Torture

[Atreyu]

In the past few months I have been thinking a bit about torture and how licit it may be. It seems to me that “torture” is a generally poorly-defined term, like “slavery”, and that there may be times when torture actually is licit. In a little bit I will give an example to demonstrate when torture is licit, but first I want to look at the Catechism. It says:
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.90

2298 In times past, cruel practices were commonly used by legitimate governments to maintain law and order, often without protest from the Pastors of the Church, who themselves adopted in their own tribunals the prescriptions of Roman law concerning torture. Regrettable as these facts are, the Church always taught the duty of clemency and mercy. She forbade clerics to shed blood. In recent times it has become evident that these cruel practices were neither necessary for public order, nor in conformity with the legitimate rights of the human person. On the contrary, these practices led to ones even more degrading. It is necessary to work for their abolition. We must pray for the victims and their tormentors.
The crucial point, in my mind, is the bit in bold. By specifying in which situations torture is illicit, the Catechism does not therefore forbid torture in all situations. And now I would like to illustrate a specific example in which I think torture is licit; possibly even necessary.

The situation involves a kidnapped child, who is in grave danger of being murdered. A policeman investigating the case discovers the brother of the person he knows for sure has kidnapped the child. The policeman also knows for sure - through his investigations - that the brother he has found knows the location of the missing child. Finally, the policeman knows for sure that the child will be dead in a few hours if he cannot find him, and there are no other avenues of investigation to follow. The brother steadfastly refuses to reveal the location of the missing child.

In this situation, I believe that it would be licit - possibly even necessary - for the policeman to use corporal punishment to extract the whereabouts of the missing child.

Thoughts?

 

[kiash]

I’m sorry, but this is still torture, not matter how you dress it up, and the text of the Catechism that you quoted is very clear.

How do you “know for sure” that the brother knew where the child was and yet you don’t know the location of the child. How do you know he knows? How do you know the kidnapper didn’t mislead him? The best you can get is fairly certain, and if fairly certain is enough to disregard Church Teaching then why not extend this to all criminals. There are plenty innocents condemned under law as a testiment that such a thing as know for sure is not possible.

Torture is torture. The moment it is justified we no longer have the rule of law.

 

[RWMorris]

It’s a slippery slope, and once we start down that path it will be tough to stay on our feet. The three known victims of CIA water boarding, if we accept that water boarding is torture, would be covered under your scenario. They were not roughly treated “to extract confessions, punish the guilty, frighten opponents, or satisfy hatred”. They had information that was necessary to save lives. Was it licit? I’m not sure, and I’m what most people would can politically conservative. I am uncomfortable with allowing any government that much power regardless of the morality of torture.

 

[Atreyu]

I’m sorry, but this is still torture, not matter how you dress it up, and the text of the Catechism that you quoted is very clear.

How do you “know for sure” that the brother knew where the child was and yet you don’t know the location of the child. How do you know he knows? How do you know the kidnapper didn’t mislead him?

It’s a hypothetical. He knows for sure.

The best you can get is fairly certain, and if fairly certain is enough to disregard Church Teaching then why not extend this to all criminals. There are plenty innocents condemned under law as a testiment that such a thing as know for sure is not possible.

Torture is torture. The moment it is justified we no longer have the rule of law.

If you were placed in such a situation: where you faced giving someone a beating on the one hand, and a child dying on the other hand, would you not choose to give the guy a beating? It seems to me that if you argue that torture is always morally illicit, then you must logically argue that all corporal punishment is always morally illicit. That would include giving a child a pat on the backside when they’re naughty.

The Catechism does not clearly state that corporal punishment is always wrong, nor does it clearly state that torture is always wrong. It seems to me that it is quite ambiguous, actually. However, I completely and wholly agree with what it does say.

 

[Atreyu]

It’s a slippery slope, and once we start down that path it will be tough to stay on our feet.
If the difference between staying on our feet and falling off our feet involves a difference in kind, then it is possible to stay on our feet.

The three known victims of CIA water boarding, if we accept that water boarding is torture, would be covered under your scenario. They were not roughly treated "to extract confessions, punish the guilty, frighten opponents, or satisfy hatred

Hmmm. Let’s further qualify my scenario. Let’s say that the “torture” involved is simply a few punches. That’s what I had in mind before, but I probably should have spelled it out a little further. Anyway, it seems to me that punching someone in order to discover the whereabouts of a child, would qualify as torture. However, I think that this would be licit.

 

[thistle]

In the past few months I have been thinking a bit about torture and how licit it may be. It seems to me that “torture” is a generally poorly-defined term, like “slavery”, and that there may be times when torture actually is licit. In a little bit I will give an example to demonstrate when torture is licit, but first I want to look at the Catechism. It says:
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.90

2298 In times past, cruel practices were commonly used by legitimate governments to maintain law and order, often without protest from the Pastors of the Church, who themselves adopted in their own tribunals the prescriptions of Roman law concerning torture. Regrettable as these facts are, the Church always taught the duty of clemency and mercy. She forbade clerics to shed blood. In recent times it has become evident that these cruel practices were neither necessary for public order, nor in conformity with the legitimate rights of the human person. On the contrary, these practices led to ones even more degrading. It is necessary to work for their abolition. We must pray for the victims and their tormentors.
The crucial point, in my mind, is the bit in bold. By specifying in which situations torture is illicit, the Catechism does not therefore forbid torture in all situations. And now I would like to illustrate a specific example in which I think torture is licit; possibly even necessary.

The situation involves a kidnapped child, who is in grave danger of being murdered. A policeman investigating the case discovers the brother of the person he knows for sure has kidnapped the child. The policeman also knows for sure - through his investigations - that the brother he has found knows the location of the missing child. Finally, the policeman knows for sure that the child will be dead in a few hours if he cannot find him, and there are no other avenues of investigation to follow. The brother steadfastly refuses to reveal the location of the missing child.

In this situation, I believe that it would be licit - possibly even necessary - for the policeman to use corporal punishment to extract the whereabouts of the missing child.

Thoughts?

You are wrong. Torture is not acceptable under any circimstances. The Church makes it very clear that doing an evil to achieve a good is a grave sin. The end NEVER justifys the means.

 

[Ron_Conte]

Torture can be said to be always immoral, if the definition is strict and narrow. However, torture more generally considered is a matter of degree, so that below a certain degree it would not be torture. Since the definition depends upon degree, it cannot be intrinsically evil.

Something similar can be said about slavery. There exist lesser forms of slavery such as indentured servitude which may have been necessary and useful in ancient times and which is not intrinsically evil. Slavery can be said to be always immoral, if the definition is restricted to its more severe forms. But in that case the definition would depend upon degree of severity, and so it cannot be intrinsically evil.

Also, both torture and slavery are used to describe a set of acts, circumstances, and intentions. Degree of severity, intention, and circumstance are in the first and third fonts of morality. But an act is intrinsically evil according to the second font. Also, sets of acts or an overall condition or situation would not generally be called intrinsically evil, unless it could be shown that every act essential to the set or situation were each intrinsically evil.

 

[Newbie2]

If you were placed in such a situation: where you faced giving someone a beating on the one hand, and a child dying on the other hand, would you not choose to give the guy a beating?

Ah, but in such a situation, there is no way for you to know for sure if the guy knows for sure, as in the hypothetical.

It seems to me that if you argue that torture is always morally illicit, then you must logically argue that all corporal punishment is always morally illicit. That would include giving a child a pat on the backside when they’re naughty.

Um…no. Torture is not applied in order to correct another’s behavior, as is corporal punishment. Whether or not spanking is appropriate or not is another discussion, but if spanking is used for correction, the analogy falls apart. If the spanking is used merely to inflict discomfort/pain on the child for no other reason, then it too is wrong.

I think we also have to be clear about defining torture for torture’s sake, against methods of interrogation that are uncomfortable for the interrogated, those methods that are on the fence and those methods that clearly cross the line.

 

[Neil_Anthony]

I think you are correct in your reading of the Catechism, that it doesn’t categorically rule out torture in every situation. There are situations which it doesn’t comment on. However, by not commenting, and only saying something negative about the other situations, I think the presumption should be that in general torture is something we should avoid using. There may be rare exceptions, but perhaps its better if we don’t define what is ‘good torture’ just because it would be a slippery slope.

 

[puzzleannie]

In the past few months I have been thinking a bit about torture and how licit it may be. It seems to me that “torture” is a generally poorly-defined term, like “slavery”, and that there may be times when torture actually is licit. ?

there are other times when the term is defined very precisely in clear and unmistakable terms–as in the recently vetoed bill outlawing specific forms of torture-- and yet still tolerated and even promoted, which is an evil that cries out to heaven for vengeance.

 

[RWMorris]

If the difference between staying on our feet and falling off our feet involves a difference in kind, then it is possible to stay on our feet.

Hmmm. Let’s further qualify my scenario. Let’s say that the “torture” involved is simply a few punches. That’s what I had in mind before, but I probably should have spelled it out a little further. Anyway, it seems to me that punching someone in order to discover the whereabouts of a child, would qualify as torture. However, I think that this would be licit.

The problem we are going to have discussing this is a definition. It is very difficult to define torture. What you described above, to me, is not torture. The threshold where serious interrogation becomes torture is different for different people and changes for each individual according to circumstances.

Punch me once and I’ll probably tell you where I hid the $10.00. But if I can maintain a grip on reality, I’ll hopefully be able to absorb enormous punishment and go to my grave before I tell a sadistic rapist where my 12 year old daughter is hiding.

Soldiers are many times trained how to endure serious interrogation efforts. But I’m sure every soldier has a different threshold of endurance. When does intense interrogation become torture? It’s probably akin to defining pornography. Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart once said, when trying to define yet another elusive concept of pornography, “I can’t define it, but I know when I see it.” Before we can determine whether torture is moral in certain circumstances, we first have to have a reliable definition.

… 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.

• United Nations Convention Against Torture

The above is a vague definition. What exactly is “pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in or incidental to lawful sanctions”? How does one define “severe”?

My own Catholic Church allows for certain despicable men to be executed by the state. You have to admit, sitting on death row for 10 to 15 years, with little hope, knowing how and when the end is coming, has to be a very torturous experience. But is it torture?

 

[Atreyu]

The problem we are going to have discussing this is a definition. It is very difficult to define torture. What you described above, to me, is not torture. The threshold where serious interrogation becomes torture is different for different people and changes for each individual according to circumstances.

Punch me once and I’ll probably tell you where I hid the $10.00. But if I can maintain a grip on reality, I’ll hopefully be able to absorb enormous punishment and go to my grave before I tell a sadistic rapist where my 12 year old daughter is hiding.

Soldiers are many times trained how to endure serious interrogation efforts. But I’m sure every soldier has a different threshold of endurance. When does intense interrogation become torture? It’s probably akin to defining pornography. Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart once said, when trying to define yet another elusive concept of pornography, “I can’t define it, but I know when I see it.” Before we can determine whether torture is moral in certain circumstances, we first have to have a reliable definition.

The above is a vague definition. What exactly is “pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in or incidental to lawful sanctions”? How does one define “severe”?

My own Catholic Church allows for certain despicable men to be executed by the state. You have to admit, sitting on death row for 10 to 15 years, with little hope, knowing how and when the end is coming, has to be a very torturous experience. But is it torture?

Great post. Thanks. And thanks to everyone else for their contributions, too.

 

[mlchance]

You are wrong. Torture is not acceptable under any circimstances. The Church makes it very clear that doing an evil to achieve a good is a grave sin. The end NEVER justifys the means.

Admittedly, but your post does nothing to clarify what is and what isn’t torture. Consider the recent hoopla over water-boarding. Many people believe the arguments were of a moral character, but, in fact, they were largely about legal definitions. The gov’t has defined torture as X. Some people think water-boarding fits X; others do not. Folks in the gov’t on opposite sides of this question were arguing a point of law, not one of moral theology.

So, of course, it is wrong to torture people. Now, exactly, what is and what isn’t torture?

– Mark L. Chance.

 

[RWMorris]

You are wrong. Torture is not acceptable under any circimstances. The Church makes it very clear that doing an evil to achieve a good is a grave sin. The end NEVER justifys the means.

Are you sure? If a terrorists is hiding the location of a ticking bomb, he has confessed, in fact he is boastful and proud of the carnage he is about to cause, are you sure it is immoral? Your goal is not to** “use physical or moral violence to extract a confession, punish the guilty, frighten opponents, or satisfy hatred”**, you simply want to save lives. The torture stops as soon as you have the information you need. Moses, with God’s guidance, truly tortured the Egyptians until they relented.

 

[Neil_Anthony]

Are you sure? If a terrorists is hiding the location of a ticking bomb, he has confessed, in fact he is boastful and proud of the carnage he is about to cause, are you sure it is immoral? Your goal is not to** “use physical or moral violence to extract a confession, punish the guilty, frighten opponents, or satisfy hatred”**, you simply want to save lives. The torture stops as soon as you have the information you need. Moses, with God’s guidance, truly tortured the Egyptians until they relented.

The thing about situations like this is… I have no doubt that people already get tortured by the police and the CIA over things like this. We don’t need a public debate over whether it’s acceptable. Valid reasons for torture are such a rare occurance, and there is so much torture going on all over the world anyway, that I don’t think there’s any point in clarifying that some cases might justify it. If there really are that many lives at stake and they have the terrorist in custody, the CIA agents are going to torture the guy regardless, and if prosecuted for it (highly unlikely), will be treated lightly by understanding judges and juries, and possibly even pardoned by a governor or the president. By having a public debate and legalizing it in ‘certain situations’ it could become very commonplace which would be a real horror, IMO.

 

[Ender]

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.

By specifying in which situations torture is illicit, the Catechism does not therefore forbid torture in all situations.

This is an interesting argument and no immediate rebuttal comes to mind. If there was no situation in which torture was allowed then there would be no reason to define those situations where it was immoral; the simple definition “Torture is contrary to respect for the person” would cover all situations.

There is also an noteworthy difference between this definition and the one used by the UN:

“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”.

The UN clearly prohibits torture in your hypothetical case. It’s just not clear that the Church does. Defining what constitutes torture is still an unresolved problem but that is not a moral question.

Ender

 

[Verisimilitude]

In the past few months I have been thinking a bit about torture and how licit it may be. … but first I want to look at the Catechism. It says:

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.90

I bolded the relevant portion that decides it for me.

The situation involves a kidnapped child, who is in grave danger of being murdered. A policeman investigating the case discovers the brother of the person he knows for sure

​

 

[Scottgun]

It’s actually quite simple, deliberately using violence and terror to break the will of a captive is wrong in and of itself, and no amount of ticking time-bombs, or kids-with-twelve-hours-to-live scenarios can make it right. No exceptions. As one of those right-wingers, it’s appalling that torture has a essentially become to us what the abortion is for the Left. In fact it tracks about the same. Before it was no abortions, no exceptions. Then people starting concocting scenarios like, “What about danger to the life of the mother?” That was enough to get the camel’s nose in the tent–and now there is abortion without any meaningful restriction. These "enhanced interrogation techniques are wrong, period. They dehumanize both victim and perpetrator.

One of my favorite articles is by a martial artist called What-if Monkeys in which people who don’t want to accept the message come up with scenarios tailored in such a way that the only choice is what the scenario maker wants to be true. The article notes that these scenarios have to gloss over a lot of reality to work. I blog it here: Torture, What-If Monkeys, and 27 Ninjas

 

[tomarin]

i think as christians we need to promote policies that respect the dignity of the human being and the value of human life. torture doesn’t do that. if there are borderline cases, we should err on the side of caution. ask yourself, how would you feel if this procedure were being applied to a captured american soldier or to a family member?

i’ve been reading about the treatment of spanish martyrs during the civil war there in 1936-39 and it is absolutely appalling what they had to go through. if we don’t want that to be done to “our side” then we shouldn’t want it done to anyone.

there’s enough darkness in the world already, let’s not dim the light that chrisitanity shines through it.

 

[Scottgun]

i think as christians we need to promote policies that respect the dignity of the human being and the value of human life. torture doesn’t do that. if there are borderline cases, we should err on the side of caution. ask yourself, how would you feel if this procedure were being applied to a captured american soldier or to a family member?

i’ve been reading about the treatment of spanish martyrs during the civil war there in 1936-39 and it is absolutely appalling what they had to go through. if we don’t want that to be done to “our side” then we shouldn’t want it done to anyone.

christianity should be a light in the darkness.

Good man. I would point out however that if you try to say, “how would you like it if it was your family member being tortured”, then they can just turn it around and say, “What if it was your family member being threatened by a terrorist and torture could save him?” I blog about this turkey as well: Waterboarding and 27-Ninjas Scenario Mambo #5–What if it was YOUR Family?