The topic of torture and Christian ethics is now a heated discussion topic here. I’d like to ask a (perhaps naive) question about torture. Where is the harm located? What ethical principles are being violated by torture?
Sixteen years ago, I contracted appendicitis and was in the hospital three days recovering from surgery. During that recovery, I was receiving intravenous pain medication (Demerol I believe) to ameliorate discomfort after the procedure. One one occasion my wife returned to the room after being out for some hours running errands. She asked me if I had any telephone calls in her absence. I replied in the affirmative. She asked who and inquired about details about what had been discussed. I had no clue. The pain medication had severely impacted my ability to retain memory of events. It is likely that if not present in the modern pharmacological arsenal there are drugs which completely block short/long term memory formation these drugs could quickly be developed given modern technology and reasonable expectations of the abilities of modern medical technology.
So my question is the following: How does memory relate to harm? Does memory have anything to do with the harm or wrong which we associate with what is wrong with torture?
An interrogator uses “waterboarding” or similar techniques which do no lasting physical damage. The subject breaks under the stress and confesses and talks freely for hours for questioning afterwards. Is the harm or evil we associate with that occurrence changed if the subject is incapable of recalling that it occurred? What if both the subject and the interrogator have no memory of the event … that only in some small corner of intelligence archives exist transcripts of the event afterwards. Does that change the moral calculus or not? Why?
What does continuing to say that this act is wrong imply about your meta-ethics? Are there non-deontological arguments that still hold this to be wrong? For it seems to be that consequential arguments against using this sort of drug and method is likely very weak, i.e., the consequences afterwards are negligible and are likely outweighed if there are any appreciable benefits.
For what it’s worth, I think that Christian ethics are weakly deontological, I prefer to say that Christian ethics are a mix of pneumatic, deontology, and virtue ethical ideas (where pneumatic refers to inspiration by the Spirit, e.g., consider Abraham taking his son for sacrifice remains not only right but laudable because it is in obedience to God’s command).
January 11th, 2010 | 8:49 am | #1
This is getting bizarre. Beam me up Scottie.
January 11th, 2010 | 10:57 am | #2
If you only consider consequentialist principles, you can’t get an absolute prohibition on anything except the principle that we should seek the best consequences. So to get a moral ban on all torture, there better be some deontological principles at stake. The question is whether those deontological principles themselves are absolutist.
I happen to think the only deontological principle that is absolutist is the moral claim that we ought to give due honor to God and follow him in whatever ways are best for doing so. There are many ethical principles beyond that, and most of them apply most of the time. Some of them apply almost all the time and would require crazy hypotheticals to find exceptions (or very weak cases with moral principles about matters that involve vague concepts occurring along a spectrum, such as consent and coercion, harm, or what someone’s motivation and desires are in doing an act).
But to answer your question, I think the deontological principle behind JMR’s opposition to torture is his principle that it’s always wrong to coerce someone, a principle I’ve questioned. He doesn’t think it’s always wrong to cause pain or to cause pain that someone remembers. He doesn’t think it’s always wrong to cause harm, even permanent harm, knowing full well that one is doing so. He does think it’s wrong to cause harm for the sake of causing harm without some higher purpose, but he doesn’t think such a higher purpose can be merely getting information that will lead to better consequences when the causing of harm is done to violate someone’s ability to consent to giving up that information. So it’s mainly an issue of consent to choose to speak when one wants to and to refrain from giving information when one doesn’t.
As I’ve said along the way, I think the problem with that argument is that consent and coercion come along a spectrum, and weaker versions of coercion undermining consent can be morally correct under the right sorts of circumstances. When the consequences increase in their badness, avoiding them might require undermining consent to a stronger degree than is normally moral. That’s why I think torture isn’t in principle wrong. JMR has a more absolutist view about that principle. We both take it to be deontological, because neither of us thinks slightly better consequences for a serious undermining consent are enough to justify it. But he takes it to be absolutist, whereas I think there could be circumstances where undermining someone’s consent via coercion to a great degree can be morally all right, as long as those consequences are extremely serious.
So I’m not sure the disagreement is really meta-ethical. It’s more on the level of normative ethics, I think.
January 11th, 2010 | 11:08 am | #3
[...] E. Sagers Fred Sanders Justin Taylor Frank Turk David Wayne Jared C. Wilson Recent Comments Meta-Ethics, Memory, and the Torture Question (2)Jeremy Pierce: If you only consider consequentialist principles, you… Open Letter to JMR: The [...]
January 11th, 2010 | 11:22 am | #4
How about the idea that torturing someone is a form of control and an exertion of power of one human above another in a non-agreed upon manner? As Christians, we submit ourselves to our leaders, the Church, and Christ. Therefore, when we allow our leaders to exert power over us, we are willingly doing so. When the state, and its actors in soldiers, exerts power over an individual in the form of torture, that is not a mutually agreeable situation. Especially in a society where we already have laws designed to protect those who are criminals in order to maintain their human dignity. As a society, we have acknowledged the innate dignity that a human being deserves, and when we torture, we remove that dignity. If you argue that there is no such dignity, then that would have to apply to citizen criminals as well.
The main problem with torture in order to gain information, as I see it as a Christian, is that it removes our ability to trust in the sovereignty of God. We torture because we are worried about what the future holds. However, if we agree that torture is an immoral act (although I understand that is the argument here), then we have to agree that it is not ok to commit an immoral act in order to save lives. Those lives are not ours to save. We have a responsibility to do what Christ would ask us, which is to live our lives in a manner that glorifies Him. Torture does not do that. Therefore, if we are just concerned for the future, no immoral act can justify that. If we are to trust in the sovereignty of God, we must trust that our acting in a moral manner will be all the protection we need.
January 11th, 2010 | 11:46 am | #5
“The main problem with torture in order to gain information, as I see it as a Christian, is that it removes our ability to trust in the sovereignty of God. We torture because we are worried about what the future holds.”
Does having gov’t employees who inspect the structural integrity of bridges express distrust in God’s providence?
January 11th, 2010 | 11:52 am | #6
Steve is right. No argument of the form “X wrong because it prevents us from trusting God” is sound if God gives us the ability to do things to achieve the ends he has for us to do. This is the main problem with one argument against contraception. If contraception is wrong, and the reason it is wrong is merely because it means you can’t trust God and use contraception, then we can’t do most of what we do most of the time, because that would also prevent us from trusting God. We shouldn’t seek out our own food, because that prevents us from trusting God. We shouldn’t acquire clothing for ourselves, because that prevents us from trusting God. I shouldn’t feed my baby daughter, because that prevents me from trusting God.
There are other arguments against contraception, and there are other arguments against torture. This one in particular, though, has little hope of succeeding without leading to ridiculous consequences, not to mention violating the apostolic command to work out our own salvation as God works in us. It assumes that we don’t need to work it out, because God will do it all for us. That mindset is contrary to the entire thrust of biblical revelation.
January 11th, 2010 | 12:25 pm | #7
You guys missed the biggest point of my argument. It’s not that doing something that God gave us the ability to do is removing our ability to trust God. It’s that us doing something that is immoral removes our ability to trust God. Testing the structural integrity of a bridge is not immoral. Exerting the state’s power over an individual in a manner that degrades their human dignity is an immoral action, in my view. Therefore, the argument that it is acceptable to act in an immoral manner (torture) to gain information that could save lives removes our trust. There is no excuse ever to act in an immoral manner, or a manner that goes against what Christ teaches.
January 11th, 2010 | 1:04 pm | #8
In other words, we are commanded to always act within Christ’s teaching, which is to live out our lives in a manner that glorifies God. I believe torture is against that command, so no excuse would justify violating that command. Not even saving “innocent” lives. There is no excuse great enough to allow us to violate the command to follow Christ’s teachings.
January 11th, 2010 | 1:06 pm | #9
Matt
“Therefore, the argument that it is acceptable to act in an immoral manner (torture) to gain information that could save lives removes our trust. There is no excuse ever to act in an immoral manner, or a manner that goes against what Christ teaches.”
I think everyone here agrees with that generic principle. The question at issue is whether every form of coercive interrogation is a special case of that generic principle. You need to justify your claim that any kind or degree of coercive interrogation is intrinsically evil.
January 11th, 2010 | 2:49 pm | #10
steve hays,
Suppose you had knowledge that one of the apostles would directly or indirectly attempt to kill Jesus within 24 hours – and further suppose that you are legally motivated to prevent all murders, including that of Jesus – what manner of coercive interrogation would be permissible within Christian doctrine?
January 11th, 2010 | 8:04 pm | #11
As Steve pointed out, the “crucial premise” is exactly what is at issue here. It would be question-begging to assume the conclusion of your argument in order to establish that conclusion.
January 11th, 2010 | 9:50 pm | #12
No. And here’s why: if the waterboarding is justified, then the actors’ memory of it or lack thereof has no relevance to its justification. If I correctly answer 4 to the question of what is the the sum 2 +2 on my math test, and then forget that I took the test, my answer is still correct. My remembering it has no bearing on its justification.
People can be harmed without realizing. Suppose I stand to gain a million dollars from an inheritance. But an unscrupulous executor takes the money. Imagine that I live my entire life never knowing that I was entitled to this million dollars. I was still wronged. My knowledge of it is not relevant to that judgment.
January 11th, 2010 | 9:54 pm | #13
“Does having gov’t employees who inspect the structural integrity of bridges express distrust in God’s providence?”
That’s a good one, Steve.
Years ago I had a guy in my Bible study who was one of these “trust God, punt to Jesus” types. I once asked him why he brushed his teeth, since that shows a lack of faith that God has the power to remove the plaque. He answered, “That’s a good question.”
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact