VOICE: Probably? Well, that’s a very cavalier answer. You don’t seem to care about the implications here. Well, Mr. Bauer?
BAUER: I’m sorry, Senator. I didn’t hear a question.
VOICE: All right then. Did you torture Mr. Haddad?
BAUER: According to the definitions set forth by the Geneva Convention, yes, I did. Senator, why don’t I save you some time. It’s obvious that your agenda is to discredit and generate a series of —
VOICE: My only agenda is to get to the truth.
BAUER: I don’t think it is, sir.
VOICE: Excuse me.
BAUER: Abraham Haddad had targeted a bus train of 45 people, 10 of which were children. The truth, Senator, is I stopped that attack from happening.
VOICE: By torturing Mr. Haddad.
BAUER: By doing what I deemed necessary to protect innocent lives.
VOICE: So basically what you’re saying, Mr. Bauer, is that the ends justify the means and that you are above the law.
BAUER: When I am activated, when I am brought into a situation, there is a reason and that reason is to complete the objectives of my mission at all costs.
VOICE: Even if it means breaking the law?
BAUER: For a combat soldier the difference between success and failure is your ability to adapt to your enemy. The people that I deal with, they don’t care about your rules. All they care about is a result. My job is to stop them from accomplishing their objectives. I simply adapt it. In answer to your question, am I above the law? No, sir. I am more than willing to be judged by the people you claim to represent. I will let them decide what price I should pay. Now please do not sit there with that smug look on your face and expect me to regret the decisions that I have made because, sir, the truth is I don’t.
-From the season opener of “24”
It seems to be a slow weekend at FA; so, I thought I’d put this up as an exercise for readers.
One of the most interesting classes I took in college, was an upper division course on Morals and Ethics.
Here are some interesting moral dilemmas. Pick a situation and please explain, how you would deal with it, if you were the one put in the hot seat to make the tough decision. And please explain your line of reasoning. There aren’t really supposed to be any right or wrong answers.
Do the variables and stakes matter, in how you decide? Are you consistent? Do you deal in absolutes? Or are there gray areas and situational nuances, where two seemingly similar problems causes you to respond differently to each.
If you answer some of the problems, I may tweak the situation around, to see if the specific variables may cause you to change your answer (readers are welcomed to offer similar challenges).
(a few of these comes from Moral Reasoning, by Victor Grassian).
1. The Overcrowded Lifeboat
In 1842, a ship struck an iceberg and more than 30 survivors were crowded into a lifeboat intended to hold 7. As a storm threatened, it became obvious that the lifeboat would have to be lightened if anyone were to survive. The captain reasoned that the right thing to do in this situation was to force some individuals to go over the side and drown. Such an action, he reasoned, was not unjust to those thrown overboard, for they would have drowned anyway. If he did nothing, however, he would be responsible for the deaths of those whom he could have saved. Some people opposed the captain’s decision. They claimed that if nothing were done and everyone died as a result, no one would be responsible for these deaths. On the other hand, if the captain attempted to save some, he could do so only by killing others and their deaths would be his responsibility; this would be worse than doing nothing and letting all die. The captain rejected this reasoning. Since the only possibility for rescue required great efforts of rowing, the captain decided that the weakest would have to be sacrificed. In this situation it would be absurd, he thought, to decide by drawing lots who should be thrown overboard. As it turned out, after days of hard rowing, the survivors were rescued and the captain was tried for his action. If you had been on the jury, how would you have decided?
2. A Father’s Agonizing Choice
You are an inmate in a concentration camp. A sadistic guard is about to hang your son who tried to escape and wants you to pull the chair from underneath him. He says that if you don’t he will not only kill your son but some other innocent inmate as well. You don’t have any doubt that he means what he says. What should you do?
3. Sophie’s Choice, not in Grassian.
In the novel Sophie’s Choice, by William Styron (Vintage Books, 1976 — the 1982 movie starred Meryl Streep & Kevin Kline), a Polish woman, Sophie Zawistowska, is arrested by the Nazis and sent to the Auschwitz death camp. On arrival, she is “honored” for not being a Jew by being allowed a choice: One of her children will be spared the gas chamber if she chooses which one. In an agony of indecision, as both children are being taken away, she suddenly does choose. They can take her daughter, who is younger and smaller. Sophie hopes that her older and stronger son will be better able to survive, but she loses track of him and never does learn of his fate. Did she do the right thing? Years later, haunted by the guilt of having chosen between her children, Sophie commits suicide. Should she have felt guilty?
4. The Fat Man and the Impending Doom, with parts cut out in the 2nd edition; they seem to have gotten removed to avoid unintentionally humorous overtones.
A fat man leading a group of people out of a cave on a coast is stuck in the mouth of that cave. In a short time high tide will be upon them, and unless he is unstuck, they will all be drowned except the fat man, whose head is out of the cave. [But, fortunately, or unfortunately, someone has with him a stick of dynamite.] There seems no way to get the fat man loose without using [that] dynamite which will inevitably kill him; but if they do not use it everyone will drown. What should they do?
5. A Callous Passerby
Roger Smith, a quite competent swimmer, is out for a leisurely stroll. During the course of his walk he passes by a deserted pier from which a teenage boy who apparently cannot swim has fallen into the water. The boy is screaming for help. Smith recognizes that there is absolutely no danger to himself if he jumps in to save the boy; he could easily succeed if he tried. Nevertheless, he chooses to ignore the boy’s cries. The water is cold and he is afraid of catching a cold — he doesn’t want to get his good clothes wet either. “Why should I inconvenience myself for this kid,” Smith says to himself, and passes on. Does Smith have a moral obligation to save the boy? If so, should he have a legal obligation [“Good Samaritan” laws] as well?
6. A train is barrelling down the tracks, and if it continues on its natural course, all 3 passengers aboard will die, as the bridge up ahead has given out. You have the ability to save the 3 passengers by pulling a lever that will switch the tracks. If you do this, however, the train will end up hitting a person sitting on the tracks and who will not be able to move out of the way in time. This person’s life is in no danger, unless YOU take action and change the tracks, to save the 3.
7. A madman who has threatened to explode several bombs in crowded areas has been apprehended. Unfortunately, he has already planted the bombs and they are scheduled to go off in a short time. It is possible that hundreds of people may die. The authorities cannot make him divulge the location of the bombs by conventional methods. He refuses to say anything and requests a lawyer to protect his fifth amendment right against self-incrimination. In exasperation, some high level official suggests torture. This would be illegal, of course, but the official thinks that it is nevertheless the right thing to do in this desperate situation. Do you agree? If you do, would it also be morally justifiable to torture the mad bomber’s innocent wife if that is the only way to make him talk? Why?
8. The Principle of Psychiatric Confidentiality, cf. the 1997 movie, Devil’s Advocate, and the 1993 movie, The Firm, on confidentiality between lawyers and clients.
You are a psychiatrist and your patient has just confided to you that he intends to kill a woman. You’re inclined to dismiss the threat as idle, but you aren’t sure. Should you report the threat to the police and the woman or should you remain silent as the principle of confidentiality between psychiatrist and patient demands? Should there be a law that compels you to report such threats?
9. The Partiality of Friendship
Jim has the responsibility of filling a position in his firm. His friend Paul has applied and is qualified, but someone else seems even more qualified. Jim wants to give the job to Paul, but he feels guilty, believing that he ought to be impartial. That’s the essence of morality, he initially tells himself. This belief is, however, rejected, as Jim resolves that friendship has a moral importance that permits, and perhaps even requires, partiality in some circumstances. So he gives the job to Paul. Was he right?
10. The Value of a Promise, Compare with the role of David Cash in the murder of Sherrice Iverson by Jeremy Strohmeyer.
A friend confides to you that he has committed a particular crime and you promise never to tell. Discovering that an innocent person has been accused of the crime, you plead with your friend to give himself up. He refuses and reminds you of your promise. What should you do? In general, under what conditions should promises be broken?
A former fetus, the “wordsmith from nantucket” was born in Phoenix, Arizona in 1968. Adopted at birth, wordsmith grew up a military brat. He achieved his B.A. in English from the University of California, Los Angeles (graduating in the top 97% of his class), where he also competed rings for the UCLA mens gymnastics team. The events of 9/11 woke him from his political slumber and malaise. Currently a personal trainer and gymnastics coach.
The wordsmith has never been to Nantucket.
Greetings:
When people talk to me about “torture” or “the rules of war”, I use my restaurant analogy.
Now in our system, a restaurant is a (hopefully) profit generating business wherein the proprietors prepare and provide food for payment. The amount of their profit is the result of their ability to keep their costs lower than the revenue they receive. Costs can be kept low by buying cheaper foodstuffs, hiring cheaper help, or spending less time and effort on cleanliness. Lack of proper sanitation can lead to illness and death.
With that preamble, my question is this: “Why is it that you are so unconcerned about the actions of a profit-making business that can kill that you never enter or look in its kitchen, and yet you feel the need to supervise people engaging in actitivities to keep you alive and free and of which you have no direct experience?
These questions are the same as taught in military leadership courses. They are all variations of the ‘mission vs men’ or ‘men vs man’ dilemma really. I think to a great extent those real life experiences are why so many from the military or other high risk professions “get it” when it comes to torture vs freedom, and so many college kids and their did nothing professors, don’t.
While that’s a nice analogy 11B40, I think I see where those less inclined to support extra-judicial measures to ensure national security and the sanctity of innocent life would bite into it.
While you or I might not venture into the cafe kitchen to check on its cleanliness and preserve our own health, we do make certain that there is a health department that does the checking for us. If I saw the “B” sign in the window for a place, I’m not certain if I’d venture inside to see whether there really is a difference from “A” grade places. Liberals are looking to have some sort of similar watch-dog set-up over our military and intelligence gathering agencies, in the name of preserving the “human rights” of the terrorists.
My take is somewhat different. While our Founding Fathers spoke of “inalienable rights” in our Constitution, they also lived in a more civil time. Even then, I feel quite certain they would have flatly executed anybody who regularly TARGETED civilians, wore no uniforms, and acted outside the purvey of any national government as part of their methodology. I think they would have found considerably less ethically quibble in the matter than we do now.
In my mind, those who chose to engage in terrorism have also chosen to give up their “inalienable rights” (never mind the fact that they aren’t citizens of the U.S., and thus not guaranteed those rights anyway). As such, when we capture them, the rights of the innocents who are in their sights take precedence, and any means that will ACCURATELY extract information are permissible. We must be exacting in our choices of methods however, as anything that is ineffective simply results in pain, and I would not want our nation to be employing individuals who would embark upon torture when the results of it are dubious.
I’m sure there are those who will read this, and decry my way of thinking; but that is your liberal prerogative living in a free land such as ours (freedoms those terrorists would gladly end).
Here’s a real set of choices. Many people I know are very happy to illegally get medications from Canada through various connections. Someone I’m very close to does this monthly through her connections in the medical field. They will say it’s the best choice because there is no national health or drug plan here. When I point out that: a. they’re flouting our laws; b. we can’t guarantee testing, safety, etc.; c. this will inevitably ‘crash’ the Canadian system; the answer is always a means justify the ends type answer. Most of these same people would object to harsh interrogation, even when it might succeed to prevent an imminent attack. I do believe we should be very careful about justifying the violation of our our standards. But there are times when we might have to consider that, and we should not persecute those who are ordered to do so on our behalf.
#5 – Smith had a moral obligation to try something. His reasons for not trying puts him in sociopath territory. I doubt he had a legal obligation, but good Lord.
#6 – I’d pull the switch — save 3 innocents, lose one idiot. What the heck is he doing sitting on the track ignoring the danger coming his way?
#7 – I’d waterboard him. Fast, effective, and little or no long term harm to the subject. I wouldn’t bother with his wife. If he cares so little for people as to bomb hundreds, I doubt he’d care enough for his wife.
In general, torture (ie. pain, injury, stress and fear) for prurient ends or to terrorize others (as Jihadists do) is not acceptable to me. But done by professionals, to get needed information fast in order to save others, is just fine by me. Better yet would be an effective drug (one inducing a happy haze and diarrhea of the mouth would be good) or some psychological trickery.
I sure hope that if our country gives up all torture (and redefines ‘torture’ as ‘won’t hurt a bit, but you might feel a little discomfort’), then they come up with other means to get the info. Maybe zombie mind melds?
@bullmoosegal:
A couple of really good articles by Mark Bowden, author of Black Hawk Down:
And more recently, an article by Robert Kaplan, author of Imperial Grunts.
@starboardhelm:
I’ve heard stories of actual incidents like this happening in Japan, in the past; not because “Smith-san” wouldn’t want to catch cold, but because he didn’t want the burden of burdening the one who was rescued into feeling obligated and duty-bound to repay the act.
What if, instead of rescuing the kid from drowning, it was whether or not to give him CPR? If Sam’s not certified and does something wrong- like fracture the sternum from being too forceful, should he be held liable for trying to do “the right thing”?
What if the person drowning is not a kid, but a known serial killer?
It’s a hypothetical; don’t lose the moral exercise by getting mired in irrelevant details of the story.
Ok, let’s say it’s 3 lives….but that “idiot” is not an idiot: it’s a newborn baby, left there. Do you still follow through, and pull the switch to change the tracks?
By the way, anyone else can take up the new challenges too (#6 is one of my favorites); not just starboardhelm.
@starboardhelm:
What if he’s undergone training, having heard Americans use waterboarding, and has been psychologically prepared to still resist? How far would you go? And for the sake of the exercise, let’s say he loves his wife very much. So then? Just how far would you take things?
As in 9/11…you choose to jump? Or you choose to burn to death? Is that really a choice? I guess, in some way it is. But, it’s really not a choice so much as it is a reaction to a life and death situation at the moment created by someone else’s savagery.
The truth is…you do what you have to survive. And when the options become more limited than that by the situation…you do what you can live with. Thats up to every person…at that point. If you knew you were going to die…you would like to think that you would do whatever you could to save others. But, when does one ever know this? When do you ever give up wanting to live? And at the point that you are powerless to live…what could you possible do at that point to save others. The reaction, therefore, for such things often is more a reflection of who you are “before” you get into such situation. Not everybody jumps on a grenade thinking only of saving everyone else.
In all of these situations…including torture to get info to prevent a disaster…I see no moral contradiction in saying 1) yes…its wrong/horrible…and 2) yes..sometimes you find yourself in a “situation” where it happens or your options are limited. You do it because it has to be done to save lives…and THEN you live with the rest “later”. Whether that means you living with the nightmares of it, or facing legal or other punishments for what you did, that part comes “after” the situation in which you are presented “2 roads”. And only 2 roads….both of which have consequences. Then, you will be judged for it…”after” that situation has passed and those options are no longer real in front of the persons judging you. As far as they know…”maybe” had you not done what you did….the other things may not have happened? etc. That’s not the choices YOU were given. Thats’ the difference.
At some point…they are ALL bad choices…and you aren’t allowed to vote “present”. YES>..I would torture them. I would put a drill to their fingers and joints if I thought it would prevent another 9/11. And I would live with the shame and nightmares that come with that for the rest of my life and wave my hand over the earth and say…..”good trade”. And if I had to go to jail..I would go to jail. I would do it. We don’t have to make torture “legal”. That’s not required. We have to have faith that the people who know….are faced with such a “situation” (impending attack, knowledge that a person has), that they will do what is necessary to save thousands of lives. I disagree entirely with the notion that you “take a few” to have the moral high ground. Or with people who think they can somehow control that because you can’t.
There is another moral question: that of those who put themselves in the position of causing these choices to be limited. For instance…it was the German officer who presented the choices for the man to kill his son or more would die. It was AlQueda who recruited and trained people to fly the buildings into airplanes that brought them down and left thousands of people with very limited choices at that point. I often wonder….why discussion of morality…never include “their” choices? It’s only “ours” (ie..the victims). Perhaps it’s because they have none to begin with and it’s just something we are supposed to inherently accept…and then adjust our own morality and suffering to fit/suit what they leave us? Or can we change that outcome so that the choices presented us are different? Why don’t we talk about that?
Alright, we’ll give it a try.
1. Not guilty. While his actions were not necessarily the ones I would have chosen, I cannot fault him for his judgment. It would be easy to sit in a nice comfortable chair, in a nice warm jury room, and second guess decisions made by someone in the Captain’s position, floating in a freezing ocean following a disaster, trying to prevent another one.
2. I wouldn’t pull the chair out from under my son. The guard is not giving me power over the life of another innocent, it is still completely his decision whether he kills another person. The illusion of control is just a mind game. Additionally, if I pulled the chair, then my son is dead and the situation is over, but if I don’t, every moment he is still alive is another chance for him to be saved.
3. I wouldn’t make the choice. Same as in #2, the guards are just playing a mind game and giving me the illusion of control. Completely a no win situation, but I would rather both of my children die with their heads held high knowing I loved them equally than one dying thinking I had abandoned him and the other living their life in guilt. Additionally, as in #2, every moment they are still alive is a chance for them to be saved.
4. I would not sacrifice one innocent for another or myself. That doesn’t mean I wouldn’t ask the fat man to make the choice himself. If I was the fat guy, I would like to think that I would sacrifice myself.
5. Yes, he has a moral and legal obligation. Moral is obvious. A human life vs. a dry cleaning bill and some sniffles, no argument. The legal obligation is a little more complicated, but still there. I can’t speak to any other place, but in Wyoming, you are required to stop and render aid as your ability allows, but you are not required to put yourself at unreasonable risk. As Mr. Smith is confident of his ability to save the boy, with only the trivial concern for a cold as a risk, especially knowing that a cold is not caused by cold water, Mr. Smith would be legally compelled to act. If Mr. Smith had a real concern for his health, such as if he had a immune deficiency disease, it could change things drastically. That would mean he could be putting himself at unreasonable risk by acting, and would be justified in not rendering aid.
6. I would not pull the lever. This is the first on the list that is purely hypothetical, and leaves to many ‘what ifs’. On the surface, it would seem that if I choose not to pull the lever, I am choosing to kill 3 people, but if I choose to pull the lever, I am choosing to kill 1 person. If you look at it a little deeper, it would seem fate has already chosen to kill the 3 people by putting them on the path of destruction. Additionally, I wouldn’t consider inaction in the situation to be a choice to kill, as the situation has already put the three people in grave danger, not me, but if I pull the lever, then the death of the 1 person would be completely my choice and my responsibility.
7. a. Yes, I would support torturing the mad bomber, as long as it is done by a trained professional who knows how to extract the information effectively. I believe that the protection of innocent life outweighs the ability of a prosecutor to bring charges at a later date. Additionally, as the analogy already points out that he is “mad”, he could still be removed from being a future threat to society by psychiatric commitment. I would gladly defend myself in court after I saved the life of hundreds of people.
b. No, I would not support torturing the innocent wife. I would not harm one innocent to protect another.
8. Easy one. I would report it to the authorities. The doctor patient privilege does not extend to knowledge of an impending crime. If it does, it shouldn’t.
9. Jim is right in his decision, as it was his decision to make. He would have been right to hire the other candidate, too, but he was fully justified in hiring Paul. As a friend, Jim would have personal knowledge of more than just Paul’s job qualifications. He would also have firsthand knowledge of his honesty, loyalty, work ethics, etc. Obviously, he was satisfied with his knowledge of these values, or he would not have considered Paul for the job.
10. I would report his crime to the authorities. By asking me to be an accessory after the fact to a crime, this person has already proven that he is not really a friend, unless he was looking for help to make it right. Either way, reporting his crime protects an innocent person, and provides justice for the victim of his crime. And, if is looking for help to make it right, he gets that, too.
I know none of my answers are perfect. The only principle I espouse is that I would never choose the death of one innocent person over another. I know life is not always cut and dry, and I’m sure that if I was faced with some of these choices in a real life situation, my decisions might very well change.
Good exercise Wordsmith. Great way to shake up a persons thinking and make them face themselves.
@Dc: Nice comment, although based on your last paragraph, I think you’re missing the point of this exercise, and taking it elsewhere.
I believe you are referencing problem #2 A Father’s Agonizing Choice
Of course the German Officer is accountable! Which is why the German officer bears full responsibility for the situation in the first place. Nevertheless, the man is still put into a position where he has choices to be made- none of them good. His son dies irregardless of whether or not he pulls the chair out; but in one choice, he can prevent another innocent from losing his life. If he does not make that choice, does that make him responsible for the person’s death? No. The man to blame is the sadistic officer. Nevertheless, the fact remains, the man was in a position to make choices and save one life….
Ok, let’s up that ante: If the man (let’s say it’s you and your son whose life is about to be forfeit at your hands or at the hands of the officer) is given the choices, let’s say the alternative to not taking his son’s life by his own hands is to see the officer kill not only his son and an innocent life, but a dozen lives. Do you still vote “not present”?
I think you hit upon one of the most legitimate criticism of armchair quarterbacks. Until you’ve been “tested”, you really can’t predict with 100% accuracy how you will respond in times of crisis. And would you respond consistently the same way, given being put into future crises?
I do believe that aside from core character and natural instincts- realistic training and drilling for crises scenarios over and over and over and over goes a long, long way to taking decisive action when the sh*t hits the fan.
There’s a book by a Lt. Col Grossman called On Killing. If I remember the book correctly, the author talks about how up until the Korean War, the number of participants in the actual act of killing was not as great as we might believe. There are records, since the time of Napoleon, that seem to indicate there is a natural aversion to killing members of our own species. Soldiers would fire into the air, keep stuffing musket balls in, one after another without firing…find other things to do on the battlefield. But by around the time of the Korean War, we figured out through Pavlovian and operant conditioning, how to get soldiers to overcome their natural instincts not to kill. For instance, instead of bullseye targets, targest were now man-shaped; they’d pop up, then pop down when you hit it, giving an instant response/gratification/reward. The more realistic the training, the easier the act of killing (or as it applies in other crisis situation, the easier it is to let training kick in and take over, instinctively).
At one school I used to train at (in mixed fighting arts), we always tried to bring psychological realism into the training. Sometimes, when we’d box or spar (and there were all types of sparring- not just straight boxing, grappling, or whatnot) it might start off with putting ourselves into a state of psychological fear. Instead of touching gloves, some nights we would escalate it the way some fights do….shouting verbal abuse, shoving…until finally someone threw the first punch. Knife combatives? Among other things, slashing real meat, dipping blades in baby oil to simulate the viscosity of blood….everything you could think of to bring the psychological and physical realism of what it’s like to ram your fingers through someone’s eye-socket without ever having done it.
Training should simulate the stress and psychological realism; so when crap really happens, it will feel like you’ve already “been there, done that” 1000 times already, died and survived a thousand deaths and learned from the mistakes; and won’t freak out but let your training kick in and take over.
When my children were young, I was in a situation somewhat like the above “choices” but not nearly as drastic. I lived on a street with a six foot wide concrete drainage ditch running down the middle of the street. Most of the time the ditch was dry. Only when it rained was there water. A three year old child who lived across the street wanted to come and play with my children. I stepped into the ditch and brought her across to my home. When it was time to take her home, I carried her and stepped into the ditch. In some places were slick puddles of water. Inadvertantly I stepped onto one of these puddles and completely lost my balance. This action made me do a complete somersault. My arms were around the child and I could not protect myself from injury. I did not think of myself at all. I thought only of the child. I could not let her be hurt therefore all my energies were focused on saving her. My point is you don’t know what you are capable of doing until you are in that situation and then you do what you have to.
You don’t have time to wonder about the repercussions of your actions. You don’t have time to worry about doing the right thing. You just do it and how you do it marks what type of person you are. I am proud of myself in putting the child’s welfare before my own and I hope in a similar situation I would do the same thing. Even with all the scrapes and bruises all over my body it was worth it. The child was not hurt at all. Not even scared but just bewildered.
@BarbaraS: Well said, Barbara. And good on you!
@Wisdom:
I suppose I shouldn’t have merely cut and pasted some of these, but made all of them framed the way I wanted them to be; namely, readers should use their imaginations and put themselves directly into the roles.
I agree. As with @Dc #10, the guard is the murderer if you do nothing; and I think a case can be made that he is still the murderer even if you “play his game”. So let’s tweak the scenario here (2b): Unlike the end story in #1, there is no “last minute come to the rescue” chance your son will survive. The time frame it will take for you or the guard to kill your son is about the same. In addition, rather than just killing your son plus taking one innocent life, the guard says if you do not kill your son by your own hand, he will not only kill your son, but a dozen innocent children. So now what?
Another scenario (2c): The guard tells you to execute the innocent man by pulling the chair out; if you do not, the guard promises he will kill the innocent man himself, plus your son. Is your choice still the same?
We were always told there were no real clear-cut right or wrong answers (in my college course). Something to make one think, though…
Thanks! It seemed like such a slow weekend of current event posts, I thought it might be interesting.
I’m looking over the rest of your comment, now.
@Wordsmith:
thats easy, 24 addressed that issue as well… Jack was interrogating a man and his wife was sitting there (she just found out about her husbands evil participation in some plots, and had /nothing/ to do with them). The guy refused to talk, so Jack shot his wife in the leg. He gave the info, lives were saved.
The guy, by planting bombs, has in effect given up his rights as a normal citizen and if that means using his wife as a method to get info from him, then they should do it. It would be the same as one of his buddies. The only place I would draw the line is at their kids if they had any. I believe like company attracts like company but the resulting births and new lives from that company may not be similar to the original company at all (i.e. 2 psychos could have very normal and loving kids). Plus, more than anything it is addressing the ultimate question, are their 2 lives worth putting on the line (despite their rights) for the 100’s that might be killed? I think so… torture doesn’t just include waterboarding, and is most times, non-lethal. Bombs have a tendency to be lethal and don’t usually give ultimatums before they kill the toddler on a tricycle, or an old lady that was taking a walk with her husband of which, have been married for 60 years. The future chemist that will solve the AIDs problem in Africa etc…
When I stop laughing I will work on this one.
hahahahahahaahahah
@Wisdom:
I like that reasoning.
Glad blast (above) got a kick out of #4.
4b) Let’s not call him “an innocent”. Let’s say he’s someone who is an acquaintance; a real grade A @hole; suspected of being into child porn; of course, he is not guilty of any specific crime, here. Just another man caught in a bad situation.
Trapped with you is your entire family, a pregnant woman, and the man who is said to be on the verge of discovering the cure for cancer (remember: this is just an exercise in moral dilemmas, don’t get bogged down in “realism”). Do you still stand by your decision not to sacrifice the man who inadvertently seals your doom, and that of other lives- a number of whom have personal connections to you, another carrying one who has not yet experienced life, and one who will play an important role to humanity. Do you “stick to principle”? Or abandon them?
“My” choice, if I truly had one, would be to not be in the situation to start with! That’s the point I was making. Once someone, or something else takes that away from you, it’s no longer a “choice” you make…it’s a “situation” you face and react to. And in those situations, one can just assume or take for granted that you will not give up the will to live until the last moment. That’s human nature. Not because of the choices they made in reacting to the situation in front of them (ie., should have gone left…instead of right) but because sometimes it’s just that simple an answer as to why some people lived, and some didn’t. Sometimes it’s more complicated and involves more time to think about the situation one finds themselves in (as such examples above can attest to). It doesn’t change the nature of the situation at all. It could have happened faster, with no time to think about it, and everyone would react humanly based on instincts and..as you say…any training you might have and that would have been ok—ie., we would not be talking about the “morality” of it. The difference is when you have more time to “think” about it. That’s intellect trying to weigh your options/chances given a situation you find yourself in. The “morality” of the outcome is for others to judge after the fact, who are not in those situations to begin with.
@Wordsmith
2a. Same answer. Just by making the offer, the guard is showing his complete lack of respect for life, and his promises are meaningless anyway. He would just use the lives of those same dozen people as a new test for me or someone else tomorrow. I would die trying to save my son, but not by killing innocents.
2b. Same answer. As in my answer in Sophies’ Choice, I would neither want to kill an innocent man to save my son nor would I want my son to have to live with the guilt that his father murdered an innocent man to save him.
4b. Innocent is such a subjective term, but I guess that If the situation doesn’t give me an immediate insight as to whether we are talking about innocence, and I have to really think about the lack of innocence as a justification for murder, then I already have the answer. I wouldn’t kill the one man to save others.
For future note, however, if I am ever cave exploring near the seaside with a fat man, I am going to make sure he’s the first one in and last one out through any small openings. 🙂
@Wisdom:
Really? I thought problem #2 is similar; really, I should have narrowed the choices down to make them have little room for “what if’s”. I’ve seen people’s imaginations run too wild and missing the point of the exercises, before (such as a terrorist holding a gun to your head, telling you to push a button that will detonate a bomb that will blow up a President [maybe one you despise]; “I’d just take his gun away from him and shoot him!”…uh, no. Misses the point of the exercise).
I agree with you that fate has already chosen the three and you are not responsible for their killing. Nevertheless, fate has also dropped into your lap, the power to avert their deaths and have command of fate. I think it is a choice between action or inaction. Do you remain a bystander and keep your hands clean? Or do you do something?
6c) Instead of 3 people, let’s say there are a hundred lives aboard that train.
starboard helm in comment #5 said he’d pull the lever and save the three over the idiot on the train. So let’s make my response to him 6b:
Next:
7b What if “b” were the only way it might be possible to extract the information? Time is running out. And as I hypothesized to starboard helm in comment #9, his wife means the world to him. She is innocent, but the stakes are huge: it’s not 100 innocent lives on the line, but let’s say 10,000. Do you still justify your choice of not involving the innocent wife and subjecting her to torture in front of the bomber (her husband)?
7c) Still not biting? Let’s throw in your wife and family amongst the 10,000 lives at risk of the bomber’s attack.
I would tend to agree with you. But can you think of any unforeseen consequences should this become a standard practice amongst doctors? Also amongst Catholic priests from confessions?
In that case, is criticism justified when we level charges of cronyism to politicians? Why then, do we get bent out of shape when someone gets a job hire, based upon connections over qualifications?
I agree. Does this decision, however, have any bearing on one’s honor in being able to keep one’s word/promise?
Would the decision be the same if it were your flesh-and-blood son, rather than merely a friend?
True wisdom!
I was thinking to bring laxatives for the fat man, but of course it would be really shitty if he still could not get out.
hahaha……
@Wisdom:
Interesting….so no matter how high the stakes become, the guard is 100% culpable. I would agree with you; but nevertheless, your decision not to play his sick game still has results/consequences. Doesn’t life/fate itself do that? Put us in situations we have to confront? Make choices? In the case of the guard, we can blame him- he has malicious intent; but we tend not to blame life/fate/God for “putting” us into a similar situation.
2d If the guard had the power to destroy the entire planet, unless you killed one innocent life (could be your son’s) at your own hands……? Should we always stick to absolutes and principles?
And the rest of 4b?:
@liam #16:
Let’s say it is a child; let’s say he’s around 10 years old and is fully indoctrinated in jihad; could most likely grow up to be a next generation terrorist; of course, he’s still child, still perhaps redeemable from the indoctrination- although you are threatening his father, here.
And as you seem to suggest, numbers matter: the needs of the many…..
So, if there’s any chance of extracting the critical information from the bomber/terrorist by torturing the kid (going far beyond waterboarding, but actual physical damage), do you make that decision? And if numbers matter, we’re talking thousands of children’s lives are at stake. And how do numbers affect one’ decision? Should they? Torture vs. a dozen lives? 100 lives? 10,000 lives? A million?
Do the ends never justify the means?
Nice post.
1) I would find the captain guilty, even though I would have done the same in his position. By demanding that he also sacrifice himself, ex post facto (alongside the drowned) we ensure that no one will be tempted to lightly use a similar rationale in a less grave situation.
2) I would not participate in the hanging. The blame for murder here falls squarely on the guard. More generally, the kind of reasoning that would lead to participating in the hanging makes it too easy to construct monstrous systems of oppression and should be avoided for that reason.
3) I’m not clear on what you mean by ‘do the right thing’. Are you asking whether Sophie made the right choice, or whether she should have chosen at all? I’m not sure. This is similar in some ways to case 2) except that Sophie’s action is less clearly that of a participant in murder. I think both choosing and not choosing are defensible, and she should not feel guilty.
4) The phrasing of the dilemma is a little peculiar as it focuses on group action (what should *they* do) rather than individual; it seems to presume that the choice will emerge from consensus. Accepting that framing, I don’t think it is moral to dynamite the fat man. The situation is not like case 1), because the fat man is not going to die if we do nothing.
5) Leaving someone to drown when you can save them is immoral. But no, it shouldn’t be illegal – it is bad precedent to try and bring the law into this area, there are so many similar situations that are gray areas, and the law is designed to deal with action and not inaction.
6) In reality we rarely have such certainty as is expressed in this dilemma: how do we know that this person will not see the train and get out of the way? Accepting it as given, though – no, I’m not allowed to kill one innocent to save three. This is very similar to 4).
7) Torturing the bomber in this case is moral (but would still be illegal, the participants to be punished, cf. case 1 – which is also what happened in the German case). Torturing his wife would not be, again we can’t punish innocents just to make things come out right.
8) Why is there a principle of psychiatric confidentiality at all? If psychiatric treatment had a long history of effectiveness and it looked like removing confidentiality would endanger that, maybe I’d be sympathetic. Anyway, there is a moral obligation to report the threat in this case. A law seems dubious, it’s trivial to defend yourself by saying ‘I didn’t think he meant it’, and how is the law to tell that you should have thought differently?
9) I think Jim is in the clear, morally, unless he’s undertaken a specific oath or promise of some sort to his company. Yes, he’s putting his friend’s interest above his employer’s, and we can see why a company would want to discourage this behavior – but Jim doesn’t have an obligation to put the company’s interest first.
10) I would lean towards breaking the promise and turning my friend in. It’s generally abhorrent for the innocent to be punished and we should be willing to set aside lesser principles to avoid it.
As you might guess from these answers, I don’t expect the law and morality to line up perfectly and I think it’s often dangerous to try to bring the law into closer accord with morality. Further, I think the law has to concern itself with things like deterrence, enforceability, and long-term consequences, whereas individual moral choices can usually be decided based on the immediate situation.
@BarbaraS: nice anecdote. I think the instinct we have for protecting children we are carrying is strong, so much so that we simply have to admire it more than take credit ourselves. I had a similar experience carrying my son down our back steps when he was about one and a half years old; they were icy, and I slipped. If I had fallen ‘normally’, say carrying a bag of groceries, they would have gone flying through the air as I grabbed for the handrail. Instead I twisted myself sideways and smashed my back and elbow, with son falling on my chest and none the worse for wear except, maybe, getting squeezed a little too hard. But all this happened in an instant, so I can’t say I *chose* to protect him consciously – just have to praise the morality of primate reflexes :-).
@bbartlog: Ack! I’m exhausted. 😀 Anyone else feel free to offer back challenges or tweak around the scenarios to see if that changes the rationales and decisions.
I’ve got to take a break.
It’s an interesting comment, because it goes in line with the article I posted in comment #6 by Mark Bowden. I heard him in interview talk about the articles. He felt that torture should be illegal so as to prevent large-scale abuses; but that there are times of moral justification, even as the violator might be subjecting himself to legal repercussions. There should probably always remain exceptions to the rule. But the rules should clearly be there.
Several of these are essentially duplicates. I’ll offer opinions on the unique questions:
1. Of course it would be murder to kill the innocent. The fact that the circumstances are grave and you cannot foresee any other solution does not change natural law. The rationale of targeting the weakest should demonstrate the reprehensible nature of this. The dissenting passengers were correct; better to die a natural death than be guilty of murder.
3. This is no more difficult a decision because it involves the saving of life rather than the commission of murder. It is never wrong to save life. The mother may feel guilty but should seek out a competent person to help illuminate the morality of her decision. Choosing self-murder, regrettably, adds culpability where before there existed none.
5. Yes, the passerby has an obligation. His certainty about his ability to save the boy increases the obligation to act (and therefore, culpability if he chooses not to). The obligation would be modified if he was not a good swimmer, such as to throw a rope or other device for assistance or take other steps to save the child. Failure to act would not be the same as murder, but it would be negligence.
7. This scenario is different because it does not foresee the taking of a life to solve the scenario. An additional question is what qualifies as ‘torture’. I would support ‘aggressive interrogation’, (such as waterboarding), but not true torture.
8. The psychologist’s primary obligation (as it is with all men), is to protect life. The confidentiality requirement is secondary. The government exists to promote the common good, and the law should compel someone to report a credible threat.
9.
Moral Dilemmas…for the Atheist
January 26, 2009 by Thomas
Filed under: Culture, Law, Religion (Edit)
Flopping Aces has posed a few moral ‘dilemmas’, more appropriately considered as moral challenges since there exists no dilemma except in the mind of the ignorant or the poorly formed. Several of the challenges pose essentially the same question, so here are the unique questions and my responses:
1. The Overcrowded Lifeboat
In 1842, a ship struck an iceberg and more than 30 survivors were crowded into a lifeboat intended to hold 7. As a storm threatened, it became obvious that the lifeboat would have to be lightened if anyone were to survive. The captain reasoned that the right thing to do in this situation was to force some individuals to go over the side and drown. Such an action, he reasoned, was not unjust to those thrown overboard, for they would have drowned anyway. If he did nothing, however, he would be responsible for the deaths of those whom he could have saved. Some people opposed the captain’s decision. They claimed that if nothing were done and everyone died as a result, no one would be responsible for these deaths. On the other hand, if the captain attempted to save some, he could do so only by killing others and their deaths would be his responsibility; this would be worse than doing nothing and letting all die. The captain rejected this reasoning. Since the only possibility for rescue required great efforts of rowing, the captain decided that the weakest would have to be sacrificed. In this situation it would be absurd, he thought, to decide by drawing lots who should be thrown overboard. As it turned out, after days of hard rowing, the survivors were rescued and the captain was tried for his action. If you had been on the jury, how would you have decided?
Of course it would be murder to kill the innocent. The fact that the circumstances are grave and you cannot foresee any other solution does not change natural law. The rationale of targeting the weakest should demonstrate the reprehensible nature of this. The dissenting passengers were correct; better to die a natural death than be guilty of murder.
3. Sophie’s Choice, not in Grassian.
In the novel Sophie’s Choice, by William Styron (Vintage Books, 1976 — the 1982 movie starred Meryl Streep & Kevin Kline), a Polish woman, Sophie Zawistowska, is arrested by the Nazis and sent to the Auschwitz death camp. On arrival, she is “honored” for not being a Jew by being allowed a choice: One of her children will be spared the gas chamber if she chooses which one. In an agony of indecision, as both children are being taken away, she suddenly does choose. They can take her daughter, who is younger and smaller. Sophie hopes that her older and stronger son will be better able to survive, but she loses track of him and never does learn of his fate. Did she do the right thing? Years later, haunted by the guilt of having chosen between her children, Sophie commits suicide. Should she have felt guilty?
This is no more difficult a decision because it involves the saving of life rather than the commission of murder. It is never wrong to save life. The mother may feel guilty but should seek out a competent person to help illuminate the morality of her decision. Choosing self-murder, regrettably, adds culpability where before there existed none.
5. A Callous Passerby
Roger Smith, a quite competent swimmer, is out for a leisurely stroll. During the course of his walk he passes by a deserted pier from which a teenage boy who apparently cannot swim has fallen into the water. The boy is screaming for help. Smith recognizes that there is absolutely no danger to himself if he jumps in to save the boy; he could easily succeed if he tried. Nevertheless, he chooses to ignore the boy’s cries. The water is cold and he is afraid of catching a cold — he doesn’t want to get his good clothes wet either. “Why should I inconvenience myself for this kid,” Smith says to himself, and passes on. Does Smith have a moral obligation to save the boy? If so, should he have a legal obligation [“Good Samaritan” laws] as well?
Yes, the passerby has an obligation. His certainty about his ability to save the boy increases the obligation to act (and therefore, culpability if he chooses not to). The obligation would be modified if he was not a good swimmer, such as to throw a rope or other device for assistance or take other steps to save the child. Failure to act would not be the same as murder, but it would be negligence.
7. A madman who has threatened to explode several bombs in crowded areas has been apprehended. Unfortunately, he has already planted the bombs and they are scheduled to go off in a short time. It is possible that hundreds of people may die. The authorities cannot make him divulge the location of the bombs by conventional methods. He refuses to say anything and requests a lawyer to protect his fifth amendment right against self-incrimination. In exasperation, some high level official suggests torture. This would be illegal, of course, but the official thinks that it is nevertheless the right thing to do in this desperate situation. Do you agree? If you do, would it also be morally justifiable to torture the mad bomber’s innocent wife if that is the only way to make him talk? Why?
This scenario is different because it does not foresee the taking of a life to solve the scenario. An additional question is what qualifies as ‘torture’. I would support ‘aggressive interrogation’, (such as waterboarding), but not true torture.
8. The Principle of Psychiatric Confidentiality, cf. the 1997 movie, Devil’s Advocate, and the 1993 movie, The Firm, on confidentiality between lawyers and clients.
You are a psychiatrist and your patient has just confided to you that he intends to kill a woman. You’re inclined to dismiss the threat as idle, but you aren’t sure. Should you report the threat to the police and the woman or should you remain silent as the principle of confidentiality between psychiatrist and patient demands? Should there be a law that compels you to report such threats?
The psychologist’s primary obligation (as it is with all men), is to protect life. The confidentiality requirement is secondary. The government exists to promote the common good, and the law should compel someone to report a credible threat.
9. The gravity of this situation is even less than that of the preceding. Jim has violated his conscience here, which is a grave moral offense, but the act itself is not inherently evil, so the act is morally wrong but not particularly serious.
10. This is very similar to the two preceding questions except for the gravity of the circumstances. Of course, one should never promise to conceal a crime to begin with, unless somehow the circumstances would cause more harm to be committed by revealing it than by remaining silent. In this case, once the innocent party is in danger, the obligation rests to protect the innocent rather than to adhere to the dubious promise. Details could almost certainly be given to the defendant’s counsel that would free the innocent party without necessarily revealing the identity of the friend.
In conclusion, most of these questions reveal the triumph of emotion over reason and assume, it appears, a poorly formed intellect. Regrettably it is not just the Left who has perverted the hierarchy of values, but many on the right who have foresaken Christian values for Machiavellian.
Ummm… you think it is consistent with Christian values to waterboard?
Having said my piece, here’s my answers:
1) The captain did the right thing in giving the advice he did given the situation they were in. HOWEVER: the bigger question would be how did they end up in an overcrowded life boat? Was the captain culpable in why the boat sank, or why there was not adequate survival gear/boats? That would change my decision on the ultimate outcome of whether he was culpable in some way for the deaths that ultimately occurred.
2) I would go for the German officers throat and bite and gnaw until they had killed me or I had chewed his throat out.
3) Same as 2
4) I’m not sure somebody actually went through this. Sure..set off dynamite inside a cave?
You are more likely to end up sealing up the cave (and yourself) for good. I would work to free the fat man. And as time went on, the methods I used would get more severe.—such as breaking his collar bones and arms to fold them and forcing him out. Not for the squeamish…but it would get the job done and nobody would have to die/drown…nor ..blow up or bury themselves with dynamite. Mr Fat man might be a little worse for wear.
5) I would take Mr. Robert Smith to a quiet place, stab him in the lungs or lung shoot him, then stand over him with my hand to my ear while he gurgles “help me” until he dies ? . (falls under the heading…what goes around, comes around)
6) how did those 3 idiots end up the only ones on a train barreling out of control? (hijacked a train for a joy ride?, everybody else jumped?). And why is person number 4 just sitting on the tracks and how did THEY get there? Since we have time to think about it….lets ask a few questions before we do anything. 3 joyriding hoodlums who stole a train and are about to run it off a bridge? Let ’em go.
7) I would first give him truth serum. If that didn’t work, I would torture the man. If it became clear he would only speak if he thought his wife was in danger or being tortured…I would drug him, and make him “think” she was. If he still didn’t talk after that, then there is no use going any further anyway…he would never talk regardless of what you did.
8) Yes, it should be reported to authorities “if” they think such a danger exists so appropriate actions can be taken. They also have the option of holding such persons for observation in a secured facility until the nature of such a threat can be ascertained. I believe there are already laws and procedures in place for such situations.
9) Jim is a liberal.
10) I would tell my friend that he needs to turn himself in. And if he reminded me of my promise…I would suggest to my friend that NO true “friend” would ever place someone in the situation to implicate themselves. That if he feels guilty about it…he should…and he should talk to God about it…not me. He made a mistake and is letting someone else pay for it that he knows is innocent. Now he’s trying to implicate me into his crime by giving me knowledge of it. That’s no friend. That’s someone looking for an accomplice to share his guilt. I would give him, as a friend, advice and the option to turn himself in. Then if he refused…I would go to the police. I would make sure he understood my position clearly.
Blast: The morality of any action must be judged according to the circumstances, objectives and methods. Waterboarding someone for pleasure would be immoral. However, a legitimate authority doing so for the purpose of saving lives during a time of war would not.
We can conclude this way because waterboarding is objectively less serious than killing, and yet killing can be justified, whether in war, self-defense, or capital punishment.
@Dc:
Dc, I think you’re missing the point of the moral exercise. These hypotheticals aren’t meant to be realistic scenarios with a wide spectrum of choices. You’re thinking way too deeply into the wrong details. Just suspend that it’s “dynamite” (I didn’t write the dilemma, that one’s a cut-and-paste) and substitute whatever tool you want: The point is, you have an option/ability to kill the fat guy in order to free yourselves from imminent death.
Same with #2 and others….going all jack bauer on the German officer’s ass is not an option.
Well, you said “Christian values” and many religious organizations, including the Catholic Church are against water boarding (and capital punishment).
Pope John Paul II (speaking of the Inquisition, which used waterboarding btw) “Yet the consideration of mitigating factors does not exonerate the Church from the obligation to express profound regret for the weaknesses of so many of her sons and daughters who sullied her face, preventing her from fully mirroring the image of her crucified Lord, the supreme witness of patient love and of humble meekness. ”
I think it is torture, history shows the US prosecuting Japanese for waterboarding. There are other examples of it being defined as torture. It becomes a matter of semantics and defining words, but we are torturing individuals to get information, they are not volunteering it…
Why not just do a survey then? Pick A or B.
Removing context and options as an intellectual exercise to create a “moral” dilemma is something any BDS afflicted liberal can serve as an example of.
Blast-I can’t speak for other Christian organizations, but the Catholic Church is not ‘against’ capital punishment. Quite the contrary, the Church teaches that justice may require it, as St. Thomas says,
“For this reason we see that if the health of the whole human body demands the excision of a member, because it became putrid or infectious to the other members, it would be both praiseworthy and healthful to have it cut away. Now every individual person is related to the entire society as a part to the whole. Therefore if a man be dangerous and infectious to the community, on account of some sin, it is praiseworthy and healthful that he be killed in order to safeguard the common good, since “a little leaven corrupteth the whole lump” (1 Cor. 5:6). ”
I wasn’t aware of Japanese waterboarding, but of course we put tens of thousands of (Japanese) citizens in prison camps during the war, too, but we criticize when the Russians or Chinese do something similar today. That doesn’t make it right, either. Does it make us hypocrites? Of course. Does that realization mean we should shirk our responsibility to protect the common good? Of course not.
Actually Thomas More, check out Pope John Paul II’s Encyclical Evangelium Vitae (link to Vatican web site) which outlines the official church’s position on the matter. Basically it condemns capital punishment and only allows for only for Hitler types to be executed (so super rare circumstances).
Funny that Japanese could do waterboarding when the term wasn’t even used until recently. Waterboarding is a form of body surfing using a small board. It was called the “water treatment”, water torture, and many other terms before that and there were many versions of it. There was a Japanese officer who was sentenced to 15 years, but it was not for “waterboarding”. It was for torturing POWs and civilians as well as confiscating red cross shipments. His official indictment lists hitting with fists, clubs, burning with cigarettes, hanging upside down, and water torture. (there are many forms of this ranging from dunking someones head in a bucket, to dripping water on the forehead and eyes).
It was a routine form of punishment and treatment of POWs and civilians who were in his care, not something isolated to a few individuals. Nonetheless, it’s never been legal any more than holding a gun to a prisoners head, or holding mock executions to make them talk is. But, they’ve all been used at times.
True, the use of the term was a recent one, maybe because the other terms “water treatment” and “water torture” you mentioned seem less desirable?
Well, the waterboarding type activity of the members of the US military included Lt. Chase J. Nielsen (one of Doolittle’s Raiders)
His testimony used to convict leading Japanese government and military leaders (Tokyo War Crimes Tribunal).
The Japanese routinely starved prisoners, bayoneted them, shot them, worked them to death in force labor, beheaded them, burned them, broke bones, refused them medical treatment, food, and any number of other barbaric things you could possibly think up..including gutting people alive, raping women to death, executions into mass graves, etc…..and yes…water torture of all sorts and kinds (which have been known for centuries). My point was more that there was FAR more than just “waterboarding” to consider here when they were handing out sentences in regards to war crimes committed by the Japanese.
As I said before…it “is” torture. All of it. I think the reasons Japan did what they did, and the scope of it (torturing entire civilian and POW populations, etc.,) is entirely different context. In Vietnam..they didn’t even use a rag/cloth. Just poured the water over your nose and mouth. Same thing. Shoving your head in a bucket till you take water in your lungs does the same thing.
I heard L. Graham clip on CNN just last night talking about how they were working out the details with Obama admin for shutting down Gitmo and making CIA, etc., all follow the revised army field manual for interrogation. What he said was chilling. They are still working out the details but the gist of it is…they are trying to figure out a balance between allowable interrogation techniques and situations vs how much of a hit we can sustain from terroists attacks…so that we can have the upper moral ground should we need to respond. IN otherwords, when presented with a scenario of an impending attack, and they have someone in custody that may have knowledge that could stop it but won’t talk, they are going to weigh…how far they can go with interrogation vs…how much damage they think the attack will do…and make a decision about letting it go forward..to show the world how “moral” we are…and that our cause is right…and to gain back their sympathy we lost because Bush squandered it by protecting us for 8 years …when these same people they want to appease…could give a rats ass about helping us in the first place! SPIT.
It’s your kids/family. You decide.
There is an additional element that is useful in determining the difference between torture and aggressive interrogation.
When the US water boarded the terrorist, the US had every legal right to demand that information. The terrorist had no right to withhold that information. They were no bound by an oath to a legal sitting government and the information was not pertaining to a pending military attack being conducted according to the proper laws of war. The information was about an illegal and immoral act that would happen. There was no intent to coerce the terrorist into acting against their own legal or moral interest, nor was the intent to punish.
Torture is about forcing the release of information the holder has a legal right, even a legal responsibility, as well as a moral obligation to with hold. AND/OR the coercion to commit acts that would be illegal or immoral, AND/OR exacting punishment against one for their actions.
Since I use his name-sake here, I’m somewhat offended that some of our readers here are more familiar with the popular concept of Machiavellian philosophy than the reality of it. Those who have made a detailed reading of Machiavelli’s writing would not say that Christian and Machiavellian values are incompatible. Machiavelli sought to create competent and upright leaders who would take care of their citizenry rather than fleece them.
I would contend that the War on Terror would fall under the category of the “just war,” but that’s just my take. Apologies if my post here is a little off thread.
24 is a blooming drama for chrisssakes. Torture does not get you useful information. Speaking the same language as the person you are questioning is more usefull
Actually, torture does work and history has proven this over and over. Really people, stop regurgitating crap.
Wordsmith, the comment by Barbara is the one I can identify with because I know that she’s right from personal experience. When the sh*t hits the fan there’s no time to think, only act. I also saved a child’s life by throwing myself in front of a car in order to push her to the other side of the street. I didn’t know that the car would be able to stop at the last minute, which thankfully it did, but I was injured badly on my knee – which took weeks to heal – because it was a gravel road. It was all pure instinct. I’d like to believe I would have done the same thing if I had thought about it, but I don’t know whether that’s true or not.
I love watching 24 and I agree with Jack Bauer. It is better to make one person suffer than to let many suffer and even possibly die. It seems like a no-brainer to me!
@mynameis: I don’t know if waterboarding qualifies as torture, but it sure does work:
Thousands of Americans are alive today because the U.S. waterboarded THREE terrorist monsters, including Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the mastermind of 9/11 and the man who personally sawed off the head of Daniel Pearl as he screamed.
Those saved lives are the real monument to the Bush Presidency:
http://mikesamerica.blogspot.com/2009/01/monument-to-bush-presidency.html
@mynameis, you are only correct when you are correctly defining torture. Torture, like murder, is dependent on motive. Aggressive interrogation to save lives from an illegal attack is not torture any more than shooting someone who is attempting to kill unarmed people is murder.
The reason for inflicting violence is and has always been the determinant as to what is or is not legal.
Motive is the key.
So the only way you can spout the liberal BS line is if you somehow doubt our motive.
Oh? So like pulling someones’ nails out is not torture if the motive was… ???
@blast; Yes, just like frying someone alive isn’t murder if,,,, or, putting a bullet through their skull, or pressing a knife into their chest or,,, crushing them or blowing them into ragged pieces or,,,
You can make it sound as gruesome as you wish, but the motive is everything.
And for the record, the US doesn’t pull out fingernails. Where do you get such a childish notion. The US only employs the type of duress that can be instantly stopped with no lingering effect nor actual physical injury.
I disagree. Motive might be a mitigating factor on how someone is charged in a criminal complaint, or in the case of death, seeing if it was justified (ie self defense etc), but torture is an act independent of motive. We know what the motive of torture is… to attempt to compel information from a suspect (or if you are a sadist, you could have other purposes). If you have some sort of legal justification for the torture, maybe you can “justify” it. The old ticking time bomb theory, but it does not change the act from being torture.
For the record, here is the international legal definition of torture: (United Nations Convention Against Torture, US is a signatory)
Well for the moment, you are free to disagree all you want. I’ll not stop you from being wrong.
And for the record, I don’t give a good red damn what the UN says about torture. In fact, you’ll be hard pressed to find anything the UN has said on the matter that I will agree with. But lets just call agressive interrogation, a lawful sanction, shall we? Or we can send in the blue helmet boys to rape them for food.
Oh yes, BTW, does the UN say that Terror attacks are legal?
Notice it does not say…’to stop an impending, illegal, attack that could result in mass casualties of civilians’. I didn’t see that one mentioned. Further I blast….you should read the part about combatants and war crimes of using civilians and civilian areas as staging grounds and/or targets.