoral on its own, and the resulting good does not change that.

The CCC has a section on the Morality of Human Acts, starting at 1750. In particular, 1756 says:

1756 It is therefore an error to judge the morality of human acts by considering only the intention that inspires them or the circumstances (environment, social pressure, duress or emergency, etc.) which supply their context. There are acts which, in and of themselves, independently of circumstances and intentions, are always gravely illicit by reason of their object; such as blasphemy and perjury, murder and adultery. One may not do evil so that good may result from it.

the Catholic Church supports THIS statement of mine.

I don’t think so. The real example of ectopic pregnancy provides a degree of medical certainty that exceeds the supposed certainty in this case. Yet it is not permissible for Catholics to remove an ectopic blastocyst to save the life of the mother.

This is not an ambiguous issue in Catholic moral teaching. Torture is always immoral.

 

[Just_Lurking]

I have read several posts that claim there to be torture going on in the OP hypothetical situation. And thus the claim of immorality.

However, I yet to see anyone show precisely what makes this immoral.

Precisley what actions taken are immoral and how?

It is a grand thing to lay claim to the CCC being in agreement with your particular opinion; but if you cannot show it in precise terms, it is still an opinion…and the CCC may or may not agree.

What part of the immorality of using physical violence to extract confessions is unclear here? You already quoted CCC 2297 in post #9.

 

[vz71]

What part of the immorality of using physical violence to extract confessions is unclear here? You already quoted CCC 2297 in post #9.

OK, I do not believe you are understanding my point.

Here is the applicable paragraph from the CCC:
**

2297

*Kidnapping *and hostage taking bring on a reign of terror; by means of threats they subject their victims to intolerable pressures. They are morally wrong. *Terrorism *threatens, wounds, and kills indiscriminately; it is gravely against justice and charity. *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.

There may be others that are applicable, but thus far in the thread this seems to be the one people are working with.
So…
2297 lays out specific conditions that must be met to be considered torture. Specificly, physical or moral violence to extract confessions, punish the guilty, frighten opponents, or satisfy hatred. So has the hypothetical situation given met these conditions? If so, how?
Of course we also have exceptions written into this paragraph…“except when performed for strictly therapeutic medical reasons, directly intended amputations, mutilations, and *sterilizations *performed on innocent persons are against the moral law”
So does this hypothetical example meet the exceptions criteria?
If so, how? If not, how?

Until someone goes through the trouble to read through the hypothetical situation and answer the specifics concerning the application of 2297, there is no way anyone can claim the CCC has any bearing at all.

My opinion is that the child mentioned in the hypothetical situation can in no way be considered innocent. Therefore the exceptions mentioned apply, and there is no violation of 2297 in the CCC.

Now if anyone cares to show where my assessment is in error, I may change my mind on this.

But my point here is that we cannot simply claim the CCC agrees with us.
There needs to be precise reasoning that can show where and how the CCC applies to the situation.

 

[Just_Lurking]

The Compendium of Social Justice also contains a discussion of torture:

404 … In carrying out investigations, the regulation against the use of torture, even in the case of serious crimes, must be strictly observed: “Christ’s disciple refuses every recourse to such methods, which nothing could justify and in which the dignity of man is as much debased in his torturer as in the torturer’s victim”.[830] International juridical instruments concerning human rights correctly indicate a prohibition against torture as a principle which cannot be contravened under any circumstances.

 

[Just_Lurking]

2297 lays out specific conditions that must be met to be considered torture. Specificly, physical or moral violence to extract confessions, punish the guilty, frighten opponents, or satisfy hatred. So has the hypothetical situation given met these conditions? If so, how?

cutting open a finger with a bayonet = physical violence
screaming “BUS 167!!! BUS 167!!!” = extracting confession

Of course we also have exceptions written into this paragraph…

The exceptions are written into the last sentence, not the entire paragraph. CCC 2297 contains two true statements about torture:

• 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 first statement has no exceptions, and applies to the situation in the OP. The second statement does not apply to the OP because of the exception.

In any event, the quote I gave from the compendium explicitly says that there are no exceptions, and also applies to the OP.

 

[vz71]

The second statement does not apply to the OP because of the exception.

In any event, the quote I gave from the compendium explicitly says that there are no exceptions, and also applies to the OP.

First, I am looking strictly at the CCC. Other materials I do not consider as having the full weight and authority of my church.

Second, if as you claim, the exception does not apply. Then it would have to be your contention that the child in the hypothetical example is innocent.

This is a difficult position given the original hypothetical.

 

[Just_Lurking]

First, I am looking strictly at the CCC. Other materials I do not consider as having the full weight and authority of my church.

See here for a link on the Vatican website for the Compendium. I don’t know why you don’t consider it an official document of the Catholic Church, but I believe that it holds the most straightforward answer to the OP’s question.

Second, if as you claim, the exception does not apply. Then it would have to be your contention that the child in the hypothetical example is innocent.

The child is not innocent. Therefore the only CCC statement directly about torture that is applicable to the OP’s hypothetical is: “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.”

And I’ll repeat that CCC 1756 is clear that any good that results from the torturing the boy cannot be used to justify the act of torture, which is therefore immoral as being contrary to the respect for the person and for human dignity.

 

[Alindawyl]

How is a terrorist (who has already proven to be an aggressor by previous attacks) with plans for his next attack …not an aggressor?

Is a bank robber an aggressor after they are captured? A serial killer? A rapist?

Anyone in custody who is not trying to fight back is no longer an aggressor, regardless of what they are being held for. They are a prisoner. Any theoretical terror plans by such a person, when they’re not in a position to carry out a terror attack, do not justify doing violence to that person.

How many terrorists in custody currently have C4 on them? A satchel charge? A car bomb? An RPG? A remote detonator? A chemical warhead with delivery system? I’ll hazard a guess and say none.

If a prisoner wishes to act as an aggressor while still in custody, such as attacking the guards or even other prisoners, then that person should be subdued with an appropriate amount of force to keep them constrained. If he refuses to submit and contines to resist to the point where only deadly force will work, then so be it. But a prisoner who is not resisting may not be subjected to violence.

We shouldn’t let such a person go free, because of the threat they represent if given their freedom. But neither should we inflict violence upon them while they are not actively fighting.

I beg to differ. Waterboarding does not rise to the same level of violence as this killing, and it can be construed as an act of self-defence.

Justifications for torture are always about information, and they’re always presented in a situation where we the audience have certainty in the torture victim’s guilt. Hollywood movies sometimes showcase time-critical events where we are watching someone tortured for information which will save the lives of the good guys if revealed before the bomb goes off or the machine is activated or the command is given to launch the alien invasion. We cheer on the good guys because we’ve SEEN the bad guys setting up their plans earlier in the movie.

In the real world we have to rely on second-hand information, which may or may not be true.

An act of sef-defense is one done in response to an attack. What threat is presented to the person administering the waterboarding by a victim who is strapped immobile on their back on an inclined board, with a soaking wet rag covering their face and water being dripped onto it regularly? At best a possible future threat, which may or may not be true. If you consider waterboarding a prisoner an act of self-defense, then by that logic all prisoners, as potential aggressors, should be treated as aggressors. All non-prisoners should be as well, since we cannot know just by looking at someone whether or not they are a terrorist.

Is that the kind of world you want? Guilty until proven innocent?

 

[vz71]

First, I am looking strictly at the CCC. Other materials I do not consider as having the full weight and authority of my church.

See here for a link on the Vatican website for the Compendium. I don’t know why you don’t consider it an official document of the Catholic Church, but I believe that it holds the most straightforward answer to the OP’s question.

I never said it was not an official document.

 

[vz71]

The child is not innocent.

Agreed.
Then the exceptions listed within the paragraph are valid in this case, and there is nothing contrary to the CCC in the hypothetical we are given.