Who’s the Most Consequentialist Of Them All?
September 24, 2007
The Economist has a nice piece on torture and international law. It’s well worth reading, though it would be benefit from a clearer appreciation of the underlying moral issues. The essay discusses a BBC survey of 27,000 people in 25 countries about the legitimacy of torture. The people were asked if torture was always impermissible, or if it depended on circumstances such as “ticking bomb scenarios”. The results? Israel and Iraq are the most consequentialist countries, though China, Russia, and the US are not far behind. The European countries (Britain, France, and Germany) are the least consequentialist. It’s heartening to see that the legacy of Europe’s Christian culture is not dead, as some would claim.
12 Comments
Comments are closed.
This has nothing, I suspect, to do with Europe’s Christian Culture, but rather an image of the physical body as the last step in life – in other words, a disbelief in the afterlife. Therefore, torture and death are the worst possible outcomes, whereas a Christian Culture would hold that the loss of one’s soul to be a far worse outcome.
No, I doubt Christian influence any longer underlies this particular viewpoint, even if it once did.
Wait a second, Jonathan: could you be possibly arguing that a Christian culture is MORE accepting of torture?
I think we have to admit that when it comes to issues involving human dignity (not only torture but also some of the life issues), many of the nations of Europe have shown a better grasp of the moral principles involved than has the United States.
Sadly, it seems that even in the U.S., secular folks are more likely to always oppose torture than are the religious, and that Catholic tend to be even more supportive than other religious groups:
http://ncronline.org/NCR_Online/archives2/2006a/032406/032406h.htm
It certainly was for most of the last two millenia. Christianity being anti-torture under all circumstances is a product of the last half of the last century. The European anti-torture stance is much more a product of their assumption that they will never have to fight another war, than the vestigal influence that Christianity has upon secular Europa. I predict that this stance will endure until the day after jihadists take out the first European city with a nuclear device. Then I think the Europeans will resort to their traditional interrogation techniques which have usually been a good deal more severe than American techniques.
Backadder and MM,
I think you are correct. It seems that the population of an increasingly secularizing Europe is more accepting of certain pro-life principles than that of the so-called Christian culture in America. I would suggest that this is a residual Catholic ethic that shaped Europe’s conscience for so many centuries. We just haven’t had a strong ethic of life in America, likely due to the predominantly Protestant ethic that permeates our societies. After all, is it not the Catholics who have always been at the forefront of the pro-life movement in the U.S.?
Donald,
You have it backwards. European Christians tolerated torture because they accepted the legitimacy of Roman law, which included a huge role for torture. As with so much else, the Christianization of the Roman world mitigated this practice, but it took longer than it should have to end it completely.
And really, your consequentialistic ethic is about as anti-Christian as can be imagined (and you make accusations of moral equivalence around here???).
No, I am arguing that Christian morality or vestiges thereof do not underlie Europe’s lack of ease with torture – similarly, Christian morality does not underlie arguments against the death penalty made by secularists in the United States.
Ah Tony you toss around charges of consequentialism like a lawyer tosses around summonses. It is not consequentialism to state that Christianity had little problem with torture under certain circumstances until, in historical terms, the day before yesterday, or to state that European present aversion to torture has little to do with Christian influence or to predict that the Europeans under pressure will resort to torture.
To correct your history, the Church used torture in its fight against heresy, and to maintain order in the Papal states, not because of Roman law but because the Church viewed it as an effective tool in fighting against heresy and in maintaining order. Many aspects of Roman society and law the Church tossed aside: gladiatorial duels, the legal status of concubines, the ability of a father to kill his children under certain circumstances, divorce, crucifixion, etc. The Church, and Europe in general, kept torture because it was perceived at the time as useful, not because it was embodied in Roman law, which neither the Church nor European states were shy about changing willy-nilly.
As for my personal views, I am against physical torture as I have stated time and again on many blogs. I am not against using non-physical interrogation techniques against suspected terrorists. Therefore I find myself in disagreement with the traditional Church teaching allowing the use of physical torture under certain circumstances.
Off-topic maybe:
Is it a secret or something that MM’s name is apparently Tony?
Are his (apparent) ideological opponents blowing the lid on The Case of the Pseudonymous Handle? Not that it matters, but I feel I must be missing something.
The full survey results can be found here:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/in_depth/6063386.stm#table
I’m sceptical of most survey data for China and India, because of the difficulty in having any representativity for their rural populations, but I think they point to a suggestion why Christianity might not be the best explanation for opposition to torture in Europe – the 49% of Chinese opposed to torture aren’t Christian for the most part. Whenever we laud Christianity’s role in helping a society have the proper moral beliefs, we must be careful lest we forget that these conclusions may be reached through the recognition of natural law, written in the hearts of all men. Of course Christianity may play a part, which might explain why Turkey and Egypt are the only surveyed countries with more than the average (59%) opposed to torture (if you count S. Korea as Christian, which isn’t absurd). But note that the US (58%) is ahead of Mexico, Kenya, Ukraine, and the Philippines on that note.
Also, regarding Europe and the death penalty. To argue that its abolishing the death penality was the result of a Christian ethic of life is to be ignorant of the historic processes whereby the death penalty was abolished in the various European countries.
In Germany, for example, the death penalty was abolished in the post-WWII Basic Law in order to stall pressure from the allies (including France and Britain, along with the US) to execute former Nazis. It wasn’t a humanitarian action. France’s abolition of the death penalty does seem more to follow out of a humanitarian view driven in part by Catholic Social Thought (Valery Giscard d’Estaing, who was opposed it while President was from the Christian Democrat party of the time), but most of the French supported it at the time of abolition (62% according to one poll).
The complexities of history notwithstanding, we may hope and pray that more people in the US and everywhere will adopt a consistent ethic of life, especially Catholics, who have not only their consciences but the loving teaching of the Church to lead them to see all human beings as created in the image and likeness of God.
And surely it is within the competence of the bishops to point out that any activity that ignores that fact about human nature (whether it be classified as torture by the Geneva Accords or not) is inconsistent with being pro-life.
Abp. Chaput once argued that the abolition of the death penalty was promoted by Europe’s Christian roots, and he’s right. Pope Benedict also notes that the founders of post-war Europe saw no conflict between Christainity and Enlightenment values– it was only later that the divergence took place. Although much of Europe is jaded and secular, the outlook is still influenced by two millenia of Christianity, even if they don’t realize it.
To which outlook do you refer, MM?
Since the data on torture you provide has no historical analysis with it, and given that many of other European norms are little or not at all influenced by Christianity, I still hold that the discomfort with torture has nothing to do with prior Christian influence.