I just have two quick questions:

1. Is there not drugs which can be used - ala. "Truth Serum" - to glean important information without the use of torture. Do these drugs impinge on Free Will (as well as torture I suppose) and thus are they illicit (don't want to crack open the whole debate again)?

2. Is something like hypnosis illicit because you are "handing over" your Free Will willingly? I did not take part in a party games hypnotizer (although the people who did were hilarious of course) because I had a gut feeling that willingly signing over your Will was wrong.

I don't know if I agree that it would be OK to permit torture because it might prevent a greater evil. Wasn't it St. Thomas Aquinas who said you must not do evil so that good will come of it? In that case, a pro-abortionist could say, "Well, abortion is evil, but if Hitler's mother has aborted him, it would have stopped a greater evil from happening." I'm not philopher or logician, so I could be wrong here. (Yes, I know some evils are more evil than others, so I am not comparing how evil torture is compared to abortion; I am just talking about the ends justifying the means.

Secondly, about torture, from what I have read, the methods we are using are the same ones the Soviet Union used, not to get information that might prevent something, but to break down people. Even if I agreed with the ends justifying the means, it sounds as if the means aren't all that effective anyway.

Maureen

Maureen, you're indeed correct: we may not do evil that good may come of it. With regard to "torture" (in that narrow sense of the term to which something like waterboarding would belong) the question is whether the act is indeed a malum in se -- an intrinsic evil.

The vociferous anti-torture camp tends to take this as a premise rather than a conclusion. But to do so is, I think, to ignore other acts, more grave than waterboarding, that we know (because the Church's thought on them is more thoroughly developed) are not intrinsically evil, but made good or evil according to circumstances. The act of homicide is a perfect example. In the right circumstances, it can be just; in others it's murder. Likewise the act of restricting another person's freedom of self-determination.

We can take man's life or freedom away if circumstances warrant and if a certain set of conditions are met. I concur with Elizabeth that we can also inflict discomfort -- a lesser physical evil than taking his life or freedom -- in the right circumstances. A fortiori.

Elizabeth and Todd,

I think you need to take a second look at what you say. I could give you an earful about why torture is a bad idea, why it is not only unnecesary, but not even helpful for the end you both appear to seek, but I'll limit my comment to your moral reasoning.

Elizabeth: Aside from the fact that we are not at war, and if we were, it would be hard to see how this would be a just war. You say, "Of course, all evil - no matter the degree - contributes to the "sin of the world"; this is a broken world and we are a broken, imperfect and stiff-necked people, and we're never going to get it all just right. So, thank God for his mercy."

This sounds an awful lot like, "we are not going to get it right, so why worry?" The sin of presumption comes to mind.

Second, it sounds like you are agreeing that torture is morally evil but okay to do. This is not a morally acceptable position for a Catholic, for reasons Maureen gave.

Todd: you argument is specious. You say that since it is sometimes permissible to take a person's life, it is permissible to do anything less (like torture a person)--or at least upon this your argument depends. This is not the case. We can't rape or mutilate them can we? You need more than, "we can kill and this isn't near as bad as that." Also, there are very specific moral criteria for taking human life. A couple of things are missing from your equation: 1) the enemy putting us in a position where we have no choice but to tortue 2) The requisite sovereignty over the individual to engage in this sort of act.

I suggest we keep in mind 1) that the people we fight think right is on their side, just as we think right is on our side 2) there is a much easier way to end terroism: discontinue our military prescence on their soil and quit backing their enemy, Israel.

Civis, that's not quite what I said. I argued that since we know that killing someone is not intrinsically immoral, but rather that its morality depends on circumstances, it follows that a lesser form of violence also requires recourse to circumstances before we can make a moral judgment.

NOT, please note, that "torture is permissible because it's sometimes permissible to kill," as you have cast it.

Consider it another, perhaps more direct, way. We know that it is not immoral to strike a man. The act may be moral -- in cases, say, of applying just correction, or of stopping the advances of an unjust aggressor -- or it may be immoral; eg if you whack somebody with a baseball bat to steal his wallet.

What, then, of striking a man in order to inflict discomfort so as to obtain information from him?

This too, I argue, is not immoral in itself (certainly not according to any recognizable standard) but depends on circumstances. These circumstances could include: the authority of the party doing the striking, the reasonable likelihood of getting the information (and inability to get it by other means), the proportionality of the information to the discomfort inflicted, and the question of the first party's right, in justice, to have to that information.

You're thus quite correct that "moral criteria" are part of the "equation." I'm saying nothing less.

Todd,

Thank you for the clarification. I still think you need to think about this some more. I have four problems with what you are saying:


1) Torture and killing are always evil. You said that we cannot take it as a premise that torture is intrisically evil (aside, you may have in mind some special meaning for some of your terms and if you do, you may want to share these special definitions--example: according to my definition you are misusing the term malum in se). How can you say that intentionally infliciting pain is not evil? It is evil. It is nonsense to speak otherwise. Likewise, it is indeed always evil to take a human life. How can you say otherwise? Pain is never good, nor is death. If you attack me and I am forced to use lethal force, that is evil. Though it is *your* evil. The same goes for capital punishment.

2) Since it is evil, we cannot choose to do it. In the examples of self-defense and capital punishment, it is not the actor that chooses what happens, but the receiver of the action who forces the actor's hand to protect himself or to protect others. For the unwary reader, your argument sounds plausible, but you make a subtle shift from self-defense/defense of society, which may be based on a priciple such as double effect to--unless you have inadvertently missed a couple steps--a utilitarian argument. What is your basis for the evil of torture not being immoral, if it is not the end justifying the means? I am not seeing what it would be.

3) I think that it is important to, as you say, consider the circumstances. I am willing to hear you out on your theoretical justification, but let's not pretend that what we say right now, today, in this forum is mere friendly discussion. We are speaking about this topic in the context of the current situation, and the powers that be. This is serious business, and remember that we are a government BY THE PEOPLE, so when LT. Jones "waterboards" Ahmed, it might as well be you and me. Whether you are right or wrong IMHO, you are not thinking this through properly. I think we need to be very careful about this issue. I would be very hesitant to say anything in support of tortue, especially under current circumstances.

4) I believe in the golden rule. If it is okay for us to torture them, then will you agree with me that it is okay for them to torture our men for information?

My title for the post says it all.

North,

That's not one I have thought a lot about vis-a-vis whether it is immoral. Somebody else would have to give the definitive answer. But I would be like you, unsure whether it is okay. This being the case, we should not do it (not supposed to follow a doubtful conscience).

Another reason I wouldn't do it is that IMHO, it is not a good idea to allow someone to have that kind of control over you. Do you trust them? For an entertainer, it's probably no big deal (I don't know), but for "therapy" I wouldn't touch it with a ten-foot pole.

Of course, my education on hypnosis is based more on episodes of the Dukes of Hazzard and Magnum P.I. than anything scientific.

This argument equally lends itself to the defense of torture. If I am justified in harming you in the defense of others does it matter whether you are actively killing them or have done something that, if not thwarted, will kill in the future? Have you not equally forced my hand and my response in both cases? If you were walking a mall randomly shooting people I would be morally justified in doing pretty much anything at all to stop you. Why am I then not justified in doing pretty much anything at all to stop you from killing dozens by forcing you to reveal where you planted a bomb?

You also said that torture and killing are always evil and thus we can never choose to do them, but we may surely choose to kill in self defense (CCC 2263). Since we may never choose evil it must be that killing is not, in every circumstance, evil. It is unclear whether torture is not in the same category.

I am not yet convinced that torture is ever morally just, but these arguments fail to convince me that it is not.

Ok, let me reply in order.

1. You say "torture and killing are always evil." Well, the second part of that statement we know to be false -- as Ender points out, it's morally licit to kill, for one example, in self-defense -- and the first part of the statement is precisely what we're debating! So you can't use that as a premise.

Or perhaps you're confusing moral evil with physical evil? I agree that killing and inflicting pain are physical evils, but they're not always moral evils. The state, or a soldier, or a cop can do morally do the first; a doctor (for example) can do the second. Can the state also do it, if the circumstances are right? Again, that's what we're arguing.

2) You say "In the examples of self-defense and capital punishment, it is not the actor that chooses what happens, but the receiver of the action who forces the actor's hand to protect himself or to protect others." That's a very eccentric way to justify using lethal force, and one, I put it to you, that does not hold up in light of Catholic morality and anthropology. By all means, the actor "chooses" his free actions; he might not WILL the death of the other, but he's not "forced" to do the things that result in it.

3. I agree that there's an important practical question to be considered as part of the torture argument, even if I don't necessarily adopt your ominous suspicions about the state. But that doesn't impact our theoretical discussion of the question of whether it can morally licit to inflict discomfort on somebody. That's as far as my ambition reaches. The pragmatic question of implementing such acts is another ball of wax.

4. You ask, "If it is okay for us to torture them, then will you agree with me that it is okay for them to torture our men for information?"

Well, if I'm right and the morally licit use of what you're calling "torture" to extract information depends in part on the torturer's right to that information, then it would depend on whether "they" have that right. I'm not arguing that it's morally licit simply, understand. If one of "our" men were withholding information to which his questioner had a right, and which could be put to a good use proportionate to the discomfort he'd suffer, then yes, I'd say it would be licit for "them" to do it.

But torture for sadistic pleasure? To break the will of prisoners? As an act of vengeance? To send a message of terror? And so on? No.

Sorry, North. I didn't say anything because I'm just not sure. Like Civis I don't have an adequate knowledge of what hypnosis is really all about.

On reflection I'd say it seems pretty clear that using hypnosis (or psychotropic drugs) to exercise "mind control" in a "Manchurian Candidate" kind of way is morally evil. But to get information that would save the life of innocents? Very tricky. A person's right to self-determination is very sacred, but not absolute, so perhaps it could be done.

Todd and Ender: I want you both to know I have an open mind. That said...

Ender,

Two things: 1) I have not made an argument that torture is evil--not yet anyway--so I wouldn't expect you to be convinced [maybe I ought to write my argument against] 2) Since we cannot act on a doubtful conscience, the onus is on the supporters of torture to show that it is okay.

You bring up some good points that might dovetail with Todd's reference to a "right to know". You may have a good point vis-a-vis an imminent threat. There are problems though: 1) the torture the Bush Admin has authorized (and been practicing) is not limited to imminent threats, nor would there be many circumstances when we would be in such a situation 2) An enemy in war always has in mind to kill many of our men. So do we say that torture is okay as a matter of course in a war (aside, we are not at war).

See also what I say to Todd below.

Todd,

There is probably not space here for you to make your case that we can torture people in the context of the so-called "War on Terror". If you have made this case somewhere, I would be interested in a link or reference so that I can read it. If not, you might consider composing it.

RE what you said about torture and killing always being evil, you are introducing a new term with "physical evil". My position is not unreasonable, and "we" don't know it to be false that killing is always evil. I don't agree with you, and neither did JP II, nor do a host of other moral theorists and philosophers. Further, regarding my idea about it being the evil of the reciever of the action, I guess JPII is also a little "eccentric." I would suggest you go to the old Catholic encyclopedia on newadvent.org and read about "good" and "evil". All this being said, I think you are missing that we are in agreement that it is sometimes permissible to take a human life. I think you are confusing my statement that "Killing is always evil" to mean "You can never kill." That is not the case. My position is that because torture is evil, you have got a problem that you need to address since we cannot do evil that good may come of it.

I think what you refer to as "torturer's right to that information" is key to your argument, though I'm not sure what your basis for this right would be--which is one reason why I would be interested in reading your full case for torture.

Your last paragraph is either a straw man or confirms that indeed you are making a utilitarian argument: "But torture for sadistic pleasure? To break the will of prisoners? As an act of vengeance? To send a message of terror? And so on? No." No one is arguing that the end you suggest(getting information to protect Americans--aside this is not the only use of torture as used by the Bush Administration) is evil, only the means. Or are you arguing that the end justifies the means?

I got busy and lost track of this thread, but one thing: I must say I find it ironic to be accused of the "sin of presumption" by someone who presumes to accuse me of sin.

Careful of that beam, brother.