Waterboarding Terrorists- Justified to Save Lives?

  • Thread starter Thread starter CHESTERTONRULES
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Why would he be opposed to saving innocent lives?

Do you also think Jesus would be opposed to a war to liberate slaves or free Jews from the Nazis?
Hmm… the US prosecuted a couple of people for waterboarding during the war “to free Jews from the Nazis.” Seems like we thought torture was immoral during that war, and also thought that waterboarding was torture. Why was it a crime then but OK now?
 
What other solutions would you have proposed for ending the reign of the Nazis in Europe.
Do you realize that WWII caused the holocaust, not the other way around? Is it your intent to insist that triggering the Holocaust was the best course of action?
 
Do you realize that WWII caused the holocaust, not the other way around? Is it your intent to insist that triggering the Holocaust was the best course of action?
Nazis caused both WWII and the holocaust.

How would you have stopped the reign of the Nazis without military action?
 
Hmm… the US prosecuted a couple of people for waterboarding during the war “to free Jews from the Nazis.” Seems like we thought torture was immoral during that war, and also thought that waterboarding was torture. Why was it a crime then but OK now?
Waterboarding was a very minor torture method among those employed by the Japanese.

You are avoiding the issue.

Why is it better for innocent people to be killed than for the guilty to be waterboarded?
 
Waterboarding was a very minor torture method among those employed by the Japanese.

You are avoiding the issue.

Why is it better for innocent people to be killed than for the guilty to be waterboarded?
The end doesn’t justify the means
 
Of course it does in some cases.

Are you saying that it is better for innocent people to be killed than to waterboard a terrorist?
It’s a fundamental Christian teaching…no if, ands, or buts about it. Would you use that same argument against a person who murdered an abortionist for the sake of saving innocent babies?
 
It’s a fundamental Christian teaching…no if, ands, or buts about it. Would you use that same argument against a person who murdered an abortionist for the sake of saving innocent babies?
What is a fundamental Christian teaching? Be specific please.

Your argument would lead us to declare all war immoral. That’s not Christian teaching.
 
Treat others as you would expect to be treated.

Protect innocent life.
Here’s what the catechism says, from the OP:

CCC:
2265 Legitimate defense can be not only a right but a grave duty for one who is responsible for the lives of others. The defense of the common good requires that an unjust aggressor be rendered unable to cause harm. For this reason, those who legitimately hold authority also have the right to use arms to repel aggressors against the civil community entrusted to their responsibility.
 
The US did not define waterboarding as torture at the time.

The US does not torture.

Waterboarding is far preferable to innocent deaths.

This much is crystal clear.

It is easy to determine by this simple question: Would you waterboard someone you love to save their life?
 
Grace & Peace!
The US did not define waterboarding as torture at the time.

The US does not torture.

Waterboarding is far preferable to innocent deaths.

This much is crystal clear.

It is easy to determine by this simple question: Would you waterboard someone you love to save their life?
Chesterton, the question, really, is this: is it possible for an evil means to produce a good end? The answer? No, it is not possible.

The catechism section you quoted originally speaks to whether or not self-defense against an aggressor is licit. I would find it hard to conclude that a bound prisoner in an interrogation room is an aggressor. I think you can only identify such a person as an aggressor if you identify him or her as a representative sign or instance in time and space of the aggressive forces which he or she may represent. This effaces his or her individual human identity in the process, however, consequently making it easier for us to justify harming him or her. It is a pretty standard psychological trick we often pull on ourselves–in order to give ourselves permission to be cruel, we must first dehumanize the person on whom we would like to inflict our cruelty. It also is helpful to have a sense of an over-riding value to which our cruelty is disposed in order to lend our cruelty a sense of legitimacy. This does not, however, actually legitimate the cruelty. It just makes us feel better about being cruel.

If you wish to say that waterboarding is far preferable to innocent deaths, you must also be willing to recognize that you are consciously comparing evils. Which is to say, you must be willing to recognize waterboarding as an evil. Which is to say that you must realize that you are advancing the position that an evil means can produce a good end. Again, such a thing is impossible, and it is not morally permissible to employ an evil in order to produce a good.

Regarding waterboarding not being defined as torture at the time of its use, you must realize that slapping a definition on something does not necessarily change it’s fundamental nature. The government has defined ketchup as a vegetable serving for the purposes of school lunches. The definition does not make it so, however. The nature of waterboarding determines whether or not it is torture, not the government.

Your problem here seems to be a struggle to reconcile late-capitalist-early-21st-century-realpolitik with the teachings of Christ. You should probably give up–they cannot be reconciled. You may have already noticed, but Jesus Christ was not the 1st century’s Henry Kissinger. The bottom line: the Kingdom of God is not of this world. Governments will find all sorts of justifications for violence, cruelty, inhumanity. That does not make them just. We live in a fallen world. Cruelty is inherent in the nature of politics. That’s just the way it is. But that does not justify the cruelty, even if we benefit from it, either directly or indirectly. Moreover, love of country should not lead us to try to justify the cruelty when we become aware of it. That’s another psychological game we play when we’re the victims of abuse from those we love and those who claim to love us. It’s often called “Keeping Mommy Good.” The basic rule: mommy is good and loves us and does good things; when mommy does bad things, they’re actually good things because mommy loves us, is good and does good things. In a national context, such an attitude is a bold first step into the territory of nationalism, leaving patriotism far behind.

Again, it is not morally justifiable to use an evil means to pursue a good end. If you wish to support the practice of waterboarding, the honest position would be to just say, “I disagree with Christian moral teaching when it says it is immoral to pursue a good by an evil means. I believe a nation should be allowed to use whatever means necessary to pursue it’s ends.” Anything else is just a different degree of equivocating, of dishonest justification. The principle stated differently is: let your yes be yes, and your no be no.

Under the Mercy,
Mark

All is Grace and Mercy! Deo Gratias!
 
I can’t imagine many sceneries were waterboarding a loved one would save his life.

Torture is a tool for evil people to accomplish their goals.
That is a slanderous statement that ignores reality.

I’m glad you are not responsible for protecting innocent lives.
 
Grace & Peace!

Chesterton, the question, really, is this: is it possible for an evil means to produce a good end? The answer? No, it is not possible.
That is not the question.

The question: Is waterboarding evil if it is used to save human life?

We can determine the answer with this question:

Would you waterboard someone you love to save their life?

Of course the answer is yes. Why wouldn’t you waterboard someone who wants to kill someone you love in order to save their life?
 
That is not the question.

The question: Is waterboarding evil if it is used to save human life?

We can determine the answer with this question:

Would you waterboard someone you love to save their life?

Of course the answer is yes. Why wouldn’t you waterboard someone who wants to kill someone you love in order to save their life?
The ends never justify the means. The Catechism is against torture and probably against waterboarding, if waterboarding is not already considered torture.
 
I say yes.

I would be waterboarded to save a life. Would you?

Some considerations:

CCC:
2265 Legitimate defense can be not only a right but a grave duty for one who is responsible for the lives of others. **The defense of the common good requires **that an unjust aggressor be rendered unable to cause harm. For this reason, those who legitimately hold authority also have the right to use arms to repel aggressors against the civil community entrusted to their responsibility.

Lives have been saved:

The CIA is now confirming it’s claims made in a May 30, 2005 Justice Department memo that the use of ‘enhanced techniques’ of interrogation on al Qaeda leaders Khalid Sheik Mohammed (KSM) and Abu Zubaydah, which included the use of waterboarding, caused them to reveal actionable intelligence that allowed the U.S. government to stop a planned attack on Los Angeles. You can read that CIA waterboarding memo here.
rightpundits.com/?p=3790

What do you think?
I say no, just two paragraphs later the Catechism condemns torture:
**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.
 
That is not the question.

The question: Is waterboarding evil if it is used to save human life?

We can determine the answer with this question:

Would you waterboard someone you love to save their life?

Of course the answer is yes. Why wouldn’t you waterboard someone who wants to kill someone you love in order to save their life?
Straw man argument. Same question as “would you subject your child to painful surgery to save their life?”

You continue to reject Catholic moral theological teaching. I don’t think that you don’t “get it”. 🤷
 
Grace & Peace!
The question: Is waterboarding evil if it is used to save human life?
Let’s suppose that is the question (it isn’t, exactly–though granted it is a specific instance of the larger question “is it permissible to use an evil means to accomplish a good end”). Let’s look at an analogous question to help us with the answer: Is embryonic stem cell research evil if it is used to save human life? According to Catholic teaching, the answer is: yes. We can safely say that the answer to the waterboarding question is similarly: yes, it remains evil. If it is not, then we have confidently entered the terrain of moral relativism.

I’ll repeat the last para of my previous post: Again, it is not morally justifiable to use an evil means to pursue a good end. If you wish to support the practice of waterboarding, the honest position would be to just say, “I disagree with Christian moral teaching when it says it is immoral to pursue a good by an evil means. I believe a nation should be allowed to use whatever means necessary to pursue it’s ends.” Anything else is just a different degree of equivocating, of dishonest justification. The principle stated differently is: let your yes be yes, and your no be no.

Under the Mercy,
Mark

All is Grace and Mercy! Deo Gratias!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top