A Serious Ethical Question
Jan 18, 05 | 11:02 pm by John LopezJim Henley has a question for the apologists for government torture:
Do you think there’s any ethical difference between choosing to do something to yourself for your own purposes and having other people do it to you without your consent for their purposes?
January 19th, 2005 at Jan 19, 05 | 3:18 pm
Yes.
January 19th, 2005 at Jan 19, 05 | 8:50 pm
Whew. I’m glad somebody was brave enough to admit being an apologist for government torture.
Or, as Sabotta might have said:
“Trick!”
January 20th, 2005 at Jan 20, 05 | 2:38 am
I doubt many apologists for government torture would answer “No”, and that answer doesn’t constitute an argument that the government should never use torture.
And the commenter wasn’t saying “I have done this to myself, therefore the government should be able to do this to other people whenever it wants to.” He was saying “I have done this to myself and my experience tells me that the effects aren’t so severe as to meet my definition of torture at all.”
In any case, I think that libertarian rights are an excellent general guideline for what people should be forbidden and prevented from doing to each other, and institutionalizing the violation of them is dangerous. But, that doesn’t mean that their value is infinite and that it’s always wrong to violate them.
I’ve been watching 24 DVDs lately, and I think that Jack Bauer’s uses of torture to extract information in order to save many lives was often morally right.
Perhaps it should be illegal and government agents should be willing to face punishment or hope for jury nullification for extraordinary circumstances.
But it seems to me that a blanket condemnation of torture is as wrong as a blanket condemnation of fighting wars. People will suffer horribly, but sometimes the alternatives are worse.
January 20th, 2005 at Jan 20, 05 | 12:00 pm
Gil, perhaps if the day comes when you or someone you know is taken in for the kind of “interrogation” Jack Bauer conducts (and that person is innocent of everything accused of him) you’ll change your mind regarding the placement of society over the individual.
But beyond that, how can you have a principled objection to someone attacking you in an alley for the contents of your wallet as opposed to someone attacking you for the contents of your mind? Because one of the two strangers has a higher purpose? Doesn’t that sound like just about every single justification for the government to intervene in our lives?
January 20th, 2005 at Jan 20, 05 | 2:55 pm
Well, in the case of a “suicide bomber”, no.
Seriously, can we agree that there are degrees of certainty about a suspect’s involvement in terrorism? I think this justifies degrees in limits on treatment of suspects, in terms of conditions of imprisonment and of pressure during questioning. I understand that not all prisoners at Guantanamo, or anywhere else, are equally suspect of involvement in Al Quaeda.
Can we also agree to a distinction between reprisals for physical attacks on guards and questioning methods?
I have not seen “24″. I am referring to prisoners at Guantanamo and others found under highly suspicious circumstances, e.g. found in an armed group occupying a building from which US forces have been fired on.
I have no objections to beating, up to outright killing, of prisoners who are attacking guards. I am opposed to physical torture during questioning, even questioning of the most suspicious scumbags, because of the effect on the guards.
As for the “contents of someone’s mind”, if the pointy mind in question is extremely likely to contain addresses of terrorists, then I have no objections to using great psychological pressure on the scumbag to tell what he knows. If he refuses to talk within a few days, execute him. The ones with particularly egregious attitude problems should be executed and fed to pigs.
The “higher purpose” excuse is abused; so what else is new? We will stay on our guard against abuses by government.
Daniel Day
January 20th, 2005 at Jan 20, 05 | 5:43 pm
Charles,
I don’t think being principled requires being insane. I have extremely strong respect for individual rights, but they are not infinitely valuable.
If you have to prefer that millions of people die to one person’s rights getting violated in order to be principled, then I don’t think that any sane people are principled.
January 20th, 2005 at Jan 20, 05 | 6:18 pm
Gil,
Being principled doesn’t require you to stand by while millions are slaughtered. Indeed it all but demands the opposite, that you don’t stand by, because if you are a well reasoned individual your principals should include standing up for what is right, because if you don’t then there is nothing preventing it from happening to you too.
Standing up for what is right though means you stand up for what is right for ALL individuals, not just those you want to pick and choose at random to beat up, and rob of their rights on the off chance they *MIGHT* be involved in something nefarious.
I think it is those who are unprincipled who are clearly insane, for it is an obvious path down that ’slippery-slope’ to hell, when you begin to deny that by allowing for the mistreatment of others, you are allowing for the same mistreatment or worse to be used against yourself. Such self-abuse is IMHO clearly insane.
Being civilized isn’t a shade of gray, either you are or you aren’t. I’ve picked my side, and it appears you have picked yours.
January 20th, 2005 at Jan 20, 05 | 6:50 pm
Pham,
What can you do while you’re not standing idly by?
Must you conduct trials before firing a shot? Must you refuse to act in such a way that is sure to have collateral damage to innocents? Can you not conduct aggressive interrogations of hostile people in order to thwart major attacks?
I am not promoting the haphazard torture of innocents for fun. I even suggested that it should be legally forbidden to torture those strongly suspected to be guilty of terrible crimes who likely have important information, because the danger of such a process being abused more and more is great.
I have merely suggested that there are times when such an aggressive interrogation can be the right thing to do. And it should be worth facing legal consequences to do it in those cases. As you say, being principled demands it.
January 20th, 2005 at Jan 20, 05 | 7:57 pm
Gil: “I have extremely strong respect for individual rights, but they are not infinitely valuable.“
So Gil, serious question here:
How much are *you* worth?
January 20th, 2005 at Jan 20, 05 | 8:43 pm
I’ll put it another way: When may *I* justly set the price on *your* head?
January 21st, 2005 at Jan 21, 05 | 12:13 am
I have merely suggested that there are times when such an aggressive interrogation can be the right thing to do. And it should be worth facing legal consequences to do it in those cases.
Gil,
Jack Bauer, government agent extraodinaire, kneecaps Joe Terrorist in an aggressive interrogation effort to save the lives of many people. Bauer later gets hauled up on torture charges. If you were the judge or a member of Jack Bauer’s jury would you nullify the law in the defendant’s favor?
January 21st, 2005 at Jan 21, 05 | 12:19 am
If he refuses to talk within a few days, execute him. The ones with particularly egregious attitude problems should be executed and fed to pigs.
I’m going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume this is hyperbole.
January 21st, 2005 at Jan 21, 05 | 12:52 am
John Lopez,
I think I’m worth quite a bit. I obviously don’t think it’s infinite, because I risk my life every day.
I don’t have a precise calculus for weighing one person’s life (or freedom from torture) against another’s and I’m glad that I’m unlikely to ever have to; but when the ratios are high it seems to me that sacrificing one person’s rights for many (when there is no better option) is consistent with valuing people’s rights highly.
I think that a philosophy that refuses to violate other people’s rights no matter what has a serious bug and is therefore invalid. People holding such a philosophy would have to surrender everything to thugs willing to threaten to kill people, or use them as shields. Sometimes you have to hurt others in order to protect yourself and others from even greater harm. If you refuse to do that, you don’t have a philosophy to live by, but a suicide pact.
JTK,
You may justly set the price on my head when I have demonstrated beyond a reasonable doubt that I am capable of and interested in murdering other people (unless you can stop me more peacefully).
I’m not, by the way! :-)
Lynnette,
I might. I would if I thought the circumstances, as Jack knew them, justified it.
I expect such cicumstances to be extremely rare in real life, though.
January 21st, 2005 at Jan 21, 05 | 1:37 am
No Gil, you misunderstand me. Since your life is not of infinite value, can I set some fair price on your life even if you’ve done nothing wrong?
January 21st, 2005 at Jan 21, 05 | 11:14 am
JTK,
Yes, I don’t understand you.
Can you give a complete scenario and explain what it has to do with what I have written?
I don’t understand whom you’re offering the price to, and why you think the non-infinite value of my life and rights implies that I might think it’s ok.
What part of what I’ve written do you disagree with (and why)?
I think that our notion of rights is very useful and captures important parts of morality very well in most circumstances. I think it’s a very good idea to avoid creating institutions that violate them. The concept of trading some people’s lives against other values is very tricky (which might be your point); I don’t trust any rigid institutions to get it right and keep it right, but that doesn’t mean it can’t ever be right. (I understand that there’s a true story of a jewish mother smothering her infant to prevent it from crying and exposing the whole family to Nazis who’ve come looking for them (which would lead to almost certain death for all of them). Was she wrong to violate her child’s rights in this way?)
I think it’s often a useful approximation of reality to imagine that rights are sacred and inviolable. But I think it’s a mistake to confuse the model with the real thing and to forget its purpose: to allow social life in a way that promotes the flourishing of human life.
If rights have become a religious issue for you, then you have become irrational on the subject because it is now beyond criticism.
Violating people’s rights is almost always wrong. But the inability to acknowledge the “almost” is one reason that many people consider hard-core libertarians to be nuts.
January 21st, 2005 at Jan 21, 05 | 11:56 am
Gil,
If you want to call yourself a Libertarian (I’m guessing you do), you really must look up the principle it is based on.
You seem willing to ignore that principle when it is inconvenient, and misunderstand it overall. The non-aggression principal DOES NOT require pacifism. What it does require is a high respect for life, and freedom.
A man who threatens me or mine by strapping a bomb to himself, forcefully taking over the controls of an airplane, breaking into my house, or even by raising his hand to me… is fair game IMHO. He is engaged in a direct act of aggression, and I have every right to put him down with prejudice if required. What I don’t have the right to do is once I’ve subdued him, and bound him, while we wait for the “authorities”, is slap him around, or even threaten to do so. If I do, then I am the aggressor, and should be heartily punished for my actions.
Being a “State” official doesn’t change anything, they also need to abide by this same principal if we are to remain civilized. If you forgive even one abuse of it, then you are no longer any better than the evil men you are ‘fighting’.
So to answer your question, I can do an awful lot more than just stand by. I can put safeguards in place, real safeguards, not those of the police state. I can absolutely root out, and prosecute those engaged in these acts. I can even arm myself and others to make sure that those who would hurt us face “a rifle behind every blade of grass”. I can plead with the prisoner to give up information, and make it clear what the punishment for him, and his comrades will be if he doesn’t give up the information…
What I can’t do is torture ANY human being, and ever again claim to have principals. That may not seem like a great loss to you, but I consider it to be the loss of all that makes one civilized.
January 21st, 2005 at Jan 21, 05 | 12:23 pm
Pham,
Please tell me whether or not the mother (who smothered her infant to avoid capture by Nazis) in the scenario I gave above violated libertarian principles.
January 21st, 2005 at Jan 21, 05 | 12:35 pm
Looking at my question above makes me want to add a clarification because one could say that libertarian principles are political and not related to the actions of an individual.
I agree with the libertarian political imperative against states using torture as a matter of policy. Not because I think it would always be wrong to do so, but because I distrust states to limit their use to the justified cases.
I disagree with often-related moral imperative against individuals (including those who work for the state) ever doing so, or ever violating the rights of others. I think there are exceptional cases where it’s the right thing to do, and thankfully I have never faced one of those situations personally.
January 21st, 2005 at Jan 21, 05 | 12:59 pm
People interested in this topic might find this article by J. Neil Schulman interesting.
January 21st, 2005 at Jan 21, 05 | 1:30 pm
> I’m going to give you the benefit of the doubt
> and assume this is hyperbole.
I was serious.
Gil, the link to the Shulman article does not work.
January 21st, 2005 at Jan 21, 05 | 1:41 pm
I tried to re-enter the link but it hasn’t shown up. I’m wondering if the software, or a moderator, is blocking it.
The link.
(Edit: Long URLs fuck up the weblog and are ugly besides, learn to code them or use tinyurl. JL)
January 21st, 2005 at Jan 21, 05 | 1:54 pm
Gil,
It is quite obvious she did. Saving 10 lives, doesn’t absolve one from the wrongful taking of another life. Yes it is sad, and tragic that she was put in that no-win situation, yes she did marginally what was in the greater good. But does that absolve her of the crime? I think not. Would I convict her of murder? Most likely (Can’t say for sure as I don’t know all the details), yes, but I think living with what she did would probably be more than enough punishment, and be satisfactory for justice to be served.
However, I’d like to point out that the above scenario in no way relates to the original discussion. Your example only shows that no-win situations exist, and that people in those situations as victims may have to do drastic, and even unethically horrible things, not only to survive themselves, but save the lives of others. That however has never been the point. The point has been that when you are in control of a situation, and have the ability to choose to adhere to principal, you have chosen to think that the ends justifies the means. It doesn’t, and it never has. If you think it is ok to torture a prisoner under any circumstance, then I dare say, that you have a lot more in common with the Nazi soldiers in that scenario, than you should feel comfortable with.
January 21st, 2005 at Jan 21, 05 | 1:59 pm
Of course this is exactly my quible with you. There is absolutely NEVER a justified case.
January 21st, 2005 at Jan 21, 05 | 2:09 pm
Pham,
Yes, we disagree about that.
Tell me: Is it an unacceptable violation of the NAP to fight a defensive war, or to handle a hostage situation, in such a way as to risk the likely death of innocents?
Did you read the Schulman article, and if so what is your reaction to it?
January 21st, 2005 at Jan 21, 05 | 3:16 pm
If he refuses to talk within a few days, execute him. The ones with particularly egregious attitude problems should be executed and fed to pigs.
I am going to give you the benefit of the doubt
and assume this is hyperbole.
I was serious.
I guess Ann Coulter isn’t the only insane neo-fascist around…
January 21st, 2005 at Jan 21, 05 | 3:55 pm
Just finished with the Schulman article, and on the whole I think it wasn’t bad. I do have the same sort of quibbles with his take, that I have with yours though.
Fallacy #1 - either or. Sorry but he can choose a third way, he can respond respond to their threat as an individual. I know he thinks he can’t but it is obvious one can. The State may try to impede him in this, because it oft is little better than the terrorists, but he can do it.
Fallacy #2 - just because it is better, doesn’t make it good. It could, and SHOULD be even better yet.
This just isn’t true at all. The NAP does permit a calculus, it is just that the answer is rightly that ethically it will always be wrong. The fact that there are situations where it may be ‘better’ to do what is unethical, doesn’t mean that Libertarian ethics is a failure. In fact what it shows IMHO is the great trust in the individual to make the best of a bad lot, only in the truly most dire of circumstances when the chips are really down, but at the same time to be aware that their actions were unethical, and be willing to pay the price of what they did. That is what makes us civilized in a world of barbarians.
What you have said is that even when there isn’t a direct threat to you, and the person is unable to defend themselves it is somehow at times justifiable to initiate force against another human being. IMHO because it isn’t a no-win situation, what you are engaging in isn’t just unethical, but uncivilized.
As to your other questions. Of course it is ethical to resist and fight against an invader. It doesn’t matter if the invader is a common burglar, or an army of men. Any time a hostage situation evolves to the point where it is obvious that the hostages are in more danger by continuing to resolve the situation through non violent means that yes it may have to be resolved by violent means. Sure that may involve risk to others, but the NAP isn’t being violated unless the individual is exposing them to excessive risk that is otherwise preventable.
The Russian Hostage situation for example. If it was possible to storm the building faster, or with more men, so that the use of nerve gas wasn’t needed, or far less be used, then it would be unethical not to reduce that risk to the hostages. As such from what I seem to recall in hindsight the Russians realized they used too much nerve gas, and it resulted in several officers involved being at very least dismissed.
However this is but another tangent. My quibble is specifically in that you continue to think torture is justifiable in some circumstances. The Nazi example, the fact that resisting a direct threat might put people at risk, an invading army, and a Russian hostage situation has nothing to do with it.
It has EVERYTHING to do with you standing quite safely over another human being who is in shackles (rightly or wrongly), and applying force to them, to gain what you see as a means to an end. Worse, it has you using methods that are almost certainly counter productive to getting the information you want, or need.
January 21st, 2005 at Jan 21, 05 | 4:12 pm
Pham,
Yes, I think it does. Or at least what you (and others) believe that libertarian ethics entails is a failure.
January 21st, 2005 at Jan 21, 05 | 4:29 pm
Worse, it has you using methods that are almost certainly counter productive to getting the information you want, or need.
I’m no expert on torture, but don’t governments use torture because it works, i.e. usually gets you what you want to know? Or is this not the case?
January 21st, 2005 at Jan 21, 05 | 4:40 pm
It’s certainly a good way to get people to say exactly what they think you want to hear.
January 21st, 2005 at Jan 21, 05 | 4:41 pm
And when I say “good”, I mean “effective”, not “just”.
January 21st, 2005 at Jan 21, 05 | 6:11 pm
Stefan, you might want to read this…
Torture Effectiveness
The answer is that while it isn’t particularly effective, the State uses it not because it is or isn’t effective, but because they CAN, and they being what they are (Legitimized Thugs) don’t have a lot of moral qualms with using it.
January 21st, 2005 at Jan 21, 05 | 8:42 pm
Torture is very effective. Drug laws are also very effective. If you don’t know what they’re effective at, you need to re-read your Solzhenitsyn.
January 21st, 2005 at Jan 21, 05 | 9:02 pm
Gil: “…but when the ratios are high it seems to me that sacrificing one person’s rights for many (when there is no better option) is consistent with valuing people’s rights highly.“
By your lights Stalin obviously valued people’s rights, he was helping the Soviet people and so sacrificing a few for the greater good was perfectly justified. Now maybe you’ll allow that you feel his calculations were off a tad, but that’s really just a matter of your intuition, since you can’t put a precise value on innocent lives.
Will you affirm that Stalin was a defender of human rights, Gil?
January 21st, 2005 at Jan 21, 05 | 9:10 pm
Thanks for the link Pham, and for arguing against the “human jackals” supporting government torture.
January 21st, 2005 at Jan 21, 05 | 9:49 pm
Gil: “I tried to re-enter the link but it hasn’t shown up. I’m wondering if the software, or a moderator, is blocking it.“
The blog software caught it, the moderators don’t care about anything except spam.
January 21st, 2005 at Jan 21, 05 | 10:14 pm
By the way, what’s with the funny characters being substituted for apostrophes? I can’t use “I’m” or “can’t” because of it. I’m using Firefox 1.0…
January 21st, 2005 at Jan 21, 05 | 10:15 pm
Hmm, nevermind, the problem seems to have gone away.
January 21st, 2005 at Jan 21, 05 | 10:18 pm
I disagree with Schulman about collateral damage.
If A is legitimately defending himself from aggression by B and incidentally harms C in the process, then B is responsible for the harm to C, not A.
January 21st, 2005 at Jan 21, 05 | 10:56 pm
But yet as Schulman notes, moral actors take responsibility for their actions in the real world according to the non-aggression principle of libertarian solidarity in the face of an onslaught of buzzwords so support our President in this time of trial and help Stalin defeat the Islamic terrorists because you’re less dead if you’re killed by someone who takes the Bill Of Rights seriously, and you’re a suicidal moral idiot if you disagree, so there.
January 22nd, 2005 at Jan 22, 05 | 12:03 am
I’m old. I just skimmed from the beginning for the first point I could blow up. The Schulman piece is a total hash.
January 22nd, 2005 at Jan 22, 05 | 2:06 am
John Lopez,
The Stalin analogy is ridiculous. Nobody (who isn’t a complete idiot) believes that he was doing anything like what I described (and neither did he).
You condemn me for using my “intuition”. I call it judgment.
You seem to prefer to dogmatically apply the sacred holy scripture of the Non-Aggression Principle regardless of how many more real live people are destroyed in the process.
Please forgive me if I’m not impressed.
As I indicated, I think the NAP is a very good approximation of morality and I would be very reluctant (for many reasons) to authorize an institution to violate it as a matter of policy. But, if you really think that the best thing to do is to stick to it under all imaginable circumstances then I must conclude that “suicidal moral idiot” seems like an appropriate description.
The NAP applies so often because people are very very valuable and violating their autonomy harms them. The principle serves a great purpose very well, usually. But, sometimes it might not; and someone who closes his mind to that possiblity is being irrational.
January 22nd, 2005 at Jan 22, 05 | 3:56 am
If A is legitimately defending himself from aggression by B and incidentally harms C in the process, then B is responsible for the harm to C, not A.
Nonsense. You are responsible for the foreseeable consequences of your actions, even if someone else severely limits your choices. I debunked your line of argument at Catallarchy last month, in a post you may have missed.
January 22nd, 2005 at Jan 22, 05 | 4:01 am
Charles Hueter,
Perhaps if the day comes when you or someone you know has their life saved by the violation of an innocent person’s rights, you’ll change your mind as well. Appeals to emotion are pretty appealing when its your emotions on the chopping block, but not as appealing otherwise.
January 22nd, 2005 at Jan 22, 05 | 4:16 am
Pham,
Stop trying to wiggling out of answering Gil’s question. If you were the person in question, would you kill an innocent baby in order to save the lives of a great many more people? You said earlier that “Being principled doesn’t require you to stand by while millions are slaughtered.” Either you believe situations like the one Gil described are possible, in which case being principled does indeed require you to stand by while many who could be saved by your actions are instead slaughtered, or you believe that there is some magical rule of nature that no situation could ever arise in which strict adherence to the NAP could lead to widespread misery and death.
Some Kantians take the latter approach to explain away the problems with Kant’s moral theory when it appears to lead to absurd consequences (refusing to lie when doing so could save many innocent lives). I’ve yet to meet a libertarian who takes this approach. Most just equivocate as you have done, either by not directly answering the question, or by saying that the act would be morally wrong, but you would do it anyway, or by blaming it on someone else.
January 22nd, 2005 at Jan 22, 05 | 10:06 am
Gil: “The Stalin analogy is ridiculous.“
What’s the specific difference in principle between you killing the number of people you want to (ten, a thousand, ten-thousand, some admittedly-arbitrary number) and Stalin killing the number of people he wanted to?
“Nobody (who isn’t a complete idiot)…“
Argument from intimidation. Sorry, no points.
“You seem to prefer to dogmatically apply the sacred holy scripture of the Non-Aggression Principle regardless of how many more real live people are destroyed in the process.“
Um no, actually I recognize the supremacy of the individual, who is also a real live person.
January 22nd, 2005 at Jan 22, 05 | 11:37 am
Some Kantians take the latter approach to explain away the problems with Kant’s moral theory when it appears to lead to absurd consequences (refusing to lie when doing so could save many innocent lives).
This sounds like a big flaw in Kant’s moral theory if it indeed follows from it. Why would there be a moral obligation to lie to someone trying to kill you? Haven’t they forfeited any expectation of that kind of good will from you by trying to destroy you?
January 22nd, 2005 at Jan 22, 05 | 11:40 am
I guess the funny characters are only appearing when someone uses italics.
Kant can’t explain his moral theory
Kant can’t explain his moral theory
January 22nd, 2005 at Jan 22, 05 | 11:41 am
Ok, I give up, I’m not sure how to reproduce the problem….
January 22nd, 2005 at Jan 22, 05 | 4:02 pm
John Lopez,
The difference between my proposed action and Stalin’s is that I’m trying to improve the moral landscape by reluctantly trading off a lesser (but admittedly very valuable) value for a much greater one. He did nothing of the kind.
I understand that there are problems of people misapplying the example, and slipper slope possibilities; and these should be considered in the decision. But, it’s not obvious to me that the right judgment is always to refrain from any rights violation.
I wasn’t trying to intimidate you, and wasn’t accusing you of being an idiot. It was my full expectation that reflection would lead you to agree that the analogy was inapt.
(As for the link…I tried to code it correctly but my comment kept getting swallowed by the anti-spam software, apparently, so I eventually just pasted the raw URL. I agree that using tinyurl would have been better.)
January 22nd, 2005 at Jan 22, 05 | 7:35 pm
Gil: “I’m trying to improve the moral landscape…“
I’m unclear how killing innocent people improves the moral landscape. Can you elaborate - is more killing better, or less?
“…by reluctantly trading off a lesser (but admittedly very valuable) value for a much greater one.“
‘Lesser value’ — to whom? To you?
“[Stalin] did nothing of the kind.“
He certainly proclaimed that he was doing exactly that. Now you might say that those proclamations were phony on their face, that he was talking about freedom all the while shoveling people into death camps.
And that would be true.
Now on the other hand we have you, speaking about freedom while proposing to shovel people into… Well, less people anyhow, into… Um.
Only you haven’t actually done it, yet. That’s the difference in principle, Gil.
So you have the motive, but lack the means and/or opportunity. So let me pose this to you: given the means and opportunity, how many innocent people would you, in principle, be willing to kill? Ten? A hundred? Ten-thousand? Because that’s the answer to your concerns about slippery slopes and misapplications:
How many innocent people do you want to kill?
January 22nd, 2005 at Jan 22, 05 | 11:10 pm
The NAP applies so often because people are very very valuable and violating their autonomy harms them. The principle serves a great purpose very well, usually. But, sometimes it might not; and someone who closes his mind to that possiblity is being irrational.
I’m glad to hear you think lives are valuable, but of course everyone says that. What exactly are you implying with the qualifications “so often” and “well, usually”? I note that you refer to “trading off values”, which is usually code for subordinating some value you find inconvenient. I’m having a hard time following this discussion, so correct me if I’m wrong: You’re advocating torturing people if it helps save lives and gets what YOU want, correct?
January 22nd, 2005 at Jan 22, 05 | 11:16 pm
John Lopez,
Where is this proposal you are imagining?
None.
How many innocent people do you want to see killed before one person is aggressively interrogated for information, or one weapon that is expected to produce innocent collateral casualties is used in an effort to stop the killing?
January 23rd, 2005 at Jan 23, 05 | 12:01 am
Gil: “Where is this proposal you are imagining?“
You’re proposing to place some unknown number of human beings into a system of methodical torture by government.
“None.“
But here’s the thing: you’ve specifically said that your are willing to trade some lives for the promises of safety. So “none” obviously isn’t the correct answer. So how many people do you want to sacrifice? Or to rephrase it: How many people being sacrificed would you endorse?
As many as it takes?
“How many innocent people do you want to see killed before one person is aggressively interrogated for information…“
Want? None. What am I willing to endorse? I endorse the wholesale dismantling of the government, right now, on moral principle, War On Terror and the consequences deriving from its abscence be damned. You take the worst terror-alert fantasy that this rotten government has ever fabricated, make it real, and given the hammer to do so, I’d smash the state right then and there.
That’s because I’m an *extremist*.
Now, I’m still unclear how killing innocent people improves the moral landscape. Can you elaborate? Also, what do you mean by people with ‘lesser value’? Who decides? You?
January 23rd, 2005 at Jan 23, 05 | 2:24 am
John Lopez,
Actually, I explicitly didn’t propose that. But I did claim that there might be extreme circumstances under which violating the laws against torture would be the right thing to do.
I don’t know. But it would have to be the best option to save a significantly larger number of innocent victims.
So, perhaps you understand my response to your unfair question.
So, what’s the number? 10 million? As many as others feel like killing?
And, after you smash the state, how do you think individual rights will fare? Or, do you care?
Why might you think that the private defense agencies that you imagine will spontaneously arise respect individual rights better than the U.S. government? Or, once again, do you care?
Let’s say that the only known way to thwart an imminent WMD attack that will kill thousands, or millions, is to blow up a building; but doing so is likely to kill some innocents who live and work there or nearby.
Some innocents will be dead, and that’s tragic. But, many others (thousands or millions) will survive to live their lives, pursue their dreams, discover truths and create beauty. I think that the moral landscape under the scenario where many more innocents survive is better than that under which many more are killed. Don’t you?
I really wouldn’t want that job. But it seems that I’d do it much better than you would, since the concept seems unclear to you, and you are probably not even safe around hammers.
I think that I respect individual rights as much as anyone. And I understand how distateful it is to contemplate endorsing their violation. But, there are people who don’t respect them; and if the only way to stop those people from violating them en masse is to risk violating much less of them ourselves, then I think that a genuine respect for individuals and their rights demands that we be willing to endorse that.
The difference between us is that I don’t pretend that respecting a rule against ever violating them is always guaranteed to be the best way to promote them.
January 23rd, 2005 at Jan 23, 05 | 3:05 am
Stefan,
Hmm…I don’t know what the “and gets you what YOU want” means or why you thought it was important to add it. I’m not advocating torturing people to get them to paint my house.
I suggested that it seems plausible to me that there might be scenarios where torturing someone, or risking the deaths of innocents during an attack on hostiles likely to kill many more people would be right.
See my response above for an example, and why I think it would be better.
January 23rd, 2005 at Jan 23, 05 | 12:46 pm
Stefan,
Kant deduces, based on his principle of universalizability, that lying is wrong. The wrongness of lying cannot be weighed against other benefits (hence it is deontological, not consequential). So if a Nazi comes to your door and asks you if you know where Anne Frank is hiding, you are morally obligated to tell him. Most people find this to be a deep flaw in Kant’s moral theory.
January 23rd, 2005 at Jan 23, 05 | 3:15 pm
Gil: “As many as others feel like killing?“
Yep. There isn’t any level of human misery at which I’m magically obligated to help other people, is there? Am I required to risk my life to help a stranger? Two strangers? Ten? Ten million? It seems to me that the answer to all of those is “no”. Dialing it in a notch, am I required to expend any resources to help a stranger? Two? Ten? Ten million? Answer once again is “no”.
Unless someone can set a value on human misery, which you’ve stipulated you can’t, the idea that I have an unchosen obligation to others is wide-open to that obligation being extended to everyone who is less-well-off than I am. It’s a socialistic nightmare, with no-one allowed to gain anything more than anyone else.
But that’s the logical conclusion of the position that some people are rightfully sacrificed for the greater good.
“I think that the moral landscape under the scenario where many more innocents survive is better than that under which many more are killed. Don’t you?“
No, for the reason stated above. Look: innocent people die every day, around the globe, from disease. By your lights, a 1% global tax on wealthy nations to help poor nations would improve the moral landscape because many more innocents would survive. Sure, a handful of cranks might resist and have to be dealt with by the security forces, but many more people would be saved than would die.
And that’d be more ‘moral’, right? It would “be the best option to save a significantly larger number of innocent victims” - obviously what’s being done now isn’t saving them, right?
“I really wouldn’t want that job. But it seems that I’d do it much better than you would,…“
I have no doubt whatsoever that you’d do that job better than I would, I’ll stipulate that I’d make a singularly unsuitable Chief Of Government Torture.
January 23rd, 2005 at Jan 23, 05 | 8:47 pm
I’m unclear how killing innocent people improves the moral landscape. Can you elaborate - is more killing better, or less?
Killing one innocent person to reduce the killing of a great many more innocent people is better than not killing one innocent person, thereby resulting in the killing of a great many more innocent people.
January 23rd, 2005 at Jan 23, 05 | 8:57 pm
There isn’t any level of human misery at which Iâ��m magically obligated to help other people, is there?
I don’t believe Gil or anyone else here claimed that you are obligated to torture or kill an innocent person. He did claim that the torture or murder of innocents is sometimes excusable in situations where the consequences for not doing so are significantly bad. So, for example, if a terrorist with a baby strapped to his chest threatens to kill me and everyone else around us, I may not have any moral obigation to kill the terrorist and the baby, but I would be morally excused if I did.
January 23rd, 2005 at Jan 23, 05 | 9:21 pm
Ghertner: “Killing one innocent person to reduce the killing of a great many more innocent people is better than not killing one innocent person, thereby resulting in the killing of a great many more innocent people.“
… A theory easily proved by harvesting one Micha Ghertner’s valuable organs and using the proceeds to feed starving third-world children. Sure, Ghertner’s innocent, but the fact remains that a great many more innocent lives were saved by that action.
January 23rd, 2005 at Jan 23, 05 | 9:40 pm
Ghertner: “I don’t believe Gil or anyone else here claimed that you are obligated to torture or kill an innocent person.“
I believe he did: “I think that the moral landscape under the scenario where many more innocents survive is better than that under which many more are killed. Don’t you?”
If the moral landscape is indeed better by doing X, then it’s worse by refusing to do X. Not doing X would in fact be behaving immorally. Thus according to Gil, I have a moral obligation to torture innocent people.
January 24th, 2005 at Jan 24, 05 | 12:45 am
If the moral landscape is indeed better by doing X, then it’s worse by refusing to do X. Not doing X would in fact be behaving immorally.
How do you deduce that last sentence from the one preciding it?
January 24th, 2005 at Jan 24, 05 | 12:47 am
â�¦ A theory easily proved by harvesting one Micha Ghertner’s valuable organs and using the proceeds to feed starving third-world children. Sure, Ghertner’s innocent, but the fact remains that a great many more innocent lives were saved by that action.
Why not feed them with food instead? It’s cheaper, tastes better, and is better for you.
January 24th, 2005 at Jan 24, 05 | 1:51 am
Micha’s right.
I didn’t say, or imply that anyone is obligated (in the sense of something that others would be justified in enforcing) to do these things. I did say that they are morally right.
But there are many things that people choose among all the time that are morally better and worse than each other. I think it’s an important aspect of liberty that people are left free to make these choices (when they don’t violate the NAP, in most cases).
What’s morally best for an individual to do is complicated, and depends on many specifics (many of which are known only by the individual, and others can only be estimates about probably consequences). Hopefully, moral knowledge will improve over time (both individually and collectively) and this will happen largely because people can continue to make moral conjectures and refutations.
Or, perhaps you meant “obligated” in another sense. Do you (John Lopez) think that you are obligated (in the sense you meant) to always do what’s morally best? Are you sure you’re doing it now? Or, do you think that there is no morality beyond the obligation to not violate the NAP?
January 24th, 2005 at Jan 24, 05 | 7:43 pm
Ghertner,
Tear your eyes offa LibertarianGirl(tm) and point them at this: “…using the proceeds to…“. Now with the definition of “proceeds” in hand, can you answer the question?
January 24th, 2005 at Jan 24, 05 | 8:05 pm
Ghertner: “How do you deduce that last sentence from the one preciding it?“
It’s just a restatement of the second half of the first sentence.
January 24th, 2005 at Jan 24, 05 | 8:26 pm
Gil: “But there are many things that people choose among all the time that are morally better and worse than each other.“
It sounds to me like you’re conflating vices and crimes.
“Do you (John Lopez) think that you are obligated (in the sense you meant) to always do what’s morally best?“
Yes.
“Are you sure you’re doing it now?“
Pretty sure, yah.
“Or, do you think that there is no morality beyond the obligation to not violate the NAP?“
The NAP isn’t so much a Principle as it is a rule-of-thumb that’s derived from the idea of the sovreign individual, thus it isn’t comprehensive without stretching the concept of “aggression” far beyond what it really means. I have to say that there are things that are not covered by the NAP that are immoral, such as causing property damage.
Now once again, wouldn’t it be more moral by your lights to impose a 1% tax on rich nations as I asked above?
January 24th, 2005 at Jan 24, 05 | 11:26 pm
Now with the definition of ‘proceeds’ in hand, can you answer the question?
It’s a silly question. There are much less costly ways to feed hungry people than stealing organs and selling them.
It�s just a restatement of the second half of the first sentence.
No, it isn’t. Failing to do something which improves the moral landscape is not the same as actively doing something which is immoral, unless you first reject the active/passive distinction. I don’t reject this distinction and, as far as I can tell from the contents of this thread, neither does Gil.
January 25th, 2005 at Jan 25, 05 | 10:59 am
John Lopez,
No, it wouldn’t.
It seems clear to me that institutionalizing theft to subsidize a process that has been such a dramatic historical failure at achieving its stated ends is very far from “the best option” available to improve things.
I’m surprised you disagree with that.
January 25th, 2005 at Jan 25, 05 | 7:54 pm
Gil: “It seems clear to me that institutionalizing theft to subsidize a process that has been such a dramatic historical failure…“
The plain fact is that government aid, despite the scandals and waste, actually does save lives. You’ve said that taking from some to save others is justifiable: “I think that the moral landscape under the scenario where many more innocents survive is better than that under which many more are killed.”
If more people will survive given government aid, then you have no moral argument against it.
“…at achieving its stated ends is very far from “the best option” available to improve things.“
That’s not a moral objection, it’s a practical one. Government aid isn’t “wrong” by your lights, it’s merely “inefficient”.
“I’m surprised you disagree with that.“
I don’t.
January 26th, 2005 at Jan 26, 05 | 12:29 am
John Lopez,
Well, it saves some, and it costs some. People with less liberty and control of their lives and resources will be less effective at improving their own lives and solving problems to help more people survive, etc. It also entrenches people with power and perverse incentives to expand the problems that need coercive funding, corrupts them, and the costs (economic and moral) tend to expand. Also, the recipients tend to grow dependent on the aid rather than more self-sufficient. It’s not at all clear that establishing this aid program is likely to do more good than harm in the long run.
No, it’s a moral objection. I don’t think it’s moral to violate other people’s rights when one has a better (more rights preserving) alternative.
January 26th, 2005 at Jan 26, 05 | 5:14 pm
To those of you who believe that the NAP applies to “all” situations. A question: Does a police officer have the right to subdue and restrain by force someone accused of a violent crime? And if so, what gives him that right?