There are parts of our national debate on torture that are complex, and deal with law, definitions, biology, psychology and history. But recently, I’ve been more interested in motivation and the reasons people come to the conclusion that it’s OK to inflict pain on other people for the specific purpose to extract information.For general purposes, I’m going to call this “torture” even though I realize there is a whole debate about what constitutes torture.
Torture bothers me, and I have been interested in why it doesn’t bother others. I have come to some conclusions, but they are based on some heavy assumptions, since they are about what other people are thinking and feeling.
But I would like to separate my thoughts even more from the debate about the definition of torture. I tried to do this in a thread at EAForums about a month or so ago. I didn’t want to get into an unresolvable discussion about “what is torture” because I am not experienced in the historical definitions of torture, nor am I familiar with the effectiveness of various coercive interrogation methods which may or may not be considered torture. To get at the discussion I was interested in, I wanted to eliminate those variables and have a discussion on motivation.
I was thinking of the torture scenario examples that proponents use, how perfectly they are crafted, and how far-fetched. “What would you do if you could save 3,000 lived by torturing a known terrorist!” Note: you know for certain somehow that he’s a “bad guy.” Note: you know for certain he knows something of value. Note: you know for certain you can extract the information successfully. Note: you know for certain you can prevent the attack once you have the information. Note: you know for certain how many people you will save.
So I went for an alternate question. Let’s say you knew for certain that you could save a certain number of lives if you did ethically-challenged medical research on the known terrorist. Let’s say they don’t have any useful information, except that they are human beings with human biology. So the useful information they have to offer is their body’s reaction. Would you, or should you allow these tests, knowing the number of people who could be helped by that medical knowledge?
My question is unfair in the same way that the original question is unfair, because it is somewhat contrived. However, in a sense there are fewer assumptions in my question. You don’t have to assume the person knows something of value — we know human biology has plenty of commonality that makes testing valuable. You don’t have to assume you have an effective means of extracting information — we know that medical science can turn research into knowledge. We don’t know how soon that knowledge will pay off, or how, but that depends on the specific thing you’re testing for,
This question is flexible. If you want to re-introduce shades of cruelty, you need only adjust the type of testing. Maybe you are only giving the terrorist a cold. Maybe there’s a 60% chance they will die from the test. Maybe they won’t die, but they’ll be in considerable pain. You can adjust the benefits on the back end as well — the efficacy of the treatment your seeking. The severity of the disease you are curing. The number of people who are stricken with the disease. And whatnot.
The point is, if we’re talking tradeoffs, what is the motivation to ask “should we torture” and is that motivation anything more than the saving of lives? And if it does boil down to the saving of lives, why do we not apply the same logic more widely?
The most charitable assumption is that people pro-torture
#5 is the lynch pin that holds that set of assumptions together. I say “charitable” because, stemming from #5, this theory is one based on empathy for possible American victims, and it is this empathy that may be clouding judgment on the other points, if judgment is being clouded.
This morning I read Jim Henley’s article at Reason Online called “Ticking Bombast”. It seeks to skewer the “what would you do” question, but in a more clear way, getting to the point where I stopped short.
I wasn’t seeking to put words into mouths. I wanted to see the reaction to the question. There was a small reaction, comparing my suggestion to what the Nazis did, for example. I don’t know if the Nazis were trying to save lives, but I think their experiments were pretty horrible. I’m not interested in that comparison because I think anything associated with “Nazis” throws you into an emotional realm where it is difficult to be reasonable. The Nazis are famous for unethical medical experiments, which means that you can’t discuss such experiments without the Nazi spectre appearing. If the Nazis were famous for water boarding, I doubt we’d have a debate in this country regarding whether water boarding was torture. The effective emotional counter argument would be “isn’t that what the Nazis did to all those people” and nobody wants to be like a Nazi.
In any case, I got no reaction beyond that. Maybe some people thought I was serious in my suggestion; maybe some just thought I was joking.
Henley’s article makes an interesting point that I missed.
But you’re also sure this particular terrorist is a pervert! And he tells you that if you’ll rape your own child in front of him, he’ll tell you exactly where the bomb is and how to disarm it. And you’re sure that he will, because your intelligence is that good in exactly that way.
That’s one rough situation. But when you enter the world of hypotheticals, this is what you’re in for.
The point he makes, (and read the article for yourself, it’s short) is that a hypothetical can be anything you like. So it reflects the desire of the proponent. His hypothetical (and my hypothetical) are not the ones you hear on conservative radio because the people in charge are not trying to sell medical experiments, nor do they have any desire in convincing people they should be allowed to rape their own children.
The rhetorical device of the anti-doomsday torture scenario is not logical at all, it’s an appeal to emotion. It turns a question of what power we allow the state to use against individuals into a question where you are personally faced with a situation that nobody is likely to be in. The motivation behind the question is not to save the lives of the people; it’s not one of empathy. The focus is on getting you to agree to torture somebody; to make torture more acceptable to you. The question is more Rorschach test than logic. I’m not saying that tons of people actually want to personally torture somebody. But in my view they are revealing something that is more emotional than practical or logical.
Let me go back to Nazis as I wrap this up.
A hypothetical question has been asked many times, to the point where it has even been written into many stories. “If you could go back in time to before the Holocaust, before World War 2, would you kill Hitler?” Why are we so fascinated by this question, in this form? It assumes you have the power to travel in time and get close enough to Hitler to kill him. Why do we never hear the question “If you could go back in time to before the Holocaust, before World War 2, would you nonviolently prevent Hitler’s rise to power?”
It’s so unsatisfying. You don’t get to kill anybody.
[Addendum: Link to the EAForums thread that started me thinking]
Posted by James at December 19, 2006 12:21 PMSo, your question is "why does torture not bother some people?" I think the answer might be in your charitable assumptions. There's an assumption missing: that the kindhearted pro-torture person doesn't have any active role in the torture, either as torturer or torturee, and doesn't feel any personal moral responsibility for either the torture or its outcome.
Without some concrete connection to the torture, I don't think some people are able to put themselves in the shoes of any of the people directly involved. I suppose one could say that makes them "objective" but I'd say it puts them in a position where they can selectively ignore aspects of the question that are inconvenient. Because if you imagine yourself in the same position as the torturer or torturee, I think your assumptions 2, 3, and 4 will go right out the window.
But perhaps that's not charitable on my part.
But I think #5, your linchpin, is the real problem. Rephrase it as "the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few," and then it's closer to how most proponents of torture think (if I'm being charitable and not getting into the issues of fear, anger, punishment, revenge, and plain old sadism). It works even better if you say "the needs of the many innocent outweigh the needs of the extremely dangerous and guilty few."
The many vs. few argument is very appealing because it does not require any judgement-clouding empathy, and appears to boil down the issue to simple math. But, again, in order for it to work, its proponents can't be responsible for what happens if it turns out their other assumptions (person is guilty, torture isn't so bad, torture works) are incorrect.
I doubt that that answers your question, but I just can't reconcile this position with charitable assumptions, because I don't feel very charitable about assumptions 2, 3, and 4. They are naive, at best. If a person really is that naive, either out of ignorance or some more stubborn instinct, then they really are dealing with hypotheticals, and not with real life.
Now, let's envision another scenario: some accomplished terrorists are rewarded for good information. Let's charitably assume that the information does indeed save many lives, and the terrorists never harm anyone ever again. Some time later, news of this terrorist-rewards program gets leaked to the public. How do they react? Will the "any means necessary" pro-torture people also be okay with the rewards program?
Posted by: Julie at December 19, 2006 3:37 PMThere are a lot of side questions I have.
The ones I listed, plus a whole host of "how does torture affect the torturers" type questions.
I am not expecting an analytical answer to my question, and I also don't really expect someone to say "yeah, I basically agree to torture because they deserve it."
The scenarios are not supposed to be punitive, yet the reasoning of "these are bad men" pops recurs regularly in the discussion. How does the "bad men" determination have any bearing on how we choose to conduct ourselves? Torture, as far as I know, is not intended as a punitive measure nor a deterrent to terrorists. Unless I am very mistaken in my shallow knowledge of the law.
My ultimate goal in this post is not to be charitable -- I started out with fairness in mind. But I am having trouble juggling the idea of a "good" person who is for torture. There is a flaw somewhere, either in my opinion of people, or of my idea regarding what is a good person, or in my understanding of their motives, or in their understanding regarding some aspect of torture.
The most charitable is to either take the blame on myself (I'm completely screwed up about what a good person is) or say that they have some flaw in their understanding of torture (i.e. they think it is much, much more effective than it really is... or see the rest of the list I wrote)
There is room for error all over the place. Maybe I am a little wrong. Maybe some people are overestimating torture.
And maybe some people are fixated on the idea of punishment and it has warped the discussion away from practicality and into emotion.
Posted by: James at December 19, 2006 3:56 PMMaybe another way to put this is that I clearly think the torture debate is fairly complex, but even the parts that aren't cause me to have lots of misgivings.
Considerings those downsides, which seem to me like they ought to be universal and obvious (like the ethical problems, questions about whether it even works, and the fact that torture may have repercussions for the torturers), what motivates people to overlook those problems and give torture the thumbs up?
Is it that some people have absolutely no misgivings? If they have any misgivings at all, what is motivating them to overlook them?
Posted by: James at December 19, 2006 4:15 PMSure. Why not torture?
Let's take it this way; remember the old John Le'Carre novels re.: British Intelligence? Also, remember that the Brits have basically neutered the IRA over the last few years through systematic infiltration combined with "interrogation techniques"?
The Brits have a great way of looking at torture: as long as it's done by just a few people, under very controlled circumstances, and not a whole lot of people know about it and no one cares to think about it or address it, it's ok.
It really depends on who's doin' the deed.
So... if it's you doin' the deed, that's bad - can't let that happen. But... if it's me doin' that thang, then it's just fine.
This may raise many questions 'bout right, wrong and let loose all kinds of philisophical implications and effects on our Judeo-Christian beliefs, but when you reach the pitch-black bottom of this particular well, that's what you'll find.
Humanity has a sin nature. And quite a few of us are just no good at all. And somebody has to do the dirty work.
As long as it's us....
Posted by: jackscrow at December 20, 2006 8:28 AMAnd somebody has to do the dirty work.
Or, somebody wants to do the dirty work.
Posted by: James at December 20, 2006 8:42 AMApparently Jackscrow has never heard of the Guilford 4. He also doesn't realize that the improving economy in Ireland and the UK has a lot more to do with neutering the IRA than torture by the British govt. Although I guess he's ok with the "dirty work" the IRA did torturing folks, since someone has to do it.
Anyway, my response to the whole "ticking bomb" scenerio is as follows:
1. That's never happened, ever, so when you want to turn off "24" and talk about reality let me know.
2. I assume you'd be ok with your wife/daughter/grandfather being tortured because they were mistakenly identified as a terrorist.
Although I also like the whole "if the idea is to stop a ticking bomb and you could do it by paying the guy a million dollars, why not do that?" angle. Because really, none of it comes down to saving lives, it all comes down to sadism and revenge, even if its revenge on the wrong person or for something that never actually happened.
Posted by: DG at December 20, 2006 9:16 AMhttp://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5301810
I never said the IRA was doing the torture. And here's the link to the npr story on the Atlantic Monthly story. I got my info from the Atlantic story, and yes, the Brits did infiltrate the IRA and torture their members. And yes, it worked.
Not saying the economy had nothing to do with it. That wasn't the point. The question of torture was the point. Reread the post. I guess you can't tell satire even when it's f'ing obvious....
Posted by: at December 20, 2006 10:05 AMThe scenarios are not supposed to be punitive, yet the reasoning of "these are bad men" pops recurs regularly in the discussion. How does the "bad men" determination have any bearing on how we choose to conduct ourselves? Torture, as far as I know, is not intended as a punitive measure nor a deterrent to terrorists.Maybe it's not directly punitive, but I think the answer is that there's a punitive subtext to it, or at least a brutal one.
We're more willing to be brutal to people we don't like than to people we're neutral about, or those we like. Suppose we change the scenario to something like this[1]: You've captured two people, and you know that one of them has the information that will save 3000 people. You can only get the information by torturing the other one, thus convincing the one with the information to give it up for his friend. Now, four alternatives:
[1] The nice thing about hypothetical scenarios is that you can ignore sense or reality. There are some people who will always say "torture them" and some who'll always say "never torture", but for those in the middle I have no doubt that their answers do not reflect how they'd actually choose in a real situation. It's just a thought experiment.