We will be convening here at the ZigZag café, Suisse, on Thursdays for conversation and dialogue. I invite you to stop by every Thursday for the question of the day. Your thoughts and participation are most welcome. Pull up a stool, avec un café, un thé, ou un chocolat chaud, et un croissant, and join in here on Thursday at the ZZ café.
For today:
Are there any reasons that it would ever be just to torture a terrorist who planted a bomb on an airplane in order to locate and disable it, thereby saving 200 lives?
24 comments:
I would say: it is ethically understandable to do it, but the state still has to punish those who torture him.
Sisyphos,
Thanks. So torture is not just, even though it may be understandable to do it? Why?
Ugh. What a horrible question. (And by horrible, I or course mean difficult.) I'm inclined to say no, it isn't just or right. What is the cost to the humanity of those doing the torture and those who endorse it?
At the very least everyone can agree it isn't ideal, and if it must be employed, it should be approached with the same attitude of Bonhoeffer's tortured decision to attempt to kill Hitler.
Tough question! When I was a young mom the answer was simple. If my child was kidnapped or in danger, "do whatever it takes to gather info!" The longer I live in the reality of the life, death and resurrection of Jesus, and the Kingdom now and not yet, I can begin to see a more redemptive landscape. I can better use my imagination and envision a new world where loving your enemies and turning the other cheek miraculously makes a difference. So in answer to your question, although society uses torture as a means to protect the masses, I don't believe it is just. As Renea pointed out, I certainly respect "Bonhoeffer's tortured decision to attempt to kill Hitler." Yet in my mind's eye, I can't see Jesus ever using it, nor any of his followers. Tough one for sure!
What do you mean by just? Cause how I typically use the word, then this isn't really a question of meting out "justice". And in the sense of are we doing an injustice to this person? I'm having a hard time seeing how we're wronging this person.
Renea,
Thanks. You pose a good question about costs. Some would say the issue of whether or not this is just is to be based on a cost benefit analysis. Take recent reports by some politicians that severe torture tactics produce results and therefore they're just in carrying them out. Results equal justice. But on what principles, of if this is not the case, why not?
Karen,
Thanks for visiting Living Spirituality and for the comment.
I really like your thoughts about Jesus' life, death, and resurrection, the already-not yet, and a redemptive landscape helping us see a new world more imaginatively.
As you rightly point out, torture is used to protect the masses, but you don't believe it is just. You didn't say why- so why, in your view, is it unjust?
Joshua,
Thanks. What is justice? Good question. To answer my question requires some response. Let's say right or fair - something like that.
If I've understood your comment, I have another question. So - why would it not be unjust to torture?
In your scenario the terrorist did plant the bomb. But normally it takes time to figure that out. That is why we have trials. In the rush maybe innocent people might be harmed.
The state has to protect the system of keeping apart the executive and the adjudicative so abuse is prevented.
Sisyphos,
Is it then just to privilege the many over the one?
I would say: As God's creations, made in His image, torture / violence is unnatural and impure (unjust) making us less than human. Jesus willingly submitted to torture by the rule of evil to bring us life and the non-violent reign of God. Whenever we surrender to the rule of evil by using torture, I think we are turning our backs to God and strengthening the wrong kingdom.
Karen,
OK. This is good. You've now stated a why torture is unjust. It would be against God and his creation. You seem to be arguing that torture is wrong, irrespective of the consequences. I don't disagree, but what about the people on that airplane? Some say that saving them has to take precedence and if that could be accomplished through torture, then saving them makes it just.
Well, unless we're simply going to have an absolute, "torture is wrong", "killing is wrong", "spanking is wrong", etc, we're gonna have to look at context, and in this context, torture seems an appropriate measure. And it's the very reasons that torture seems appropriate that I'd just suggest it's unfortunate, but a fair or right response in that situation. There's still practical questions that need to be considered.
I'm not suggesting the ends justifies the means; however, if the ends can't be practically achieved without a given means, then we have to question whether that ends is worthwhile in the first place. Saving 200 lives seems like a good ends, and if that can only be achieved via "inflicting pain" on a culpable individual, which seems to be the constraint of the question, then I'd say go for it. If I were the guilty party, I'd hope someone would do that to me (although, probably not since I'd then be trying to bomb 200 folks, and that would hurt my chances of success.).
Joshua,
This is a good utilitarian response. Something like: Choosing the action that has the best consequences for the most people determines what is just. But would anything ever be unjust that satisfied that criteria?
I agree that saving people is always just, but by what means? Torture is used in the "hope" of getting information to save others. When this is employed,it seems to me a lack of hope that God would intervene in some other way in line with His character.
Karen,
That's a great question. Yes, torture would seem to be taking matters into our own hands, yet regretfully planes are hijacked and sometimes blown up. It is important to hope that God would intervene, but sometimes that doesn't appear to be the case and our hopes are not realized.
Human worth and dignity are bestowed by God to all. Freedom, rights, and liberty are therefore not merely for the majority, but for the minority too.
Well, 1 for 200 or 200 for 1, the argument still holds either ways, and the number isn't important. And yes, plenty would still be unjust, as it doesn't beg the question to its justness. It's not that the ends justify the means, but that the ends and means mutually inform one another. I'd say the same thing about conning a terrorist. Generally, it's wrong to con someone, a form of injustice. However, in this situation, I'd suggest it's appropriate, the only difference is you're going to have less people against conning a terrorist. In the immediacy of a crisis, exceptional circumstances do emerge for ethics.
So perhaps God would prefer us to allow 200 innocent folks to die so we don't get our hands dirty. Perhaps true hope is praying for a miracle when none has been promised.
And I think one of the things that will separate people, I'm not a liberal, and people there are some truly rotten human beings out there for which one has to respond appropriately to who they are, not to what one's conceptions of humanity are. Here is a person actively trying to murder people's father's, mother's, friends, wives, husbands, children, etc. What relevance does freedom, liberty, and rights have to the ethical question? A true utilitarian wouldn't care if the person was innocent or not, I'm not saying torture's okay as long as it's for a good cause. But I am saying if it can't be done without torture, then maybe it's not as worthy of a cause as one might think.
Joshua,
You have defended your view well.
I wonder though if exceptional circumstances allows for something being done - that is never right, in spite of the circumstances.
A true utilitarian is only concerned with justice in the sense that it maximizes utility - that is, ensuring what is best for the most people - increase pleasure and decrease pain.
I was just trying to say that if freedom, rights, and liberty are important for the many, they should be equally important for the one. The cause may be worthy, but perhaps is it not worth violating these conceptions in order to accomplish a goal, whatever that might be.
I have a question: Who is it that tortures?
For if it was me that tortures, that would be self justice. But if it was God's minister - the state or one of its representatives - this might be the correct action to be taken. This is their job and it must - imho - act it out to the good of the just and to the punishment of the evil. Yes, Jesus lived a live that was totally different as Karen stated. The last part of Romans 12 is "Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good." but the next verse - and chapters are only structuring added later - introduces the institution government/state...
So this leaves us in a difficult position if there is no state representative in the air plane.
And even if he were there, I don't know if I would say that torturing was just.
This is no answer, I know... ;)
When I think of just, I believe it to be an action that describes all that is pure and right, forward moving and restorative. As in war, I don't think torture meets that criteria. Imperfect governments may choose necessary evils to protect their people, and perhaps there are some cases where it might be labeled "justifiable" without calling it just. Although, I don't think we can find a perfect example of this.
Could torture be justifiable while still remaining unjust? I don't know? It appears to be man's standard and option in a fallen world, pitted against God's perfect holy standard.
Lukas,
Thanks. True, a valid state is one that recognizes that it is under God - so not any state would do. But it would seem the state has a duty to preserve justice for all, even the terrorist.
Karen,
That's a very interesting possibility - justifiable, but not just. True, perfect examples would be impossible in a broken world. But if we go this route, I still think that we would need to articulate a why this could be the case and therefore what view of justifiable is acceptable in light of the perception of justice.
My question for ZigZag readers has to do with our views of justice and what they're based on. We make these kinds of decisions, either directly or indirectly, every day, so this is an important matter for reflection. What are our options? I believe, for example in looking at two of these, that following a categorical view is more appropriate than a utilitarian one - there is always a right thing to do in spite of a cost - benefit analysis, which may show the benefit to be more than the cost.
Theologically, I think that God loves each and every person and each and every person has worth and dignity.
Torture, therefore, can only be unjust, irrespective of the potential benefit that it might produce for another person or for many.
This was all very helpful. I bought your books via John Doherty and look forward to reading them.
Thank you for all you do!
Post a Comment