This is nearly a year old, but still worth flagging. In an attempt to provide a respectable veneer to its pro-torture gloss, the National Review convened a panel of “experts” who decided – surprise, surprise – that American-style torture is OK. The sad thing is that some of these experts are Catholics, based at Catholic institutions. Read it for yourself. I’ll give you a few highlights.
Gerald Bradley (University of Notre Dame) - like Spock in Wrath if Khan who said that “logic clearly dictates that the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few” (the epitime of cold hard consequentialism) - ”the requirements of justice really do vary with the severity of the circumstances facing the decision maker, so much so that one may — justly — cause the death of many to save an even greater number….Figuring out what is fair in this way calls for very clear-headed, and even cold-hearted prudential judgment. By “cold-hearted” I mean that we must not let sentiment or queasiness deter us from doing what should be done.”
E. Christian Brugger (St. John Vianney Theological Center, Denver) – a little bit of torture goes a long way – “the definition is [in the UN Convention Against Torture] too broad for my liking. Although I think some forms of severe pain and suffering are always wrong to inflict on prisoners, the infliction of pain per se is not wrong, since pain in itself is not an evil (nor pleasure a good). So under, say, a “ticking time-bomb” scenario, pain threatened or inflicted as an incentive to give information that is unjust to withhold can, it seems to me, be justified.”
Christopher Eberle (United States Naval Academy) – the bad guys have only themselves to blame if they get tortured – “fairness in distributing harms would permit us to waterboard KSM. Given that he had forced us to choose between his well-being and the well-being of many innocents, we could “distribute” the harm to him, not them.”
Patrick Lee (Franciscan University of Steubenville) – pain is good, so go for it! – “intentionally causing pain in order to provide the detainee with a motive to deliver information is not intrinsically immoral. Unlike bodily or psychosomatic integrity (which are violated in real torture), pain is not the deprivation of a basic human good. Indeed, pain often is part of the proper functioning of a human being as a sentient living being..”
Lee finishes with an adolescent rant about those damned ”lib-uh-rals” who have only lately discovered the concept of moral absolutes. He fails to realize that he is engaging in the exact same kind of moral relativism. It’s incredible that a chaired professor at Franciscan University could deliver such a diatribe.
Might you consider also posting commentary from conservatives demonstrating that waterboarding is unacceptable?
http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2010/02/1161
Or would that be in conflict with the mission of the blog?
Incidentally, I think Tolefson demonstrates that Lee’s premise that you ridicule (that the intentional infliction of pain — think “does it hurt when I do this?” in a clinial setting — is not intrinsically immoral, is not ridiculous, but that using it to justify waterboarding is.
By the way, I though that the “adolescent rant” was a description of the “seamless garment” or “consistent ethic of life” position we are supposed to support, except from the other direction. It is the mirror image of the “most pro-lifers don’t care about children once they’re born” that is often advanced in our culture, and rarely condemned (and sometimes even echoed) on VN.
Lee’s point is that if moral dignity matters for the prisoner, it should also matter for the unborn. Do you disagree?
Would you consider the torture debate leading to a more frank discussion of the dignity of unborn life to be a bad thing?
[...] ” Robert George) published a thoughtful critique of Marc Thiessen’s torture defense, over at Vox Nova, Morning’s Minion decided to post a nearly year-old symposium from National Review on the [...]
The article you point to is amazing for reasons beyond those you point out. First of all I want to correct Mr. Lee on a couple points. I am now and have been for many years a strong “liberal.” This means that I believe the solution to most of our problems will come from changing the systems under which our society operates (health care). I came to this position because of the strong moral teaching I received at the hand of Franciscan sisters under the direction of Franciscan priests. However, I never believed in moral relativism, I have long believed abortion is evil and resent that these beliefs are confused with a basic liberal outlook. The practice of constructing a “liberal” who believes all these principles is like constructing a conservative who is also racists, a zenophobe and a war monger. The liberals and conservatives who fit those descriptions may exist, but the brush is way too broad.
All of the ethical experts argue for torture (call it what you want) to be allowed under “ticking bomb” scenarios, when other means have failed. This is not what was done. KSM was water boarded 189 times! Most of them after he had already begun to talk. He has been determined to be unfit for trial because of the psychological damage done by his “enhanced interrogation.” The FBI complained that their interrogators were having success and then were forced to leave so the intelligence services could take over. Our government did not insure that torture was not used even by the very generous outlines these experts lay out. If we are going to argue about torture, we should argue about the things we know happened. Not about what could or should happen under circumstances that didn’t exist.
You guys are all messed up. Torture works, and I can prove it. In the 17th century, Germany was gripped by a wave of witchcraft. Thousands of witches were discovered and burned. Yet not one of these evil witches–not one–confessed voluntarily. They all had to be encouraged by enhanced interrogation techniques. Without the dedication of the brave German interrogation services, Germany would be overrun by witches–and then the world!
So what are you guys? Pro-witch?
It’s incredible that a chaired professor at Franciscan University could deliver such a diatribe.
Judging from the attitudes and statements made by the (many) Steubenville grads at work in my diocese, there is absolutely nothing surprising about a professor there saying something like this.
Once again, I’m not sure “consequentialism” is the culprit here. Each of these men defends torture as “justified”. . . meaning that it only causes great pain, it doesn’t violate a “principle.”
This is the danger inherent in deontologism: moral principles are held regardless of what their consequences are and regardless of how they are applied. An honest consequentialist would not have been hoodwinked by Bush. . . I mean, does anybody really believe that there is one ticking nuke for every prisoner in Abu Ghraib? Of course not, but once “principle” has been invoked, the facts don’t matter.
And on a side note: Spock declared that the needs of the many outweighed the needs of the few. . . when he was sacrificing his own life. He wasn’t deciding that soem other poor bastard would be tortured or killed. It’s bad enough these men betray Catholicism; must we stand by as they besmirch Star Trek as well?
One wonders if torture-supporters will be forced to endure torture in purgatory?
JohnMcG: “Might you consider also posting commentary from conservatives demonstrating that waterboarding is unacceptable?”
What do you mean by “conservative”, and what role does it have in this context? The Chuch teaches that torture (and waterbaording has always been regarded as torture, but Cheney got his hands on it) is always evil, a grave violation of human dignity, and therefore Catholics should view it as such. What has “conservatism” (either correctly or incorrectly defined) have to do with it?
The problem with Lee’s mention of the unborn was not his statement of moral absolutes when it comes to the life of the unborn, it is his all-too-predictable attempt to use the unborn to give cover to the Bush administration’s policies of torture. The give-away is his use of the word “liberals”, which, last time I checked doesn’t really have a specific meaning in moral theology (and certainly not the way Lee uses it!).
His hissy response is probably because, deep down, he knows he is on shallow ground, the same shallow ground that barely holds up an abortion supporter. He says that “intentionally mutilating someone or intentionally damaging a person’s psychosomatic integrity” is intrinsically evil but “intentionally causing pain in order to provide the detainee with a motive to deliver information” is not.
He is both playing games with definitions and engaging in consequentialism. It’s akin to “the direct killing of innocent human beings is wrong” but “intentionally terminating the life of a fetus which is not yet a human being to improve the life of the mother” is not. Sound familiar?
*Sigh*
Yes, I momentarily forgot I was in Vox Nova land, where every use of the word “liberal” or conservative” must be surrounded by five paragraphs of disclaimers about what exactly I’m talking about, when we all know damn well. But, anyway…
You are in one political tribe, or political movment, or whatever you would prefer to call it. In this post, you point to the incorrect arguments for torture from the opposing tribe. I was merely pointing out that there have been strong arguments against torture from this same tribe.
–
My point with Lee is why not call his bluff, if that’s what you think it is?
Why not reject all equivocation on issues like torture and abortion? Wouldn’t that be more fruitful than just shouting “hypocrite?”
If the pain we’re talking about is that caused by the interrogation techniques approved under the Bush administration, then we’re not talking about possibly justifiable pain that motivates the will. We’re talking about unjustifiable pain that undermines it.
I don’t care to write another post on torture at the moment, but I have a real problem with many people defining torture as immoderation. While an act can certainly be evil by being immoderate, we aren’t speaking of its intrinsic nature, and to speak of something being intrinsically evil, we must understand its intrinsic nature. If we were to apply the same casuistry to rape, we would say that rape is sex with an immoderate level of persuassion. I don’t think many people would be happy with that definition.
“*sigh*
Yes, I momentarily forgot I was in Vox Nova land, where every use of the word “liberal” or conservative” must be surrounded by five paragraphs of disclaimers about what exactly I’m talking about, when we all know damn well. But, anyway…”
But this is exactly what you are doing, no? Conservatives defend torture. . . and your response is to insist that MM seek out conservatives who didn’t.
As if the point is to shore up the reputation of conservatism, and not to denounce torture.
Gerald Bradley is a law professor at Notre Dame who does not specialize in ethics. National Review passed over the ND professors who do specialize in ethics like David Solomon, James Sterba, and Kristin Shrader-Frechette.
Patrick Lee has done some fine work in bioethics, so his anemic response here is rather disappointing. For someone who has championed the dignity of the human person, Lee betrays a real confusion in his own thinking.
Not a single “expert” among this group is considered to be an expert in political theory, public policy, normative ethics, or applied ethics by even the tiniest majority of his/her peers in his/her respective field. This is not to say that the results would have been different had they consulted genuine experts, but it is to say that NR seems to cherry-pick its “ethical experts” in order to yield the product the editorial staff desires. This certainly coheres with NR’s wacky belief that it is an intellectually respectable medium.
“Might you consider also posting commentary from conservatives demonstrating that waterboarding is unacceptable? ”
Might you consider posting commentary from conservatives. . . at the time these things were being decided by the Bush administration. . . demonstrating that waterboarding is unacceptable?
I take it that you mean to suggest that conservatives. . . “real” conservatives, I’m sure. . . strongly disapprove of torture in all its forms. And that waterboarding is incontrovertibly torture, from a conservative perspective.
But of course Bush’s well known position on torture in November of 2004 didn’t seem to cost him a single conservative vote. . . or even a single Catholic vote, given that he carried the Catholic vote by a healthy margin.
And perhaps I’m mis-remembering, but I seem to recall that at the time conservatives and Catholics were overjoyed that Bush won. . . torture and all.
Judging from the attitudes and statements made by the (many) Steubenville grads at work in my diocese, there is absolutely nothing surprising about a professor there saying something like this.
I’m not surprised either. No offense to the very fine Franciscan grads that blog at VN and those few who are my colleagues at St Mike’s.
1. There were other reasons to vote for Bush and against Kerry besides Bush’s enthusiasm for torture. Kerry’s enthusiasm for embryonic research for one. (“Chris Reeve will walk again!”) Maybe you should work on that problem.
And I think most on the left celebrated Obama’s victory in spite of his pro-choice views and policies. If the left were to thankfully start to move away from this position, would it be good or bad for a 2016 Republican to cite the left’s support for Obama as proof that the left is pro-abortion?
2. It was six years ago. Might be time to get over it.
3. What do you think the point of this post was? From what I could tell, it was to associate a silly pro-torture position with the political right. There is no argument here. Just pointing and laughing.
So I thought it was worthwhile to mention that some on the political right are strongly rejecting torture. And this might be more salient information than a symposium from last year or voting patterns from six years ago.
If you’d rather just keep repeating that the right is pro-torture, I can’t stop you. But I’m not sure what good it does.
And MM’s resistance to linking torture and abortion gives the game away. Why shouldn’t they be linked? Isn’t it likely that the callousness toward human life that the abortion regime ushered in has paved the pay to torture? That these violations of human dignity feed off each other?
Yes, Lee seemed desperate to change the subject. But the conversation he was inviting us to is one we should all welcome.
John
1). And Bush’s response to Kerry on ESCR? Bragging that he funds it and was the first president to make sure it is funded. That is his response. Thank you Bush!
2) “Six years ago” is a very short amount of time. It is indeed indicative of a problem of the modern age, to totally ignore the past as if meaningless. The past is not meaningless. The past is how we got where we are today, and the errors of the past which still affect us must still be dealt with and that includes recognizing them. We cannot just say “oh, that’s the past, get on with it.” That mentality means no action is important for reflection because when we would reflect on them, they are “in the past.”
3). Don’t misrepresent MM. He didn’t do as you said. He has not denied the association between torture and abortion. Indeed, I expect he would affirm they are united because of the dignity of the human person, and the desire not to instrumentalize the other, which both torture and abortion do. But in this case, one can say Lee is instrumentalizing the dead to help encourage abuse — so it is very relevant that his abuse of the life position is founded upon a continued abuse of the dead to use them for the sake of even more evil.
No I certainly don’t want to paint with too broad a brush. But I’ve begun to think that they represent the minority.
What do you think the point of this post was? From what I could tell, it was to associate a silly pro-torture position with the political right.
Sorry, but the pro-toiture position IS associated with the political right. Look at where Republicans stand on this issue. Look across the noise machine from Fox News to talk radio to National Review and Weekly Standard to blogs..there is an overwhelming support for American-instituted torture.
Catholics oppose torture. Catholic moralists oppose torture. But yet again in the zeal to align themselves with the right, many Catholics support torture, including some Catholic moralists, which is highly depressing. This is the point of the post. If these people want to support their precious Republicans, it would be nice if they did so (like us on the other side) in spite, and not because of, their position on morally grave intrinsically evil acts.
And MM’s resistance to linking torture and abortion gives the game away. Why shouldn’t they be linked?
Didn’t you read what I wrote above? I explictly linked the reasoning behind support for abortion with support for torture – playing with definitions with a consequentialist twist. The problem is that Lee, with his partisan blinkers, fails to see this. Like so many others, he is using the unborn to defend the indefensible.
To the critique that this is an old issue, I respond, “Yes, but it is a representative issue.” If the right can be so wrong on such a basic point, do we not have grounds for doubting them on other points? After all, it is equally old for the defenders, yet they continue to defend it.
How wrong does one have to be before we call into question their entire system of thought? We see it easily on the left, which so easily gets abortion wrong. Why do we not see the problems on the right?
I thought that Bradley’s position was fine. In fact, I can’t find a word of it that would conflict with the usual VN position.
Brugger uses the ticking time-bomb excuse. Wrong.
A person could follow Eberle’s position and not do anything immoral, but his idea about the distribution of harm just smells bad. An expert ethicist could pin down what he means by it, and I bet it isn’t good.
Lee’s definition of torture allows for any physical pain that isn’t mutilation. Wrong.
Loconte not only refers to the ticking time-bomb (which is enough for me to reject his stand), but he comes dangerously close to dehumanizing our current enemy.
By my count, that’s one passing grade, and four F’s. Sadly I don’t expect much better from professors at Catholic colleges. In their defense, though, a lot of them make a lot of good points. But in philosophy, one wrong statement invalidates the whole presentation.
1. In 2004, if you were most concerned about expanding embryonic research, who was your candidate? Which candidate was demagoguing the other on this issue? Who promised that if he was elected, Christopher Reeve would walk again?
Come to think of it, I don’t recall Kerry taking that strong a position against torture in 2004, either.
2. Learning from the past is one thing. Using the past for a guilt-by-association smear is another.
3. I am perfectly fine with there being deep flaws in the American right. I am quite confident that their support for torture is chief among them.
All I’m saying is we should let them off the mat. Better to have two parties that reject torture. And abortion.
Yes, anyone who was happy with Bush’s re-election must love torture…
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/13/politics/campaign/14DTEXT-FULL.html?pagewanted=7&_r=1
Kerry: “Now I will not allow somebody to come in and change Roe v. Wade. The president has never said whether or not he would do that. But we know from the people he’s tried to appoint to the court he wants to. I will not. I will defend the right of Roe v. Wade.”
Bush: “What I’m saying is that as we promote life and promote a culture of life, surely there are ways we can work together to reduce the number of abortions. Continue to promote adoption laws – that’s a great alternative to abortion. Continue to fund and promote maternity group homes.”
Bush’s delivery on that promise left quite a bit to be desired. That doesn’t mean a 2004 Bush voter was just interested in torture
http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/10/08/debate.transcript3/index.html
Kerry: And they’re either going to be destroyed or left frozen. And I believe if we have the option, which scientists tell us we do, of curing Parkinson’s, curing diabetes, curing, you know, some kind of a, you know, paraplegic or quadriplegic or, you know, a spinal cord injury, anything, that’s the nature of the human spirit.
I think it is respecting life to reach for that cure. I think it is respecting life to do it in an ethical way. And the president has chosen a policy that makes it impossible for our scientists to do that. I want the future, and I think we have to grab
As HK noted, Bush responds by bragging about his own funding of the limited research, which is indeed unfortunate. Still, it’s clear from this exchange that Kerry would have expanded it more than Bush had, and if that had happened, we might not have had the breakthroughs in other channels of research that have made this a less salient issue.
—-
I’m not saying that a 2004 Bush vote was the right thing to do. I wasn’t sure it was in 2004, and the ensuing four years did nothing to make me feel better.
I am saying that there are more charitable explanations for a 2004 Bush vote and excitement about his victory than love of torture. This isn’t Scott Brown we’re talking about.
I’ve never seen a VN torture thread dry up so fast.
Just in case MM or Paul DuBois do comment on this thread further, I hope they correct the impression they left that all the panelists approve of torture in the ticking time-bomb scenario. That’s a pretty serious charge, and it’s not substantiated by the National Review article.