When Morals and Surviving Clash (Torture, War, Terrorism, etc.)

[Dranu]

The problem is the Church has not defined what exactly constitutes Torture

This is where the main area for discussion is I think. I am quite interested to know the definition.

-Here let me give you a scenario- On a hot day a 14 year kid steals a car which happens to have a 18 month old in side. He discovers this and abandons the car with the toddler inside it. The police catch him, take him to the station, and want to know where the toddler is and the kid demands a lawyer and shuts his mouth. Well it is an emergency so the police strap him to a chair, and waterboard him until he tells them where the car is. Not torture right? Just an enhanced interrogation technique right? I mean what’s a little fake drowning when we are talking about saving an innocent life.

Putting aside the legal issues, in trying to figure out a definition of torture there is something of interest that distinguishes this and dealing with most modern terrorists:
1.) It is very likely that your stereotypical Muslim terrorist feels morally obligated to withhold information the ‘interrogator’ is trying to obtain by water boarding, on extreme pain of their conscience.
2.) It is very unlikely that the 14 year old kid feels morally obligated to withhold information from the ‘interrogator’.

Is it possible that ‘torture’ (the thing that is wrong) is the compulsion by agony to try and force one to act contrary to personal conscience? Maybe instead it is** the compulsion by agony to try and force one to act contrary to right conscience **? I tend to be okay with the idea of interrogating with pain a sadistic kidnapper to find out where he left a victim, for the very reason that you are not compelling him to act against his conscience and I see nothing wrong with the mere infliction of extreme pain. Likewise, the infliction of severe pain on certain guilty criminals for a purely punitive purpose does not seem immoral (Christ even seems to allude to this in the parable of the unforgiving servant with a debt).

At any rate, whatever the definition may be, it would be absurd to think the definition of torture is* the infliction of extreme pain*. If that were the case, many things that are obviously moral would be intrinsically wrong (e.g. certain medical procedures, just war, self-defense, going to law school etc.)

 

[Path_Finder]

-Father’s addendum states that torture is always immoral. No amount of reason or erroneous comparisons to the just taking of a life is going to change this.

But the Father whom you quote also stated in these same articles that torture is still undefined and it is not clear certain practices are torture. Why is this ignored by those who use one part of the articles but not the other.

-The Church hasn’t defined a lot of stuff, it shouldn’t have to given our divine gift of reason. Strapping a guy to a chair and fake drowning him for info- yeah reason should let you know that that is torture.

But the Father whom you quote also said the defintion is not clear. We can’t just choose what we agree with.

-Here let me give you a scenario- On a hot day a 14 year kid steals a car which happens to have a 18 month old in side. He discovers this and abandons the car with the toddler inside it. The police catch him, take him to the station, and want to know where the toddler is and the kid demands a lawyer and shuts his mouth. Well it is an emergency so the police strap him to a chair, and waterboard him until he tells them where the car is. Not torture right? Just an enhanced interrogation technique right? I mean what’s a little fake drowning when we are talking about saving an innocent life.

I’m seeing there may be a difference between what is

• Human and
• Inhumane

 

[Path_Finder]

This is where the main area for discussion is I think. I am quite interested to know the definition.

Putting aside the legal issues, in trying to figure out a definition of torture there is something of interest that distinguishes this and dealing with most modern terrorists:
1.) It is very likely that your stereotypical Muslim terrorist feels morally obligated to withhold information the ‘interrogator’ is trying to obtain by water boarding, on extreme pain of their conscience.
2.) It is very unlikely that the 14 year old kid feels morally obligated to withhold information from the ‘interrogator’.

Is it possible that ‘torture’ (the thing that is wrong) is the compulsion by agony to try and force one to act contrary to personal conscience? Maybe instead it is** the compulsion by agony to try and force one to act contrary to right** conscience ? I tend to be okay with the idea of interrogating with pain a sadistic kidnapper to find out where he left a victim, for the very reason that you are not compelling him to act against his conscience and I see nothing wrong with the mere infliction of extreme pain. Likewise, the infliction of severe pain on certain guilty criminals for a purely punitive purpose does not seem immoral (Christ even seems to allude to this in the parable of the unforgiving servant with a debt).

At any rate, whatever the definition may be, it would be absurd to think the definition of torture is* the infliction of extreme pain*. If that were the case, many things that are obviously moral would be intrinsically wrong (e.g. certain medical procedures, just war, self-defense, going to law school etc.)

There could be a difference in what is:

• Humane Treatment and
• Inhumane Treatment

I know I’m repeating myself but some techniques seem to be inhumane, say, loud music and bright lights to prevent someone for sleeping for, oh, let’s say 24 hours, sleep deprivation, versus say doing the same for 5 straight days, 120 hours.

Doing so for 24 hours may well not be tortured.

Again, some of these individuals who these techniques have been administered too have committed heinous acts.

 

[GEddie]

I would not be surprised if Church teaching still has a ways to go on this.

After all, the Church says that execution is not morally wrong, in part because societies have inflicted it throughout history.

But they have also used torture throughout history.

Certainly temporary damage to someone’s embodiment is less objectionable than ending that embodiment!

And in a situation where the civil society no longer had the means to imprison people long-term, would the use of torture then become defensible as an alternative to executing all offenders? Remember, before modernism took hold, torture was acceptable by all societies. Even the framers of the U.S. Constutution envisioned that someone’s "life or limb" might be taken from them as punishment.

ICXC NIKA

 

[Dranu]

But they have also used torture throughout history.

I suppose that would depend on the definition of torture, which as far as I can tell has remained rather vague.

 

[GEddie]

I suppose that would depend on the definition of torture, which as far as I can tell has remained rather vague.

It is only vague now because it has come to encompass too much.

Torture, historically, has the same word root as “tortuous” or “distortion.” It was a procedure that literally deformed the body, either as punishment, or for interrogation.

Most of what was done then is thankfully, fully off the table. We no longer smash knees, crush heads or dislocate limbs for legal purposes.

The things at issue now-- psychological issues, temporary physical distress, or “humiliation” – would not even have been thought of as torture prior to the mid 1900s.

ICXC NIKA.

 

[oldcatholicguy]

But the Father whom you quote also stated in these same articles that torture is still undefined and it is not clear certain practices are torture. Why is this ignored by those who use one part of the articles but not the other.

But the Father whom you quote also said the defintion is not clear. We can’t just choose what we agree with.

I’m seeing there may be a difference between what is

• Human and
• Inhumane

Because while there may not be a definite definition, the lack of a definite definition does not equate to “well as long as we make it sound like it’s not torture it’s ok.” Between the application of reason and a comparison to what has been declared “yeah that’s torture,” and the general trends in the discussion of the matter among theologians in what is torture and what is a good “working” definition we should be able to figure out what is or is not torture. One shouldn’t need a definite definition to know that strapping a man down and simulating drowning him for information or locking him in a cage with non-stop blaring music in order to break him are torture.

 

[oldcatholicguy]

In such an egregious situation, they wouldn’t waste time with waterboarding.

It, however, the kid got knocked around during questioning, I doubt anybody would object very hard.

ICXC NIKA.

-No one objecting very hard doesn’t equate to it not being torture or to it being immoral
-You also avoided answering my question concerning waterboarding

 

[oldcatholicguy]

This is where the main area for discussion is I think. I am quite interested to know the definition.

Putting aside the legal issues, in trying to figure out a definition of torture there is something of interest that distinguishes this and dealing with most modern terrorists:
1.) It is very likely that your stereotypical Muslim terrorist feels morally obligated to withhold information the ‘interrogator’ is trying to obtain by water boarding, on extreme pain of their conscience.
2.) It is very unlikely that the 14 year old kid feels morally obligated to withhold information from the ‘interrogator’.

Is it possible that ‘torture’ (the thing that is wrong) is the compulsion by agony to try and force one to act contrary to personal conscience? Maybe instead it is** the compulsion by agony to try and force one to act contrary to right** conscience ? I tend to be okay with the idea of interrogating with pain a sadistic kidnapper to find out where he left a victim, for the very reason that you are not compelling him to act against his conscience and I see nothing wrong with the mere infliction of extreme pain. Likewise, the infliction of severe pain on certain guilty criminals for a purely punitive purpose does not seem immoral (Christ even seems to allude to this in the parable of the unforgiving servant with a debt).

At any rate, whatever the definition may be, it would be absurd to think the definition of torture is* the infliction of extreme pain*. If that were the case, many things that are obviously moral would be intrinsically wrong (e.g. certain medical procedures, just war, self-defense, going to law school etc.)

Defining torture just by the pain or damage it inflicts is erroneous because it ignores intent. The difference between self-defense and murder and certain medical procedures and torture is intent.

 

[oldcatholicguy]

I would not be surprised if Church teaching still has a ways to go on this.

After all, the Church says that execution is not morally wrong, in part because societies have inflicted it throughout history.

But they have also used torture throughout history.

Certainly temporary damage to someone’s embodiment is less objectionable than ending that embodiment!

And in a situation where the civil society no longer had the means to imprison people long-term, would the use of torture then become defensible as an alternative to executing all offenders? Remember, before modernism took hold, torture was acceptable by all societies. Even the framers of the U.S. Constutution envisioned that someone’s "life or limb" might be taken from them as punishment.

ICXC NIKA

The morality or immorality of capital punishment is not based on historical precedence of usage.

 

[Dranu]

Defining torture just by the pain or damage it inflicts is erroneous because it ignores intent.

Agreed, defining torture just by inflicting pain is foolish (but often done) for the reasons stated. Inflicting pain, even as a deliberate means, can be morally legitimate in certain cases.

The difference between …certain medical procedures and torture is intent.

And what is that intent in torture?

 

[DanielJT]

Here is what I found in the Catholic Catechism Under the Fifth Commandment: Respect for Dignity of Human Persons:

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

-End quote-

So, the way I see it, when you are treating another human being in a way which attempts to rob them of their inherent dignity due to them, this is a sin. The human being should not be treated like an object that is only there to supply information (in the case of an interrogation). This would be likened to slamming your printer because it keeps jamming. When you treat the human like they are worthless except for the information they may provide, you are crossing a line. When every act you take towards that human being is focused on the human’s suffering for the single reason of eliciting information you are treating the human being as an object, robbing them of their dignity.

All this talk about the definition of torture is a slippery slope. “This is torture, but this is not.” “If you don’t touch them, or if you just leave them to stand there for days and days, you aren’t even touching them - must not be torture.”

When you fail to treat the prisoner as a human, you fail to be on the right side of moral.

 

[Path_Finder]

Here is what I found in the Catholic Catechism Under the Fifth Commandment: Respect for Dignity of Human Persons:

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

-End quote-

So, the way I see it, when you are treating another human being in a way which attempts to rob them of their inherent dignity due to them, this is a sin. The human being should not be treated like an object that is only there to supply information (in the case of an interrogation). This would be likened to slamming your printer because it keeps jamming. When you treat the human like they are worthless except for the information they may provide, you are crossing a line. When every act you take towards that human being is focused on the human’s suffering for the single reason of eliciting information you are treating the human being as an object, robbing them of their dignity.

All this talk about the definition of torture is a slippery slope. “This is torture, but this is not.” “If you don’t touch them, or if you just leave them to stand there for days and days, you aren’t even touching them - must not be torture.”

When you fail to treat the prisoner as a human, you fail to be on the right side of moral.

First off, if I deprive someone of sleep for 180 hours, I think that is torture but I do think the line is a bit blended if I do this to someone for 24 hours. After all, many of us have probably lived in apartments where we have put up with loud music. I mean I’m not saying it is the same, but for 24 hours? I’m not sure I’d call that torture.

Also, as long as we are here, what about the ticking time bomb scenario?

Israel’s court ruled on this:

A “ticking bomb” means that a suspect knows where a bomb has been planted that is set to explode. In those cases, torture can be used to discover the place of the bomb.

ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4602431,00.html

How can we avoid this? Do we say, we didn’t waterboard the suspect, that is immoral and then 30 people are blown up? Is that moral?

I tend to lean towards waterboarding being torture but all the same, with the blurred line, I’m not positive it should be ruled out.

Now, what does that mean? SERE/the Military waterboards some of their own in training. Does that mean then, they are torturing their own??

 

[DanielJT]

First off, if I deprive someone of sleep for 180 hours, I think that is torture but I do think the line is a bit blended if I do this to someone for 24 hours. After all, many of us have probably lived in apartments where we have put up with loud music. I mean I’m not saying it is the same, but for 24 hours? I’m not sure I’d call that torture.

Also, as long as we are here, what about the ticking time bomb scenario?

Israel’s court ruled on this:

How can we avoid this? Do we say, we didn’t waterboard the suspect, that is immoral and then 30 people are blown up? Is that moral?

I tend to lean towards waterboarding being torture but all the same, with the blurred line, I’m not positive it should be ruled out.

Now, what does that mean? SERE/the Military waterboards some of their own in training. Does that mean then, they are torturing their own??

Are the military trainees being waterboarded willfully? Or is this some sort of hazing/training which they no longer have the ability to walk away from? This is an important distinction because a prisoner does not have the ability to walk away.

If someone plants a bomb and you are unable to diffuse it for whatever reason, you are not held morally culpable for the damage that bomb inflicts. What you are preaching is that the ends justify the means.

Also, I’m not sure what authority the court of Israel has on moral law. The Catholic Church has its authority in Jesus.

We need to keep things in perspective here. What is more important, our everlasting souls or our limited lives? Terrorist attacks that result in the deaths of innocents are tragedies! Absolutely! But we must find comfort in the fact those everlasting souls are in their rightful places now. This is not easy, but it is necessary in the preservation of our own everlasting souls so that we are not tempted to justify our own acts, like you say in the “ticking time bomb” scenario.

 

[Path_Finder]

Are the military trainees being waterboarded willfully? Or is this some sort of hazing/training which they no longer have the ability to walk away from? This is an important distinction because a prisoner does not have the ability to walk away.

If someone plants a bomb and you are unable to diffuse it for whatever reason, you are not held morally culpable for the damage that bomb inflicts. What you are preaching is that the ends justify the means.

Also, I’m not sure what authority the court of Israel has on moral law. The Catholic Church has its authority in Jesus.

We need to keep things in perspective here. What is more important, our everlasting souls or our limited lives? Terrorist attacks that result in the deaths of innocents are tragedies! Absolutely! But we must find comfort in the fact those everlasting souls are in their rightful places now. This is not easy, but it is necessary in the preservation of our own everlasting souls so that we are not tempted to justify our own acts, like you say in the “ticking time bomb” scenario.

As to your last paragraph, all the same, we do have some rights to self-defense and as a nation too. This is covered some with Cathechism quotes here: catholiclane.com/the-catechism-on-the-right-of-self-defense/

humanevents.com/2007/11/05/waterboarding-a-sereing-experience-for-tens-of-thousands-of-us-military-personnel/
**
Waterboarding: A SERE-ing Experience for Tens of Thousands of US Military Personnel**

“Train like you Fight, Fight like you Train” is the motto of the world’s most elite pilots, the US Navy’s. Based on lessons learned from survivors of the brutal North Korean and North Vietnam torture of US military prisoners of war, the Department of Defense ordered all branches of the services to implement comprehensive Survival, Evasion, Resistance and Escape (S.E.R.E.) training programs.

…

S.E.R.E. training is not pleasant, but it is critical to properly prepare our most endangered combat forces for the reality of enemy capture. **Was I “tortured” by the US military? No. Was I trained in an effort to protect my life and the lives of other American fighting men? Yes! **Freedom is not Free, nor does it come without sacrifice. Every good American understands this basic principle of our country and prays for the young men and women who have sacrificed and are out on the front lines protecting us today.

There is a thin line with this waterboarding as torture. We have some rights to self-defense, I can’t help but think, even if one is talking about “ends justifying the means”, to just allow a bunch of people being blown up without making some sort of effort to find out where the ticking bomb is does not sound moral and doing that without resorting to torture.

And this really gets us back to the use of nuclear weapons covered in previous posts, we didn’t have to drop those bombs on Japan. I guess that was sinful but it ended the war and probably saved a lot of Americans from an invasion.

 

[Latias]

Certainly temporary damage to someone’s embodiment is less objectionable than ending that embodiment!

Certainly? What an interest adverb! Makes one really wonder why someone like Francis Gary Powers had a means to commit suicide or why some terminal cancer patients want to be euthanized. If death is inevitable, have a means of avoiding suffering by terminating one’s life is often regarded as valuable.

I would not be surprised if Church teaching still has a ways to go on this.

After all, the Church says that execution is not morally wrong, in part because societies have inflicted it throughout history.

But they have also used torture throughout history.
…
And in a situation where the civil society no longer had the means to imprison people long-term, would the use of torture then become defensible as an alternative to executing all offenders? Remember, before modernism took hold, torture was acceptable by all societies. Even the framers of the U.S. Constutution envisioned that someone’s "life or limb" might be taken from them as punishment.

I am a person that is highly influenced by Enlightenment philosophy, particularly empiricism and utilitarianism, and even as a Catholic convert, I retain much of my sympathies towards those philosophies. I regard utilitarianism as a modern philosophy, and, naturally, given its immense concern on reducing pain and suffering in the human condition, it would find torture abhorrent and prefer other methods of discipline and correction. As a “modern” philosophy, it deems certain actions as more favorable than the alternatives based on the expected consequences of a given course of action relative to the alternatives by considering the impact of those actions on all morally significant entities, not on self-interest or cultural or hierarchical norms. However, utilitarianism does not necessarily prohibit torture in all circumstances, but it can permit if it would be expected to yield a profound, expected benefit (for instance, by preventing a greater amount of suffering). (Of course, this supposes that one can qualitatively and dispassionately assess the benefits and adverse effects of torture).

I do not know why you responded. Perhaps, you wanted to point out “whiggish” historical trends that led to the almost universal condemnation of torture, but it does provide an opening for someone to critique the edifice of religious morality by pointing out that it does not exist independently of society and culture.

You should know that many arguments used to criticize theistic morality use tu quoque by contending that religious morality often reflects ethical standards of contemporaneous culture and popular intellectual trends. In other words, morality is not an immutably transcend standard or something that reflects “natural law” that can be intuitively perceived by most humans. A few prominent moral issues throughout the centuries concern slavery and the treatment of indigenous people, and even opposition to abortion (an appended polysyndecton is needed to emphasize a contemporary issue that almost defines what one considers “religious morality” and is often adhered to with sanctimonious and self-righteous fervor). For example, most conservative evangelicals, not necessarily Catholics, did not always from abortion and contraception morally proscribed.

It seems perplexing that the Church cannot arrive at a position that firmly opposes torture, but many secular systems of morality reached stances that almost universally condemn it.

 

[oldcatholicguy]

As to your last paragraph, all the same, we do have some rights to self-defense and as a nation too. This is covered some with Cathechism quotes here: catholiclane.com/the-catechism-on-the-right-of-self-defense/

There is a thin line with this waterboarding as torture. We have some rights to self-defense, I can’t help but think, even if one is talking about “ends justifying the means”, to just allow a bunch of people being blown up without making some sort of effort to find out where the ticking bomb is does not sound moral and doing that without resorting to torture.

And this really gets us back to the use of nuclear weapons covered in previous posts, we didn’t have to drop those bombs on Japan. I guess that was sinful but it ended the war and probably saved a lot of Americans from an invasion.

Self-defense encompasses only moral or morally neutral acts. In order to cite self-defense in a discussion on torture, one must first hold that torture is moral or morally neutral.

 

[Path_Finder]

Jesus allows us some self-defense.

catholiclane.com/the-catechism-on-the-right-of-self-defense/

This is not just being Utilitarian, this is the Catechism.

 

[oldcatholicguy]

Jesus allows us some self-defense.

catholiclane.com/the-catechism-on-the-right-of-self-defense/

This is not just being Utilitarian, this is the Catechism.

Torturing someone doesn’t actually fall under what is allowable for self-defense; it doesn’t fall under what is deemed moral behavior.

 

[sallybutler]

Glad to know that situational ethics is alive and well. Not.