Politics and Prosperity
Seeing the world clearly
Posted on August 7, 2009 by Loquitur Veritatem
Can torture be justified? I say yes, because where torture has a reasonable chance of saving innocent lives, it is a proper course of action.
I begin by stipulating that certain practices constitute torture by almost everyone's standards. Given that there is such a thing as torture, is it ever justified? Let us consider the objections to torture, which are several:
1. It doesn't work.
2. Even if it works (in rare circumstances), it is counterproductive because it creates enemies.
3. Torture is wrong — period. Therefore, it does not matter what good ends may be served by torture (e.g., gaining information to prevent terrorist attacks).
4. "We" (i.e., the American government, acting on behalf of Americans) must not sink to the level of those we would torture. Despite all threats and provocations, "we" must stand up for our ideals, which include respect for human life.
5. The practice of torture may be hard to contain, like a contagious disease or a slide down the slippery slope: enemies today, Americans tomorrow.
Here are my responses to the objections:
1. Torture doesn't work. Never say never, as the saying goes. Of course torture works, sometimes. If you count waterboarding as torture, as do the opponents of torture, there is a strong case that torture prevented post-9/11 terrorist attacks in the U.S. Those who say that torture doesn't work really mean something else, for example: it may not work in all cases, it will not work if not done skilfully, or there may be ways — short of torture — to achieve the same result. All such objections may be correct, but their possible correctness does not rule out torture on practical grounds.
2. Torture creates enemies. This may be true, but what is another enemy if his enmity is impotent — as is the enmity of most of the anti-American world. (It should not be forgotten that the most potent enemies of liberty are Americans, who — with increasing success — seek to dictate the terms and conditions of our daily lives.) We are not engaged in a popularity contest; we are engaged in a death struggle against predators. The real issue here is whether anti-American sentiment translates into reliable threats of action against Americans and their interests (as opposed to demonstrations), and — even if it does, to some degree — whether the threat is to be feared more than more imminent threats (e.g., terrorist attacks). Further, there is a strong case that signs of weakness (i.e., inaction, negotiation, the pursuit of "justice" rather than vengeance) do more to encourage our enemies than do signs of strength (of which a demonstrated willingness to torture surely is one). There is evidence, for example, that Osama bin Laden was emboldened to attack the U.S. on 9/11 because of the weakness of American responses to earlier attacks. In general, the historical record — notably in the history of the Third Reich and Soviet Russia — points to the folly of accommodation and appeasement.
3. Torture is wrong — period. How can torture be wrong — period — if it can be used to prevent harm to innocents? To assert that torture is always wrong is the same thing as asserting the wrongness of self-defense. It replaces a noble goal — protection of innocent persons from harm — with an ignoble goal — protection of miscreants from harm. If torture is always wrong, then attacks on innocents which could be prevented by torture are always right. That is the logical implication of an absolute injunction against torture. The proponents of an absolute injunction (e.g., this one) usually start from the premise that it is wrong to take human life. But I wonder how many of them would persist in that premise were they in a life-or-death struggle with an armed intruder. Would success in such a struggle mean that a proponent of the "life is precious" view had somehow "sunk" to the intruder's level of moral depravity? Let us see.
4. "We" must not sink to the level of those "we" would torture. Even the most obdurate opponents of torture (excepting rigid pacifists) would agree that self-defense is a fundamental right. To oppose torture is, therefore, to oppose self-defense. Self-defense is not a matter of "sinking" to the level of those who would kill us; it is a matter of acting rightly against predators. Did we "sink" to the level of Japan and Germany when we warred against them? We did not; to the contrary, we rose to the occasion of defending humanity against brutality. Thus it is (or can be) with torture, in the right circumstances.
5. There is a slippery slope from torturing enemies to torturing Americans. This may be the most telling objection to torture. But, like the other objections, it fails to entertain the alternative: harm to Americans and their interests. It is the prevention of harm, after all, which justifies government. The question of "harm to whom?" was confronted in the creation of American armed forces and police forces. Both can be used (and in the case of police forces, sometimes are used) against innocent Americans. But Americans, by and large, are willing (often eager) for the protections afforded by organized defenses against foreign and domestic predators. It has long been understood that the defenders must be controlled to ensure that they they do run amok, but it also has long been understood that the risk of their running amok is worth the payoff, namely, protection from predators. The point is that adequate control of the timing and methods of torture can ensure against a slide down the slippery slope.
In sum, torture is moral — and therefore justified — when it becomes necessary for the purpose of eliciting information that could save innocent lives and the lives of those whose job it is to defend innocent lives. I do not mean that torture must be used, but that it may be used. I do not mean that torture will not have repulsive consequences for its targets, but that the thought of those consequences should not cause the American government to renounce torture as an option.
An example of the payoff: "Cracking KSM" (here and here, too)
The "torture memos" and why they shouldn't have been released
The politicization of the "torture issue" (AG Holder cannot conduct an investigation on his own authority, despite disingenous claims to the contrary)
The always insightful Megan McArdle: here, here, and here
The brilliantly incisive Thomas Sowell: here and here
Other commentary: here, here, here, here, here, and here
My earlier (and unchanged) views: here, here, here, here, and here
This entry was posted in Constitution - Courts - Law - Justice, War - Peace - Foreign Affairs and tagged morality of torture, torture. Bookmark the permalink.
← Negative Rights
The Best and Worst of Times →
Loquitur Veritatem
My pen name, Loquitur Veritatem, means truth-teller.
Archives Select Month November 2021 (7) October 2021 (6) August 2021 (4) July 2021 (3) June 2021 (10) May 2021 (16) April 2021 (14) February 2021 (3) January 2021 (14) December 2020 (11) November 2020 (19) October 2020 (7) September 2020 (2) July 2020 (9) June 2020 (8) May 2020 (19) April 2020 (14) March 2020 (18) February 2020 (13) January 2020 (14) December 2019 (21) November 2019 (18) October 2019 (25) September 2019 (20) August 2019 (34) July 2019 (31) June 2019 (33) May 2019 (16) April 2019 (21) March 2019 (3) February 2019 (8) January 2019 (11) December 2018 (11) November 2018 (18) October 2018 (19) September 2018 (8) August 2018 (16) July 2018 (14) June 2018 (10) May 2018 (10) April 2018 (10) March 2018 (24) February 2018 (12) January 2018 (19) December 2017 (17) November 2017 (10) October 2017 (10) September 2017 (17) August 2017 (13) July 2017 (13) June 2017 (13) May 2017 (20) April 2017 (20) March 2017 (14) February 2017 (18) January 2017 (14) December 2016 (15) November 2016 (23) October 2016 (12) September 2016 (16) August 2016 (22) July 2016 (26) June 2016 (16) May 2016 (16) April 2016 (13) March 2016 (27) February 2016 (26) January 2016 (4) December 2015 (1) November 2015 (2) September 2015 (1) August 2015 (3) July 2015 (17) June 2015 (13) May 2015 (5) April 2015 (13) March 2015 (9) February 2015 (12) January 2015 (2) December 2014 (7) November 2014 (8) October 2014 (13) September 2014 (14) August 2014 (11) July 2014 (14) June 2014 (9) May 2014 (10) April 2014 (8) March 2014 (13) February 2014 (8) January 2014 (9) December 2013 (5) November 2013 (15) October 2013 (15) September 2013 (16) August 2013 (12) July 2013 (21) June 2013 (3) May 2013 (3) April 2013 (11) February 2013 (2) January 2013 (2) December 2012 (2) November 2012 (12) October 2012 (14) September 2012 (16) August 2012 (7) July 2012 (13) June 2012 (13) May 2012 (15) April 2012 (11) March 2012 (15) February 2012 (9) January 2012 (15) December 2011 (15) November 2011 (23) October 2011 (20) September 2011 (25) August 2011 (31) July 2011 (25) June 2011 (18) May 2011 (11) April 2011 (9) March 2011 (17) February 2011 (18) January 2011 (18) December 2010 (15) November 2010 (25) October 2010 (23) September 2010 (27) August 2010 (17) July 2010 (15) June 2010 (16) May 2010 (22) April 2010 (44) March 2010 (7) February 2010 (1) December 2009 (3) November 2009 (2) October 2009 (8) September 2009 (9) August 2009 (14) July 2009 (15) June 2009 (12) May 2009 (15) April 2009 (12) March 2009 (10) February 2009 (5) January 2009 (3) December 2008 (4) November 2008 (9) October 2008 (12) September 2008 (7) August 2008 (8) July 2008 (7) June 2008 (16) May 2008 (13) April 2008 (34) March 2008 (40) February 2008 (34) January 2008 (42) December 2007 (39) November 2007 (30) October 2007 (54) September 2007 (43) August 2007 (40) July 2007 (23) June 2007 (2) April 2007 (1) March 2007 (1) February 2007 (1) January 2007 (5) November 2006 (12) October 2006 (25) September 2006 (33) August 2006 (41) July 2006 (37) June 2006 (42) May 2006 (35) April 2006 (40) March 2006 (55) February 2006 (51) January 2006 (53) December 2005 (48) November 2005 (54) October 2005 (27) September 2005 (42) August 2005 (32) July 2005 (37) June 2005 (28) May 2005 (42) April 2005 (35) March 2005 (50) February 2005 (32) January 2005 (31) December 2004 (23) November 2004 (73) October 2004 (128) September 2004 (177) August 2004 (144) July 2004 (62) June 2004 (57) May 2004 (16) April 2004 (28) March 2004 (37)
Abortion Q & A
My Moral Profile
Constitution for the 21st Century
Constitution: Myths and Realities
Economic Growth Since World War II
Economics: A Survey
Einstein's Errors
Election 2020: Lost or Stolen?
Freespace and Me
Keynesian Multiplier: Fiction vs. Fact
Leftism: A Bibliography
Modeling, Science, and "Reason"
Monarchs of England
Obamagate (a.k.a. Spygate and Russiagate)
Presidents: Key Dates and Various Trivia
Social Norms and Liberty
The British Roots of the Founding, and of Liberty in America
U.S. Supreme Court: Lines of Succession and Ideological Alignment
White House Brochures on Climate Change
Writing: A Guide
Critical Race Theory: Where It Really Leads November 20, 2021
The Iron Law of Change November 17, 2021
A National Divorce Is the Only Solution November 16, 2021
What Would Jimmy Durante Do? November 15, 2021
Don't Celebrate Yet Virginia November 8, 2021
What Happened to America? November 6, 2021
Does Liberalism Destroy Liberty? October 31, 2021
Old News Incites a Rant October 30, 2021
The Minimum Wage Revisited October 13, 2021
Recommended Reading October 12, 2021
Irrational Exuberance October 12, 2021
How Two Wrongs (Do Not) Make a Right October 11, 2021
A Parable of Sheep and Wolves August 20, 2021
He Said What? August 20, 2021
The Way Ahead? August 17, 2021
The Coronavirus: A Case Study in the Destructiveness of Government Action? August 12, 2021
Why Should I Worry about Inflation? July 15, 2021
More Thoughts about the "Marketplace of Ideas" July 11, 2021
Liberty vs. Security July 10, 2021
LIberty as a Social Construct: Moral Relativism?
Academic Freedom – Civil Liberties – Privacy (165)
Affirmative Action – Immigration – Race (152)
Baseball and Lesser Sports (124)
Blogs – Bloggers – Blogging (89)
Climate Change and Environmentalism (88)
Constitution – Courts – Law – Justice (648)
Culture – Language – The Arts (375)
Economics: Principles and Issues (742)
Election 2020 (25)
Electoral Politics (237)
Enemies: Foreign and Domestic (205)
Health and Health Care (35)
Humor – Satire – Wry Commentary (116)
Intelligence – Personality – Psychology (225)
Leftism – Statism – Democracy (671)
Liberty – Libertarianism – Rights (440)
Media Matters & Reportage (134)
Nostalgia – Trivia – Popular Culture (110)
Philosophy – Religion – Science – Pseudoscience (210)
Political Economy & Civil Society (395)
Political Movements & Theories (225)
Politics – Politicians – Government in Action (567)
Public Education and Homeschooling (24)
Science and Understanding (286)
Self Ownership: Abortion – Euthanasia – Gender – Etc. (107)
Thinkers: Famous and Infamous (183)
War – Peace – Foreign Affairs (439)
abortion AGW altruism atheism Austin baseball civil society climate change conservatism Constitution coronavirus COVID-19 creation crime defense democracy Donald Trump economic growth economics Election 2016 Election 2020 existence fascism freedom of speech GDP GDP growth global warming God Golden Rule government spending Great Recession Hillary Clinton income inequality intelligence Keynesianism leftism leftists liberalism libertarianism libertarian paternalism liberty morality natural rights negative rights Obama Obamacare paternalism polarization political correctness Politics preemptive war probability progressivism pseudo-libertarianism psychology race race and intelligence racism Rahn Curve real unemployment rate redistribution regulation same-sex marriage science secession social justice social norms social welfare society statism Supreme Court Trump unemployment utilitarianism welfare state
On Liberty and Libertarianism
What is liberty? It is peaceful, willing coexistence and its concomitant: beneficially cooperative behavior.
John Stuart Mill opined that "the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others." But who determines whether an act is harmful or harmless? Acts deemed harmless by an individual are not harmless if they subvert the societal bonds of trust and self-restraint upon which liberty itself depends.
Which is not to say that all social regimes are regimes of liberty. Liberty requires voice -- the freedom to dissent -- and exit -- the freedom to choose one's neighbors and associates. Voice and exit depend, in turn, on the rule of law under a minimal state.
Liberty, because it is a social phenomenon and not an innate condition of humanity, must be won and preserved by an unflinching defense of a polity that fosters liberty through its norms, and the swift and certain administration of justice within that polity. The governments in and of the United States have long since ceased to foster liberty, but most Americans are captives in their own land and have no choice but to strive for the restoration of liberty, or something closer to it.
Who can restore liberty? Certainly not the self-proclaimed libertarians who are fixated on Mill's empty harm principle and align with the left on social norms. Traditional (i.e., Burkean) conservatism fosters the preservation and adherence of beneficial norms (e.g., the last six of the Ten Commandments). Thus, by necessity, the only true libertarianism is found in traditional conservatism. I am a traditional conservative, which makes me a libertarian -- a true one.
Notes about Usage
"State" (with a capital "S") refers to one of the United States, and "States" refers to two or more of them. "State" and "States," thus used, are proper nouns because they refer to a unique entity or entities: one or more of the United States, the union of which, under the terms and conditions stated in the Constitution, is the raison d'être for the nation. I reserve the uncapitalized word "state" for a government, or hierarchy of them, which exerts a monopoly of force within its boundaries.
Marriage, in the Western tradition, predates the state and legitimates the union of one man and one woman. As such, it is an institution that is vital to civil society and therefore to the enjoyment of liberty. The recognition of a more-or-less permanent homosexual pairing as a kind of marriage is both ill-advised and illegitimate. Such an arrangement is therefore a "marriage" (in quotation marks) or, more accurately, a homosexual cohabitation contract (HCC).
The words "liberal", "progressive", and their variants are usually enclosed in quotation marks (sneer quotes) because they refer to persons and movements whose statist policies are, in fact, destructive of liberty and progress. I sometimes italicize the words, just to reduce visual clutter.
I have reverted to the British style of punctuating in-line quotations, which I followed 40 years ago when I published a weekly newspaper. The British style is to enclose within quotation marks only (a) the punctuation that appears in quoted text or (b) the title of a work (e.g., a blog post) that is usually placed within quotation marks.
I have reverted because of the confusion and unsightliness caused by the American style. It calls for the placement of periods and commas within quotation marks, even if the periods and commas don't occur in the quoted material or title. Also, if there is a question mark at the end of quoted material, it replaces the comma or period that might otherwise be placed there.
If I had continued to follow American style, I would have ended a sentence in a recent post with this:
… "A New (Cold) Civil War or Secession?" "The Culture War," "Polarization and De-facto Partition," and "Civil War?"
What a hodge-podge. There's no comma between the first two entries, and the sentence ends with an inappropriate question mark. With two titles ending in question marks, there was no way for me to avoid a series in which a comma is lacking. I could have avoided the sentence-ending question mark by recasting the list, but the items are listed chronologically, which is how they should be read.
I solved these problems easily by reverting to the British style:
… "A New (Cold) Civil War or Secession?", "The Culture War", "Polarization and De-facto Partition", and "Civil War?".
This not only eliminates the hodge-podge, but is also more logical and accurate. All items are separated by commas, commas aren't displaced by question marks, and the declarative sentence ends with a period instead of a question mark.
For much more see "Writing: A Guide".