Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Torture

Rate this topic


Peripeteia

Recommended Posts

There's no mention of Sam Harris on that page.

Not Sam Harris, but the content of his position. His position is not one I have not heard before and it has been dealt with, sufficiently, in the blog post. My position is that it should always be illegal, and that perpetrators of the act of torture must always be dealt with through the full brunt of the law or exonerated ex-post-facto, not that it should never, ever, regardless of the situation, however unlikely (the ticking time bomb scenario is extremely unlikely for a multitude of reasons) should not be used. That is not the stance I have taken or elaborated on within the essay.

I am also curious what particular experience or knowledge Mr. Harris contains that has been deprived by the many sources in my essay, given that he is an author and doctor that writes a lot about religion. I have interrogation manuals from several decades ago that seem to support my overall argument. Krauthammer is the front and center proponent of the pro-torture group that Sam Harris fits into the spectrum of. I address Krauthammer as my main opponent through the latter part of the essay. Pretty much anyone that has a half-way decent argument for the use of torture, whose position must be considered first instead of just shrugging off, uses Krauthammer's arguments in some form or another. So if you want to find that stuff easy, just search for Krauthammer.

Edited by CapitalistSwine
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I hope you don't mind but I feel that this is along similar lines as far as my response to Sam Harris' argument:

http://www.chowk.com/articles/10264

I felt this would be better than me writing up what would likely be a lengthy post.

If there is a specific aspect of the subject of torture you would like to focus on discussing please make me aware of it.

Edited by CapitalistSwine
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I hope you don't mind but I feel that this is along similar lines as far as my response to Sam Harris' argument:

http://www.chowk.com/articles/10264

I felt that this article's response was very weak. Specifically, it seems to take for granted that there are absolute and universal moral principles which disavow torture, and which people like Harris advocate "dropping" when it is inconvenient. This quote is most relevant:

The ticking bomb scenario that has been presented as somewhat of a conclusive argument only shows that Harris thinks that principles only need to be stood by when its convenient to stand by them. Things like civilization, democracy, liberty that Harris and others like him are advocating to save by sacrificing moral principles are, arguably, the products of those very principles.

This type of thinking is fairly typical of much mainstream moral philosophy, where people expend enormous amounts of effort searching for principles that are "universally applicable" or some such thing; basically, principles that must be applied regardless of context. Thus, anyone who advocates "breaking" one of these principles in any situation whatsoever is being pragmatic and unprincipled. This is the same argument which many people levy against Ayn Rand when she says that, on the one hand, initiation of force is evil, and on the other hand we are permitted to violate private property rights during an emergency.

However, this view is simply false. Principles are only valid as long as they are useful, and not a moment longer. Anyone who stands by a principle even when it is impractical, all things considered, is being foolish. Proper principles are practical. If a principle has been formed properly, it is valid absolutely within the context in which it was formed. Due to the nature of that context, the principle will always be useful there. Abandoning a principle within that context is a moral failing, but refusing to apply that principle outside of that context is the right thing to do.

People like the author of that article fail to understand the contextual nature of moral principles. Instead of asking, "Is there something special about the context of a war that affects the application of our moral principles concerning torture?" he starts from the fact (apparent to him) that western moral principles disavow torture, and then accuses anyone who advocates breaking them in any situation of being pragmatic, because he (seems to) believe that principles are contextless.

He illustrates this well in the paragraph that follows with this:

If we agree to what Harris is proposing, what would he be advocating next? He might be saying next that all Muslims living in USA should wear a visibly identifiable sign, maybe a green crescent, on their dresses because, let’s admit it, if we can agree to the prospect of collateral damage, we should care least about such things because wearing a sign doesn’t kill innocent human beings.

All the good arguments I have heard for torture rely on the presence of some immediate emergency situation, but the author of this article doesn't seem to pick up on that context. I dunno, maybe Harris' argument really does suffer from this flaw in that Harris doesn't base his argument on the context, but either way this line of thinking by the author doesn't address a properly formed argument for torture.

It seems to me that a proper moral argument against torture even in the dire situations of war must rely on its unreliability and its negative effects on the overall war effort (it gives the enemy more emotional fuel and actually puts our soldiers in more danger than it protects them from). A good argument which takes into account the very real context of war and still concludes that torture is impractical (and therefore immoral) would bring me to the anti-torture side (as it is, I am undecided).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It seems to me that a proper moral argument against torture even in the dire situations of war must rely on its unreliability and its negative effects on the overall war effort (it gives the enemy more emotional fuel and actually puts our soldiers in more danger than it protects them from). A good argument which takes into account the very real context of war and still concludes that torture is impractical (and therefore immoral) would bring me to the anti-torture side (as it is, I am undecided).

Along these lines, I thought these few paragraphs from CS' blog post are particularly relevant; if true, they undercut pretty much the whole case for torture in the context of the current war effort:

In fact, the use of torture and coercive interrogation by U.S. forces in this war may have contributed to a profound worsening of our actionable intelligence. The key to intelligence in Iraq, and indeed, in Muslim enclaves in the West, is gaining the support and trust of those who give terrorists cover but who are not terrorists themselves. We need human intelligence from Muslims and Arabs prepared to spy on and inform on their neighbors and friends and even family and tribe members. The only way they will do that is if they perceive the gains of America's intervention as greater than the costs, if they see clearly that cooperating with the West will lead to a better life and a freer world rather than more of the same. The latter being something we have achieved quite effectively.

What our practical endorsement of torture has done is to remove that clear boundary between the Islamists and the West and make the two equivalent in the Muslim mind. Saddam Hussein used Abu Ghraib to torture innocents; so did the Americans. Yes, what Saddam did was exponentially worse. But, in doing what we did, we blurred the critical, bright line between the Arab past and what we are proposing as the Arab future. We gave Al Qaeda an enormous propaganda coup, as we have done with Guantanamo and Bagram, the "Salt Pit" torture chambers in Afghanistan, and the secret torture sites in Eastern Europe.

I thought these and the section following these were very good.

Edited by Dante
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I hope you don't mind but I feel that this is along similar lines as far as my response to Sam Harris' argument:

http://www.chowk.com/articles/10264

I felt this would be better than me writing up what would likely be a lengthy post.

If there is a specific aspect of the subject of torture you would like to focus on discussing please make me aware of it.

I'm only interested in a reason why torture of a proven terrorist, to obtain life saving information, would be immoral. I haven't heard any such reasons, all I heard were opinions that torture is ineffective, and that it will be inevitably misused. I don't consider your opinion on that valid (or anyone else's, who is seeking to make that decision from their living room, in the place of actual specialists who could make a better qualified and informed decision on a case by case basis, themselves), and I don't consider endless talk of abuses, starting with the Inquisition all the way to Abu Ghraib, relevant in any way.

Your latest link also doesn't address the moral argument made by Harris (that the rational choice is the torture of a terrorist over the death and injury of innocents or the less guilty). Your claim in the essay, that torture is somehow innately wrong because it "breaks" people also doesn't hold up. Damn right I'm willing to break someone who's trying to kill me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How much of my essay did you read? It sounds like you have only read half of it. Please correct me if I am wrong.m I think I have made the case sufficiently for the proper system for national security with respect to torture and tortures place in it within the entire spectrum of potential events. None of my main points have really been mentioned in this thread so this is why I was wanting some more clarification.

Edited by CapitalistSwine
Link to comment
Share on other sites

How much of my essay did you read? It sounds like you have only read half of it. Please correct me if I am wrong.m I think I have made the case sufficiently for the proper system for national security with respect to torture and tortures place in it within the entire spectrum of potential events. None of my main points have really been mentioned in this thread so this is why I was wanting some more clarification.

So from that you assumed I didn't read your blog? An alternate explanation is that I didn't consider what you regard as your main points worth addressing. For instance your claim that national security cannot be advanced by torture is not an argument, it's bald assertion. Your "proof" of the bald assertions is youtube videos and links of other people making the same bald assertions.

Your blog is full of those, and other fallacious arguments (like the ridiculous claim that sanctioning the torture of enemies makes a country totalitarian). I'm getting tired of addressing them, especially when they're on somebody's 6000 word blog post that starts out with the disclaimer: Important Note: There is a large repository of both news links and quite a few embedded videos that I have provided at the very bottom of this blog post. Don't miss it!.

I read most of the link (I skipped the irrelevant parts about Abu Ghraib), and I have not seen anything in it to back up your claims. I also skipped the links in the link to your blog, and the links to the video interviews in the link to your blog. So if you have anything in those (or any place else on the Internet) to address Sam Harris's argument, now's the time to stop linking to links, and start presenting arguments on this forum.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Maybe I am missing something, but the issue seems (to me) to be not one of whether torture is morally applicable under certain circumstances, but what those circumstances might be.

Can anyone imagine themselves committing torture without guilt thenceforth?

I can: if a thug had abducted my lover; and I managed to capture the thug; and that person refused to divulge the whereabouts of my lover; and no effective authority was available to appeal to for assistance; then I would absolutely and without guilt to anything and everything to obtain the necessary information, up to and including torturing the perpetrator to death.

Now, that may be a moral greyness in me, but I don't think it is. I think that torture is justifiable if and only if the context warrants it -- i.e., there is immediate and present danger to one's overarching values, such as loved ones, enough danger that the cost of legal consequences is less than the cost of losing the value at stake.

It is contextual, and the context is limited, but if it can be justified (not rationalized), then it is potentially proper.

- ico

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So from that you assumed I didn't read your blog? An alternate explanation is that I didn't consider what you regard as your main points worth addressing. For instance your claim that national security cannot be advanced by torture is not an argument, it's bald assertion. Your "proof" of the bald assertions is youtube videos and links of other people making the same bald assertions.

Your blog is full of those, and other fallacious arguments (like the ridiculous claim that sanctioning the torture of enemies makes a country totalitarian). I'm getting tired of addressing them, especially when they're on somebody's 6000 word blog post that starts out with the disclaimer: Important Note: There is a large repository of both news links and quite a few embedded videos that I have provided at the very bottom of this blog post. Don't miss it!.

I read most of the link (I skipped the irrelevant parts about Abu Ghraib), and I have not seen anything in it to back up your claims. I also skipped the links in the link to your blog, and the links to the video interviews in the link to your blog. So if you have anything in those (or any place else on the Internet) to address Sam Harris's argument, now's the time to stop linking to links, and start presenting arguments on this forum.

I have tried to be as helpful as possible in creating a stimulating debate here. I have asked for a better understanding of what, specifically, the issues are with my argument. You don't get into any specifics, and you don't look at any of the links with any of the information. I want to hear a cogent argument as to what the fallacies are, why my arguments or "assertions" are not supported by sufficient evidence (the vast majority being by government officials, extremely reputable individuals within the intelligence field, and so on, some of which have, after personal events in their lies and loss of friends, have every incentive to want to invoke torture on these individuals), I have declassified intelligence documents and interrogation books that were heavily used decades ago. All I was asking for is for a clear, concise, cogent list of grievances with my argument with respect to Sam Harris' position. I was not going to attempt such without this. I am not going to attempt to address a very broad topic in this manner because many points will be brought up that are irrelevant to the focused discussion, wasting everyones time and leading the conversation off track if this forum is any indicator.

If you feel that I don't sufficiently consider Sam Harris' argument in my blog post then please identify, specifically, what points you would like to discuss and I will discuss them on here without any third party links.

If this cannot be done, then I will not be responding to any more of your postings in this thread. Insults of my blog are not necessary nor warranted and such comments can be left outside this thread, thank you. Also, the parts about Abu Ghraib were not irrelevant and I am curious why you think it would be. While it is not essential information, it is part of my overall argument. I will address Sam Harris' argument point by point in my next post but I will not do so again regarding an inquiry that is not formatted as requested, refer to my grievances above.

For instance your claim that national security cannot be advanced by torture is not an argument, it's bald assertion.

I have asserted no such thing. In fact I argue that this is completely untrue in certain instances within my blog post. Please do not misrepresent my argument.

like the ridiculous claim that sanctioning the torture of enemies makes a country totalitarian

Same comment as above. I have argued no such thing. These comments are exactly why I inquired (my intention was not to pass judgement, I was honestly and innocently curious) as to how much you had read. The blog post is long for a reason, I don't spend my free time writing these things to circle-jerk about, I am a busy person. I may have found where this misunderstanding originated:

" I contend that any nation that uses torture infects itself with the virus of totalitarianism"

I stated this and realize now it is not worded very well. What I mean here is that it increases the likeliness of totalitarian activities when it is legalized, and in cases where it is illegal and is not dealt with properly when such events occur. This is clarified in other, later, sections of the blog post. I did not mean to suggest that any country that uses it is totalitarian in nature or that it is a certainty that such a country would become totalitarian. I am still unsure at this time how there could be a misunderstanding with respect to my first quote however. As far as my actual position on torture's likeliness to spread unless it is placed under certain conditions, there is absolutely plenty evidence of that, which I have cited in my blog and also has been replicated in some instances by other countries.

@Icosahedron, I have been quite busy this week and so have not been able to give this thread the attention I would like to, however, I can address your post while addressing some other potential inquiries by posters in the thread sometime (late) tonight. I can sum up my main points in a single post in bare-bone form. Based on my understanding of Objectivism I believe my position (in it's totality) is the most consistent of all the views I have encountered. I started this discussion, partially, to see if I am incorrect in this belief.

Edited by CapitalistSwine
Link to comment
Share on other sites

CapitalistSwine: Your ideas seem reasonable as far as I have discerned them, but I would like the Reader's Digest version as a summation if you have such at hand, or can point me to a link. I need to decide if it is worth investing more time in them, and to do that, I need a logical overview -- I'd rather that come from you rather than from me doing a cursory read through.

- ico

Edited by icosahedron
Link to comment
Share on other sites

CapitalistSwine: Your ideas seem reasonable as far as I have discerned them, but I would like the Reader's Digest version as a summation if you have such at hand, or can point me to a link. I need to decide if it is worth investing more time in them, and to do that, I need a logical overview -- I'd rather that come from you rather than from me doing a cursory read through.

- ico

I can address your post while addressing some other potential inquiries by posters in the thread sometime (late) tonight. I can sum up my main points in a single post in bare-bone form.
-from my last post.

I will gladly do so, as I completely understand that it is quite a read. My objective was to make a comprehensive post on the issue for my blog readers and other interested parties so as to not have to return to it again (and that I may edit as necessary). One of the causes for some misunderstanding I believe was my summarization before the main argument for my position. I wrote that before anything else so it is not as accurate as I had remembered, I will revise that at the same time I make my next post.

Edited by CapitalistSwine
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This book should add to the discussion. It tells the story of (as the subtitle says) US interrogators who used non-torture techniques to bring down possibly the most dangerous Iraqi after Saddam.

It's a fantastic and captivating read, regardless of the present argument, and I'd recommend it to anyone.

http://www.amazon.com/How-Break-Terrorist-Interrogators-Brutality/dp/1416573151

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

I could not find any information on what the standard approach to torture of objectivism. And if it is operated, in scenarios that would be acceptable. Personally, I'm standing on the side does not torture, as I think it is an effective way to produce reliable information for most of the time, and my personal research and the debate seems to confirm this hypothesis.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I could not find any information on what the standard approach to torture of objectivism. And if it is operated, in scenarios that would be acceptable. Personally, I'm standing on the side does not torture, as I think it is an effective way to produce reliable information for most of the time, and my personal research and the debate seems to confirm this hypothesis.

I don't understand what you are stating here. My apologies but your use of English in this post has made this unclear.

Are you stating you are for or opposed to torture.

Are you stating it is an effective means of producing reliable information in most cases or not?

You are correct however. I have not been able to find any explicit statement on the use of torture and its qualifying conditions by any Objectivists. Further, the sources such an explicit statement are likely to come from I fear would oversimplify the issue as a result of honest ignorance as to pertinent details, which is why, among other reasons, I put forth the effort to try and make a case. I forgot to reduce and simplify the long blog post I made on the matter however, and as such my position as a result of my personal research on the matter has thus far been confused by some.

Edited by CapitalistSwine
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 months later...
However, rather than appreciate just how bad I think collateral damage is in ethical terms, many readers mistakenly conclude that I take a cavalier attitude toward the practice of torture. I do not. Nevertheless, I believe that there are extreme situations in which practices like “water-boarding” may not only be ethically justifiable, but ethically necessary—especially where getting information from a known terrorist seems likely to save the lives of thousands (or even millions) of innocent people. To argue that torture may sometimes be ethically justified is not to argue that it should ever be legal (crimes like trespassing or theft may sometimes be ethical, while we all have interest in keeping them illegal).

I sincerely regret making this argument.

It seems probable, however, that any legal use of torture would have unacceptable consequences. In light of this concern, the best strategy I have heard comes from Mark Bowden in his Atlantic Monthly article, “The Dark Art of Interrogation.” Bowden recommends that we keep torture illegal, and maintain a policy of not torturing anybody for any reason. But our interrogators should know that there are certain circumstances in which it will be ethical to break the law. Indeed, there are circumstances in which you would have to be a monster not to break the law. If an interrogator finds himself in such a circumstance, and he breaks the law, there will not be much of a will to prosecute him (and interrogators will know this). If he breaks the law Abu Ghraib-style, he will go to jail for a very long time (and interrogators will know this too). At the moment, this seems like the most reasonable policy to me, given the realities of our world.

So now it seems he is in agreement with my position, rather than opposed as seemed to be the case before. Granted, this is as far as I have read thus far. I'll read the rest later today.

Edited by CapitalistSwine
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Didn't you earlier argue that torture was immoral in all circumstances?

No, and neither does my essay, which I asked people repeatedly to read.

I stated myself in post #25:

My position is that it should always be illegal, and that perpetrators of the act of torture must always be dealt with through the full brunt of the law or exonerated ex-post-facto, not that it should never, ever, regardless of the situation, however unlikely (the ticking time bomb scenario is extremely unlikely for a multitude of reasons) should not be used.
Edited by CapitalistSwine
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

I just read a long blog post (on the left-leaning "Naked Capitalism" blog) where the author listed anti-torture opinions from a large number of seemingly authoritative people. Thought I'd post a link in this topic, if any reader is interested.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks for that post SoftwareNerd, looks very interesting! I will read it over. My blog post on this is overly long and a bit convoluted, I was planning on trimming it down and revising it, I will be sure to include this new information in there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...