Posted on 12/22/2014 4:04:08 PM PST by SeekAndFind
In a recent article (7 Things Christians Should Know About Torture), I wrote that the recent Senate Report on the C.I.A.’s interrogation techniques should be the beginning, rather than the end, of the discussion on the morality and legality of torture. Since then I’ve been encouraged by the attempts to examine the issue (though I’ve been mostly disheartened by the outcomes supported).
For example, in a recent article in The Federalist, D.C. McAllister argues that “Yes, Christians Can Support Torture.” One of her primary claims is that,
If government officials have a known terrorist in custody, and it is certain that he has information needed to save lives, it is morally justified for them to use interrogative torture to get the information necessary to protect innocent life.
Her formulation of the issue is helpfully clarifying, though the use of the term “known terrorist” is unnecessarily limiting. Are we only justified in using interrogative torture when the person is “known” to be a terrorist? What if we know they have information necessary to protect innocent life but they cannot legitimately be labeled a “terrorist”?
A set of more applicable terms for discussion about national self-defense and the use of force would be “culpable aggressor” and “culpable bystander.” We can define a culpable aggressor as a person who is performing or is planning to carry out a culpable act for which they are criminally responsible, and for which the actor lacks a moral justification or excuse. An example would be a kidnapper who is planning to take a child hostage. A culpable bystander is a person who has knowledge about an act of culpable aggression and is morally obligated to reveal that information so that the harm may be ended or prevented. An example would be someone who knows a kidnapping is soon to take place.
Let’s substitute “culpable bystander” for “known terrorist” and label McAllister’s position the “Torture Claim”:
If government officials have a culpable bystander in custody, and it is certain that he has information needed to save lives, it is morally justified for them to use interrogative torture to get the information necessary to protect innocent life.
This is a reasonably well-formulated version of a position many Americans hold in the wake of the 9/11 terrorist attacks, so let’s use it to examine our moral intuitions about interrogative torture.
Let’s begin with a thought experiment. In our representative case, government officials have a culpable bystander in custody, and are certain he has information needed to save lives, specifically, information about a plot to assassinate a nation’s highest political leader.
According to supporters of the Torture Claim, such as McAllister, it is morally justified for the government officials to use interrogative torture to get the information necessary since it will protect innocent life. But if we accept the Torture Claim, we have to accept all relevant conclusions that can be drawn from similar representative cases.
Consider, for instance, the following logically sound conclusion that can be derived from a straightforward application of the Torture Claim:
1. Intelligence sources within the Roman Empire suspect an assassination attempt is being plotted against Caesar Augustus.
2. They have heard the followers of Jesus claim he is a God, and that he would thus have access to knowledge about potential assassination plots against Caesar even if he were not involved. (The incarnate Jesus would not have to be omniscient to have access to the knowledge of the Father. From a reading of Matthew 4, we can reasonably assume such knowledge would be given to him if he were to ask.)
3. Access to such information is enough to make Jesus a culpable bystander, so he is taking into custody.
4. If Jesus refuses to reveal the plot against Caesar, the Romans will use interrogative torture to get the information necessary to protect innocent life.
The inevitable conclusion for Christians who support the Torture Claim is that the Romans would be morally justified in torturing Jesus.
We can also conclude that the German government would have been justified in torturing Dietrich Bonhoeffer to uncover details about a plot to kill Adolph Hitler; that Saddam Hussein would have been justified in torturing women to foil a plot against himself; and that the KGB would have been justified in torturing hundreds of people to defend the Soviet Empire. All are reasonable conclusions to be drawn from the moral claim.
Please understand that I’m not making an argumentum ad consequentiam; my position is not that the Torture Claim is moral or immoral based on whether it leads to desirable or undesirable consequences. My assertion is interrogative torture is immoral for a variety of other reasons and that this thought experiment merely illuminates our moral intuitions about the issue.
We can gain insight into our own moral perspective by examining the issue outside of our narrow, U.S.-centric focus. Americans who defend the Torture Claim likely do not object to torturous interrogation if our culpable bystander has access to knowledge about an assassination attempt on a U.S. President by al-Qaeda. But moral rules aren’t culturally specific. Our rule has to apply to all relevant situations, and not only to threats against countries we admire, such as the United States.
If it is morally justified for the government to use interrogative torture to get the information necessary to protect innocent life, then it would be morally justified for Caesar to torture Christ.
For Christians to have an honest discussion about the morality of interrogative torture, this is the conclusion on which we should begin the debate.
I don`t know if any one would call me a Christian or not Because I have done so many stupid things that a Christian would not be seen as doing but I believe Jesus in lord.
Torture is opposite of a Christian thing.
Jesus said do unto others as you would have them do unto you, who in their right mind would want some one to torture them?
I can not see any way that I could deliberately torcher any one
Isaiah 53:4-5
“4 Surely our griefs He Himself bore, And our sorrows He carried; Yet we ourselves esteemed Him stricken, Smitten of God, and afflicted. 5 But He was pierced through for our transgressions, He was crushed for our iniquities; The chastening for our well-being fell upon Him, And by His scourging we are healed. “
Known terrorist = culpable aggressor = culpable bystander = prescient Deity.
More an absurdly impossible hypothetical rather than a thought experiment.
Well, they did nail Him to a cross.
I think a more relevant question would be; If somebody were holding you kid or grandkid and their life were at risk, would you use torture to save them... Of course the answer is yes.
Do the ends justify the means, or, are the means (torture) always wrong?
Torture to extract confessions is notoriously unreliable, but what about gathering verifiable information? If the person were a known terrorist that had killed innocents, and had information regarding future attacks on more innocents...
The author forgets a few things.
Jesus WAS tortured.
Also, to equate waterboarding, sleep deprivation, and loud Rock Music to the tortures of the 1st Century Roman Empire, or the Nazis, Or the Soviets, or of ISLAMIC Terrorists is a typical liberal manipulation known as “Moral Equivalency”
FTR, I have experienced something similar to waterboarding, and it is bad, but not nearly as bad as having my fingernails pulled out.
dilemma for the libtards.
they don’t want middle easterners “tortured” but they love persecuting Christians and Christ himself.
There is a constant neo Marxist effort to cast Jesus as anti roman and a proto anarchist.
But Jesus affirmed the roman soldier as having the greatest faith in all of Israel. He had a tax collector as disciple. Jesus was not the wide eyed proto Marxist radical who hates American soldiers and police officers.
Jesus was angry and confrontational with the conventional manipulative moralists of his day— the Pharisees. I think that is the politically correct class of our modern era.
Jesus had ample and clear opportunities to condemn capital punishment and other state discretions. He did not and regularly affirmed such capacities.
Umm. Augustus died about 15 years before Jesus started his ministry.
Jesus freely gave up His information. There was no need to torture Him except that it was part of that execution technique as a way to save time.
Jesus had ample and clear opportunities to condemn capital punishment and other state discretions. He did not and regularly affirmed such capacities.
Do the ends justify the means, or, are the means (torture) always wrong?
I can easily see killing some one to save some ones
life but torturing some one for information they may or may not have I just don`t know.
I don`t think I will have to worry about it because there are many people who do not believe as I do.
Also, to equate waterboarding, sleep deprivation, and loud Rock Music to the tortures of the 1st Century Roman Empire, or the Nazis, Or the Soviets, or of ISLAMIC Terrorists is a typical liberal manipulation known as “Moral Equivalency”
Would it have been ok for the paki government to torture some one who had guilty knowledge which might have prevented the murder of 148 students and teachers.
One of the more shallow articles I’ve ever read. And the example of Jesus and Augustus (ignoring the historical impossibility) is so patronizingly insipid words fail me.
Torture for the sake of viciousness or even punishment is not the same as a very limited procedure used to acquire vital information about real threats. Thousands or even millions may die if you do not get the information. Or even getting information on the organization which carried out mass murders so you can prevent future situations.
As for Jesus, he was no terrorist.
Evil torture is raping and killing someone in front of family members. It is beheading someone on video for the world to see and fear. It is abducting children and selling them into slavery or forcing them to marry some terrorist slime-ball. Etc. There is a difference.
There is a difference.
As left that other site said: the kind of torture they use today, waterboarding, sleep deprivation, and loud Rock Music is nothing compared to how they used to do it.
So a lot would depend on ones definition of torture the dictionary would be all but useless.
Also, to equate waterboarding, sleep deprivation, and loud Rock Music to the tortures of the 1st Century Roman Empire, or the Nazis, Or the Soviets, or of ISLAMIC Terrorists is a typical liberal manipulation known as “Moral Equivalency”>>>>>>>>>
I agree on that part.
Jesus WAS tortured.>>>>>>>
I fail to see how that has any thing to do with it.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.