(no subject)

[batyatoon]

Apparently today is Blog Against Torture day.

Here's the thing: Torture doesn't work. Not as a means of extracting reliable information. This is known.

Is it wrong that I think this practical question completely invalidates any ethical question on the subject? That I'm not interested in even addressing the moral issue of whether it is ever defensible to hurt people in order to achieve something good or necessary, because I'm convinced that hurting people is not in fact going to achieve it?

Listen: if I can't get you to stop because it's wrong, can I get you to stop because it's futile?

Comments

[acsumama.livejournal.com]

It's funny, because I'm always seeing people saying the opposite -- torture is clearly morally wrong, which invalidates any practical question, so there's no point in getting into a debate over whether it works since we wouldn't be morally permitted to do it in either case.

[genarti]

Which is valid, I think, but that argument falls down as soon as you're trying to argue the question as policy rather than ethics with someone who's convinced that it is morally justified. Even if they only believe that it's morally justified in the most desperate of circumstances, or that it's still a moral wrong but that it's the kind a leader must be willing to take on his conscience for the greater good of the nation, they're still out of the realm of "totally morally impermissible in all circumstances."

[acsumama.livejournal.com]

I think, though, that the pragmatism-first argument is liable to fall down in the same way. Imagine you're arguing with someone who is convinced that torture does work, at least sometimes -- someone who is sure that you can get anyone to do anything if you just hurt them enough. Especially since the moral case can be made by logic and argument alone, whereas the pragmatic argument requires empirical evidence that's not always ready-to-hand and expert testimony that can always be questioned.

[batyatoon]

The thing is, the moral case can be made in either direction by logic and argument alone.

[acsumama.livejournal.com]

Depends on what you mean by that. If you mean that the pro-torture and anti-torture moral arguments are objectively equally strong, then you're really saying there isn't a moral argument at all and torture may well be OK if it worked. If you mean that being anti-torture doesn't make you a perfect debating machine and a pro-torture person might be able to "win" the argument despite having an objectively wrong argument, then the same thing could be said about arguing the empirical case -- the anti-torture pragmatic case isn't "the sky is blue" or "let me drop this apple on your head" level obvious, so a clever debater could make a seemingly plausible pragmatic pro-torture case.

[batyatoon]

If you mean that the pro-torture and anti-torture moral arguments are objectively equally strong, then you're really saying there isn't a moral argument at all and torture may well be OK if it worked.

Hrm.

Let's say rather that (a) I'm not as certain of the moral argument -- see above what Gen said about necessary-evil vs. indefensible-evil -- as I am of the pragmatic one, and (b) I think the pragmatic one is more likely to be convincing.