Some thoughts after a bit of reflection on Nic White’s argument which has been thoroughly debated on the thread about the Bagaric/Clarke paper.
Nic’s position seems to boil down to some sort of utilitarian calculus where one life can be sacrificed to save many others if a decision maker feels this is necessary. Leaving aside the well grounded and pragmatic objections to the utility of torture for the moment, this rests on a fundamental confusion. Nic claims that this is a relativistic position, and opposes the position (which I hold) that torture should be prohibited under all circumstances on the grounds that this is to set up a moral absolute (which is correct – that’s what law tends to do). However, what he is doing is establishing an unacknowledged absolute moral value for utilitarianism. You can’t say, as Nic does, that “Circumstances determine what is right and wrong, not absolutes.” because inherent in his tortuous reasoning is a value placed on human life, but a relative value. To take one life, it seems, if the intention is to save others, is justified by the greater value of these other lives. And, of course, there’s another moral judgement snuck in through the back door – that the lives of terrorists are worthless but the lives of innocents are to be valued. The clear question that arises here is – who decides? One person’s terrorist is another person’s freedom fighter. The only way to have a clear ethical position here is to value all human life, and avoid doing psychological and physical harm as a normative rule. Nic’s utilitarian calculus makes no sense unless there are judgements made which devalue some lives.
The contradictions inherent in such a position (ie an absolute which is based on a utilitarian calculus) begin to become clear when Nic turns to his support for the Iraq war:
The reason I supported the Iraq war was solely because of the oppressive and genocidal actions of Saddam and the need to free the Iraqi people of this. I couldnt care less that there was no WMD. Say 20000 people were killed in the invasion, Saddam killed far more – yes it is a numbers game, thats the only way to be pragmatic about this. Iraq will be much better off without Saddam, and would be already if the invasion and reconstruction had not been botched so badly by the CoW. To say that you cannot take my position on torture and support the war is ridiculous as Saddam did not use torture in a way that is in any way justifiable – he used it for control and wanton cruelty to those who opposed him.
Nic, again, is distinguishing between good torture and bad torture. But Saddam would argue, as Islam Karisov is doing in Uzbekistan, and as Alberto Gonzales has argued in the US, that the torture they condone and practice is for reasons of state and for the greater good. Both Karisov and the Bushies claim that they are defending freedom from terrorists. Saddam claimed that he was defending the Iraqi people and state from their enemies.
The truth is that these judgements are political, not ethical. Politics, in its most extreme forms, is about defining friends and enemies, as Carl Schmitt argued, and as such has no place for ethical niceties. This is actually the reductio ad absurdum of Nic’s position, though he doesn’t recognise it. Nic argues – nonsensically – that there is an acceptable level of death to produce a greater gain of “freedom” in Iraq. If that’s what freedom is about, then it’s very clear that a large number of the Iraqi people don’t want to be sold this particular bill of goods.
As I pointed out to Nic, the “humanitarian” justification for the invasion of Iraq is a smokescreen. This becomes evident when we look at the extreme difficulty the US is having justifying not extraditing the Venezuelan terrorist Luis Posada Carilles, who, it’s alleged, is responsible for multiple deaths. Why? Because Signor Carilles was a CIA asset, and his terror was directed against the Fidel Castro regime in Cuba. It’s also evident from the lack of any particular concern about the horrors of the Karisov regime in Uzbekistan, where dissidents have been boiled alive. The latest massacre is embarrassing for the US, but nothing much will happen, because Uzbekistan is a US ally and occupies a key strategic position in terms of Central Asian oil deposits and as a US military base for the War on Terror. Similarly, the Kosovo war worsened the humanitarian position of ethnic Albanians, and had far more to do with the strategic importance of the Balkans and the need for the US to project force to revivify NATO – in the absence of any particular remaining justification of this Cold War military pact. Nic ignores the fact that the invasion of Iraq simply would not have happened had the US not perceived it as being in its national interest. Similarly, the US sold weapons to Iraq when Saddam was their SOB in the Middle East, as George Galloway pointed out to the US Senate with some degree of spirit:
“I have had two meetings with Saddam Hussein, once in 1994 and once in August of 2002. By no stretch of the English language can that be described as “many meetings” with Saddam Hussein.
“As a matter of fact, I have met Saddam Hussein exactly the same number of times as Donald Rumsfeld met him. The difference is Donald Rumsfeld met him to sell him guns and to give him maps the better to target those guns. I met him to try and bring about an end to sanctions, suffering and war, and on the second of the two occasions, I met him to try and persuade him to let Dr Hans Blix and the United Nations weapons inspectors back into the country – a rather better use of two meetings with Saddam Hussein than your own Secretary of State for Defence made of his.
“I was an opponent of Saddam Hussein when British and Americans governments and businessmen were selling him guns and gas. I used to demonstrate outside the Iraqi embassy when British and American officials were going in and doing commerce.
“You will see from the official parliamentary record, Hansard, from the 15th March 1990 onwards, voluminous evidence that I have a rather better record of opposition to Saddam Hussein than you do and than any other member of the British or American governments do”.
The US doesn’t act in order to save more lives (sanctions of course inspired by the US took many during the 90s – including those of hundreds of thousands of children) but to advance its political purposes. Similarly, torture is not practiced in order to gain information to save lives but to exercise power and to cower opponents. If anyone needs any more convincing, try this report on the behaviour of US soldiers in Afghanistan:
Like a narrative counterpart to the digital images from Abu Ghraib, the Bagram file depicts young, poorly trained soldiers in repeated incidents of abuse. The harsh treatment, which has resulted in criminal charges against seven soldiers, went well beyond the two deaths.
In some instances, testimony shows, it was directed or carried out by interrogators to extract information. In others, it was punishment meted out by military police guards. Sometimes, the torment seems to have been driven by little more than boredom or cruelty, or both.
In sworn statements to Army investigators, soldiers describe one female interrogator with a taste for humiliation stepping on the neck of one prostrate detainee and kicking another in the genitals. They tell of a shackled prisoner being forced to roll back and forth on the floor of a cell, kissing the boots of his two interrogators as he went. Yet another prisoner is made to pick plastic bottle caps out of a drum mixed with excrement and water as part of a strategy to soften him up for questioning.
This is the truth of the abstract arguments Nic uses to justify torture on the basis of extracting information about “terrorism”.
The sort of relativistic means/end argument Nic supports could have been made by the US in the 80s to support Saddam in his use of chemical weapons – the greater good was to ensure stability in the Middle East, maintain the terriorial integrity of Iraq and repress Kurdish nationalism and Shi’ite separatism in order not to destabilise Turkey and Saudi Arabia, and to defeat the greater threat to the US – Iran. Of course, this argument is just as unsustainable ethically as Nic’s argument that torture could in some circumstances be justified. The reason is that it’s not grounded in ethical reasoning but in the projection of force. The ethical and humanitarian rhetoric is the hegemonic icing on the cake, to convince those with tender consciences. It should be very clear that the two situations make a nonsense of any support for the invasion of Iraq on humanitarian grounds – all that you are doing if you buy this rhetoric is aligning yourself with American national interests.
All this points to the fact that international law has to embody absolute moral principles involving the inviolability of human lives and human rights. It’s only in this way that horrendous actions like torture and unjustifiable slaughter associated with wars “to spread freedom and democracy” can in any way be restrained – by being measured against universal moral norms.
Nic needs to think again.
Olay Mark. Even if torture in some limited form was available, –perish the day—, history proves that most of the evidence gathered by such methods is useless as the victims will inevitably tell the torturers anything to stop the pain.
A little nicety in our legal system is that such evidence is inadmissable in a court of law, so having got a confession supposedly which saves lives, it will then not be possible to successfully prosecute the torturee. We may as well throw out every State/Fed Criminal Codes, including the ICC stuff, if ever a statute appeared legalising torture, not to mention tearing up all the UN Conventions. All judges of the HCA would collectively blow a fuse/have heart attacks prior to hopefully throwing out the legislation on whatever constitutional grounds were available.
Given a lot of goons and thugs in the system (a la Gitmo, Abu Grahib), as someone said before, who controls the custodians? Who stops police/ASIO/AFP from using ‘torture’ legislation against all terrorist ‘suspects’ /common criminals/people they don’t like ???
Summary: Pandora’s box and a return to the middle ages, great move and ‘Hail Torqemada!’
Olay Mark. Even if torture in some limited form was available, –perish the day—, history proves that most of the evidence gathered by such methods is useless as the victims will inevitably tell the torturers anything to stop the pain.
A little nicety in our legal system is that such evidence is inadmissable in a court of law, so having got a confession supposedly which saves lives, it will then not be possible to successfully prosecute the torturee. We may as well throw out every State/Fed Criminal Codes, including the ICC stuff, if ever a statute appeared legalising torture, not to mention tearing up all the UN Conventions. All judges of the HCA would collectively blow a fuse/have heart attacks prior to hopefully throwing out the legislation on whatever constitutional grounds were available.
Given a lot of goons and thugs in the system (a la Gitmo, Abu Grahib), as someone said before, who controls the custodians? Who stops police/ASIO/AFP from using ‘torture’ legislation against all terrorist ‘suspects’ /common criminals/people they don’t like ???
Summary: Pandora’s box and a return to the middle ages, great move and ‘Hail Torqemada!’
Mark, I’m not sure why you felt the need to refute such a windy and hollow argument. (Which is the fifty-first state anyway?) As you say, Nic just trundles out a crude commonsense utilitarianism whose limitations he should have known even without troubling to do any research – should have known, that is, if he’d read the posts he linked to.
And why should the acceptable death toll in Iraq depend on how many Saddam killed in the past? That’s not even crude utilitarianism, it’s Mosaic Law or something.
Mark, I’m not sure why you felt the need to refute such a windy and hollow argument. (Which is the fifty-first state anyway?) As you say, Nic just trundles out a crude commonsense utilitarianism whose limitations he should have known even without troubling to do any research – should have known, that is, if he’d read the posts he linked to.
And why should the acceptable death toll in Iraq depend on how many Saddam killed in the past? That’s not even crude utilitarianism, it’s Mosaic Law or something.
Mark’s spot-on in the rant above. Raimond Gaita said it beautifully, but I’ll condense what he said: Morality is not a means to an end. It is an end. This is what the utilitarian argument misses. It’s profoundly relativist for such an arch-con idea.
And hey, how about the Deakin academics’ argument that a medical practitioner would be present in their absurd torture scenario. What about the hypocratic oath doctors undertake not to do harm?
A small point, but relevent. I’m interviewing Marko in a couple of weeks, and I plan to ask this, and also whether he would carry out the torture himself. He’s not the one-dimensional ideologue some have characterised him as. I don’t know if the same could be said of his co-author, Julie Clarke, though.
Mark’s spot-on in the rant above. Raimond Gaita said it beautifully, but I’ll condense what he said: Morality is not a means to an end. It is an end. This is what the utilitarian argument misses. It’s profoundly relativist for such an arch-con idea.
And hey, how about the Deakin academics’ argument that a medical practitioner would be present in their absurd torture scenario. What about the hypocratic oath doctors undertake not to do harm?
A small point, but relevent. I’m interviewing Marko in a couple of weeks, and I plan to ask this, and also whether he would carry out the torture himself. He’s not the one-dimensional ideologue some have characterised him as. I don’t know if the same could be said of his co-author, Julie Clarke, though.
James, I think it’s important to refute any and all arguments for torture. I don’t want the Bagaric and Clarke’s of the world to be able to get away with their absurd thesis, and therefore I think it’s necessary to engage with any degree of support for their position.
James, I think it’s important to refute any and all arguments for torture. I don’t want the Bagaric and Clarke’s of the world to be able to get away with their absurd thesis, and therefore I think it’s necessary to engage with any degree of support for their position.
Hey Selwyn, not snarking here but no-one takes the hippocratic oath before they get their practising certificate – it doesn’t actually have a regulatory function.
If I were you, I’d be asking him about the fact that he’s copped the shit and had the big shit-eating grin picture in the paper and who’s that chick?
Hey Selwyn, not snarking here but no-one takes the hippocratic oath before they get their practising certificate – it doesn’t actually have a regulatory function.
If I were you, I’d be asking him about the fact that he’s copped the shit and had the big shit-eating grin picture in the paper and who’s that chick?
I agree. Because their argument seems plausible on the face of it, and even some educated lefties swallowed it.
I agree. Because their argument seems plausible on the face of it, and even some educated lefties swallowed it.
Point taken, Zoe. But it still goes against the foundations of medical practice, n’est-ce-pas? Yeah, I’m desperately wondering whether any of this has changed his mind. Because he’s written some pretty good stuff about corporate social responsibility & wealth redistribution…
Point taken, Zoe. But it still goes against the foundations of medical practice, n’est-ce-pas? Yeah, I’m desperately wondering whether any of this has changed his mind. Because he’s written some pretty good stuff about corporate social responsibility & wealth redistribution…
Yeah, Selwyn, it does, but there are millions of doctors in the world, and some of them supervise torture. “Death and the Maiden” is a good place to start.
And I would just like to register here a slight reluctance on my part to bring Sigourney Weaver into the conversation here at the Hotel Lavatoria, but there you go, I have.
Yeah, Selwyn, it does, but there are millions of doctors in the world, and some of them supervise torture. “Death and the Maiden” is a good place to start.
And I would just like to register here a slight reluctance on my part to bring Sigourney Weaver into the conversation here at the Hotel Lavatoria, but there you go, I have.
Okay. What’s the story with Sigourney Weaver?
And since we’re speaking of such important matters, have you noticed the way all the TV news stories on Kylie’s breast cancer have used clips that really zoom in on her cleavage? (I suppose that’s all there are, but it seems to me on par with stories about obesity where they film fatties in the street… what if one of them were you?)
Okay. What’s the story with Sigourney Weaver?
And since we’re speaking of such important matters, have you noticed the way all the TV news stories on Kylie’s breast cancer have used clips that really zoom in on her cleavage? (I suppose that’s all there are, but it seems to me on par with stories about obesity where they film fatties in the street… what if one of them were you?)
Oh, I don’t think you can complain about pictures of boobs when you’re talking about breast cancer – although the SMH did change their front page shot to a more cleavageingly enhanced one as the story progressed.
And I’ve said everything about Sigourney that I’m going to say for a long time.
Oh, I don’t think you can complain about pictures of boobs when you’re talking about breast cancer – although the SMH did change their front page shot to a more cleavageingly enhanced one as the story progressed.
And I’ve said everything about Sigourney that I’m going to say for a long time.
Good post, Mark.
Good post, Mark.
Yes, “Death and The Maiden” – the reason the original gout of emotion meets reason meets redemption meets revenge has transmuted so well from an image to quarterable music to a play and then to a movie is because systematically hurting others is one of the most emotionally powerful things we can do to eachother, or to ourselves.
Sade, Schubert and Polanski understood this. However I have grave doubts that some security bureaucrat would. They’d just end up making the wrong person scream and then fake the paperwork for an inquiry. “Tuttle, not Buttle”.
So no, torture just doesn’t work on any level. Morally, pragmatically, socially, politically, economically.
Unless you are a real big artist. And even then someone else has to do the dirty work first.
Yes, “Death and The Maiden” – the reason the original gout of emotion meets reason meets redemption meets revenge has transmuted so well from an image to quarterable music to a play and then to a movie is because systematically hurting others is one of the most emotionally powerful things we can do to eachother, or to ourselves.
Sade, Schubert and Polanski understood this. However I have grave doubts that some security bureaucrat would. They’d just end up making the wrong person scream and then fake the paperwork for an inquiry. “Tuttle, not Buttle”.
So no, torture just doesn’t work on any level. Morally, pragmatically, socially, politically, economically.
Unless you are a real big artist. And even then someone else has to do the dirty work first.
Cheers, Kate.
Cheers, Kate.
Oh, and while we’re discussing torture, stop putting Nic White through the wringer. Weren’t you once young, naive and unworldly yerself?
Oh, and while we’re discussing torture, stop putting Nic White through the wringer. Weren’t you once young, naive and unworldly yerself?
When I was young and stupid, I tried not to shoot off at the mouth, and when I was caught up, I acknowledged that I was wrong.
Also, young cubs need some sense knocked into them. Otherwise how will they learn?
When I was young and stupid, I tried not to shoot off at the mouth, and when I was caught up, I acknowledged that I was wrong.
Also, young cubs need some sense knocked into them. Otherwise how will they learn?
Ah, St Paul, ever apt.
In other words, we may grow in wisdom and understanding, but we never wholly get it this side of the grave. It’s trying that’s important.
Ah, St Paul, ever apt.
In other words, we may grow in wisdom and understanding, but we never wholly get it this side of the grave. It’s trying that’s important.
Selwyn
I don’t know who you are or why you’re interviewing Bagaric, but I’d ask him if he’s had a go at drafting some legislation. I guess he’d be bound, by a grim sense of duty, to show how this might be done. We’d want to know: what are the age limits; whether there are grades of approved levels, e.g. excluding permanent injury, allowing permament injury but excluding death, allowing death; who approves it (a judge?); whether there’s a right of appeal, whether the torturee is entitled to have his lawyer present; whether the torturee’s answers are to be taken at face value, or whether the superviser has the discretion to judge which answers are lies and which are the truth, or whether the torturee has ceased to think rationally (God forbid); will there be a doctor present, and if so will the Hypocratic Oath need to be amended, and if not who will determine whether permanent injury (physical or psychological) is nigh (this would only apply to lower approval grades); whether any observers (like the lawyer and the doctor) without appropriate torture tolerance training would be physically restrained lest instinctive decency cause them to intervene and spoil the torture at a crucial moment… the list seems endless, but given that he’s a law professor he must see a way through this thicket, otherwise he wouldn’t be saying what he’s saying, would he?
Selwyn
I don’t know who you are or why you’re interviewing Bagaric, but I’d ask him if he’s had a go at drafting some legislation. I guess he’d be bound, by a grim sense of duty, to show how this might be done. We’d want to know: what are the age limits; whether there are grades of approved levels, e.g. excluding permanent injury, allowing permament injury but excluding death, allowing death; who approves it (a judge?); whether there’s a right of appeal, whether the torturee is entitled to have his lawyer present; whether the torturee’s answers are to be taken at face value, or whether the superviser has the discretion to judge which answers are lies and which are the truth, or whether the torturee has ceased to think rationally (God forbid); will there be a doctor present, and if so will the Hypocratic Oath need to be amended, and if not who will determine whether permanent injury (physical or psychological) is nigh (this would only apply to lower approval grades); whether any observers (like the lawyer and the doctor) without appropriate torture tolerance training would be physically restrained lest instinctive decency cause them to intervene and spoil the torture at a crucial moment… the list seems endless, but given that he’s a law professor he must see a way through this thicket, otherwise he wouldn’t be saying what he’s saying, would he?
James,
“that is, if he?Äôd read the posts he linked to”
I linked to it to show what all the fuss was about, nothing more. I dont agree with their position, I was arguing the much broader issue in an abstract sense.
“And why should the acceptable death toll in Iraq depend on how many Saddam killed in the past? That?Äôs not even crude utilitarianism, it?Äôs Mosaic Law or something.”
Because he would have killed many more, and those people were saved by his removal.
Also Mark, this should be post #3, not #4
James,
“that is, if he?Äôd read the posts he linked to”
I linked to it to show what all the fuss was about, nothing more. I dont agree with their position, I was arguing the much broader issue in an abstract sense.
“And why should the acceptable death toll in Iraq depend on how many Saddam killed in the past? That?Äôs not even crude utilitarianism, it?Äôs Mosaic Law or something.”
Because he would have killed many more, and those people were saved by his removal.
Also Mark, this should be post #3, not #4
Thanks, Nic, fixed now.
Thanks, Nic, fixed now.
Clarifications, misunderstandings, etc:
“Nic claims that this is a relativistic position, and opposes the position (which I hold) that torture should be prohibited under all circumstances on the grounds that this is to set up a moral absolute (which is correct – that’s what law tends to do).”
My position is actually slightly different. My point is that it is *justifiable*, not that it should be legalised – as Ive said in the last email and before, that would be impossible on practical grounds. Im really arguing abstract principle more than Im arguing legislation. In fact Ive never actually said, IIRC, that it should be legalised.
“And, of course, there’s another moral judgement snuck in through the back door – that the lives of terrorists are worthless but the lives of innocents are to be valued.”
Not so. They arent “worthless”.
“The truth is that these judgements are political, not ethical.”
I only accept circumstances that arent solely political to be justified.
“Nic argues – nonsensically – that there is an acceptable level of death to produce a greater gain of “freedom” in Iraq.”
Im not arguing that at all. Saddam killed lots of people for no good reason. He would have continued to kill them. The invasion killed comparatively little and prevented more from being killed by Saddam. Therefore the net gain was the saving of many lives that would have been taken had Saddam been left in power indefinately. To me that is justified.
“Nic ignores the fact that the invasion of Iraq simply would not have happened had the US not perceived it as being in its national interest.”
I dont ignore it per se, just that I support the invasion despite the obvious political motivation. I think that these reasons are excused by the benefit – but will have to of course be dealt with when the USA tries to carry out its nationalistic endgame.
“The ethical and humanitarian rhetoric is the hegemonic icing on the cake, to convince those with tender consciences. It should be very clear that the two situations make a nonsense of any support for the invasion of Iraq on humanitarian grounds – all that you are doing if you buy this rhetoric is aligning yourself with American national interests.”
Not so, I fully realise it was rhetoric and a “smokescreen”, and I did at the time. By supporting the war for reason other than the real ones that just happened to be to cover reasons I dont align myself intentionally with American national interests, as I said before it excuses them because the necessary job was done.
If the *only* reason for the invasion was humanitarian, would you have a different opinion on it?
“All this points to the fact that international law has to embody absolute moral principles involving the inviolability of human lives and human rights. It’s only in this way that horrendous actions like torture and unjustifiable slaughter associated with wars “to spread freedom and democracy” can in any way be restrained – by being measured against universal moral norms.”
Youre right. In a legal sense, as has to be with international law and whats permissable and whats not, a utilitarianist position is not practical. Still, Im allowed to hold a utilitarianist philosophy and hope that the courts would at least show lenientcy to individuals who did what they needed to do, arent I? Thats mostly what Im defending here, the right to have the opinion that torture and such can be justified and even right in certain circumstances, even if only in an abstract sense.
Im arguinging abstractly on principle, you are arguing practically. Just because my values are not workable in a practical sense does not make them any less valid. Thats pretty much what I have been arguing the whole time.
There is a difference between something being justifiable and something being legal. Killing someone in self defence or the defence of someone else is considered to be acceptable, it could be argued that torture is an extention of that. Killing in self defence is in some cases legal as a result, but this would probably not work with torture, as I have already conceeded.
Clarifications, misunderstandings, etc:
“Nic claims that this is a relativistic position, and opposes the position (which I hold) that torture should be prohibited under all circumstances on the grounds that this is to set up a moral absolute (which is correct – that’s what law tends to do).”
My position is actually slightly different. My point is that it is *justifiable*, not that it should be legalised – as Ive said in the last email and before, that would be impossible on practical grounds. Im really arguing abstract principle more than Im arguing legislation. In fact Ive never actually said, IIRC, that it should be legalised.
“And, of course, there’s another moral judgement snuck in through the back door – that the lives of terrorists are worthless but the lives of innocents are to be valued.”
Not so. They arent “worthless”.
“The truth is that these judgements are political, not ethical.”
I only accept circumstances that arent solely political to be justified.
“Nic argues – nonsensically – that there is an acceptable level of death to produce a greater gain of “freedom” in Iraq.”
Im not arguing that at all. Saddam killed lots of people for no good reason. He would have continued to kill them. The invasion killed comparatively little and prevented more from being killed by Saddam. Therefore the net gain was the saving of many lives that would have been taken had Saddam been left in power indefinately. To me that is justified.
“Nic ignores the fact that the invasion of Iraq simply would not have happened had the US not perceived it as being in its national interest.”
I dont ignore it per se, just that I support the invasion despite the obvious political motivation. I think that these reasons are excused by the benefit – but will have to of course be dealt with when the USA tries to carry out its nationalistic endgame.
“The ethical and humanitarian rhetoric is the hegemonic icing on the cake, to convince those with tender consciences. It should be very clear that the two situations make a nonsense of any support for the invasion of Iraq on humanitarian grounds – all that you are doing if you buy this rhetoric is aligning yourself with American national interests.”
Not so, I fully realise it was rhetoric and a “smokescreen”, and I did at the time. By supporting the war for reason other than the real ones that just happened to be to cover reasons I dont align myself intentionally with American national interests, as I said before it excuses them because the necessary job was done.
If the *only* reason for the invasion was humanitarian, would you have a different opinion on it?
“All this points to the fact that international law has to embody absolute moral principles involving the inviolability of human lives and human rights. It’s only in this way that horrendous actions like torture and unjustifiable slaughter associated with wars “to spread freedom and democracy” can in any way be restrained – by being measured against universal moral norms.”
Youre right. In a legal sense, as has to be with international law and whats permissable and whats not, a utilitarianist position is not practical. Still, Im allowed to hold a utilitarianist philosophy and hope that the courts would at least show lenientcy to individuals who did what they needed to do, arent I? Thats mostly what Im defending here, the right to have the opinion that torture and such can be justified and even right in certain circumstances, even if only in an abstract sense.
Im arguinging abstractly on principle, you are arguing practically. Just because my values are not workable in a practical sense does not make them any less valid. Thats pretty much what I have been arguing the whole time.
There is a difference between something being justifiable and something being legal. Killing someone in self defence or the defence of someone else is considered to be acceptable, it could be argued that torture is an extention of that. Killing in self defence is in some cases legal as a result, but this would probably not work with torture, as I have already conceeded.
Chill Nic. There’s nothing wrong with you that few years in the Merchant Navy, or running a small business, or pitching to VC funds or fast talking aid packages past corrupt militias wouldn’t cure.
Chill Nic. There’s nothing wrong with you that few years in the Merchant Navy, or running a small business, or pitching to VC funds or fast talking aid packages past corrupt militias wouldn’t cure.
Hey Selwyn, what educated lefties ‘bought it’? Sounds most unlikely to me. Sorry, but I doubt any did. As an argument, its not very sophisticated.
Hey Selwyn, what educated lefties ‘bought it’? Sounds most unlikely to me. Sorry, but I doubt any did. As an argument, its not very sophisticated.
Just because my values are not workable in a practical sense does not make them any less valid.
Surely that’s one of the criteria…?
Just because my values are not workable in a practical sense does not make them any less valid.
Surely that’s one of the criteria…?
Nic, what you could be arguing is the defence of necessity, where an accused chooses to commit a crime as being the lesser of two evils. The test for this in Australia is from Loughnan [1981] VR in the Supreme court of Victoria, where all 3 elements need to be satisfied:
1)”…the criminal act(s) must have been done only in order to to avoid certain consequences which would have inflicted irreparable evil upon the accused or or upon others whom he was bound to protect”;
2) Immediate peril doctrine and
3) Proportionality.
While element 1 seems OK, elements 2 and 3 shoot it down in flames. The self defence argument (you have conceded is probably RS) but is predicated on immediate peril, ie someone comes at you with a knife and you hit them over the head with a metre length of four by two.
Nic, what you could be arguing is the defence of necessity, where an accused chooses to commit a crime as being the lesser of two evils. The test for this in Australia is from Loughnan [1981] VR in the Supreme court of Victoria, where all 3 elements need to be satisfied:
1)”…the criminal act(s) must have been done only in order to to avoid certain consequences which would have inflicted irreparable evil upon the accused or or upon others whom he was bound to protect”;
2) Immediate peril doctrine and
3) Proportionality.
While element 1 seems OK, elements 2 and 3 shoot it down in flames. The self defence argument (you have conceded is probably RS) but is predicated on immediate peril, ie someone comes at you with a knife and you hit them over the head with a metre length of four by two.
James, with regard to your last question, I’ll email you. My feeling, based on correspondence, is that the article hasn’t been thought through to its logical implications.
James, with regard to your last question, I’ll email you. My feeling, based on correspondence, is that the article hasn’t been thought through to its logical implications.
Aswan, I’m not naming names. But a couple of educated lefties did say to me, “well, if your child WAS in that plane and they knew someone who could squeak etc etc”. Yeah, and anvils might fall from the sky. This is the success of the so-called ‘war on terror’ campaign—newspapers don’t even put the phrase in quotes. One of the torture authors actually considers himself a lefty, saying the Labor Party had moved to far to the right, and that we need another Whitlam. This is the trouble, for me. It points to the success of the right’s culture wars campaign. Extremist arguments are regularly chucked in & given media space, so that even a moderate position now seems leftist, and liberal conservatives like Robert Manne are being branded left-wing. The gateposts of debate have shifted dramatically. You even get lefties buying into that “elite” discourse crap (inner-city educated people are ‘elite’, and so on). Witness Margaret Simons’ otherwise excellent article in the latest Griffith Review.
Aswan, I’m not naming names. But a couple of educated lefties did say to me, “well, if your child WAS in that plane and they knew someone who could squeak etc etc”. Yeah, and anvils might fall from the sky. This is the success of the so-called ‘war on terror’ campaign—newspapers don’t even put the phrase in quotes. One of the torture authors actually considers himself a lefty, saying the Labor Party had moved to far to the right, and that we need another Whitlam. This is the trouble, for me. It points to the success of the right’s culture wars campaign. Extremist arguments are regularly chucked in & given media space, so that even a moderate position now seems leftist, and liberal conservatives like Robert Manne are being branded left-wing. The gateposts of debate have shifted dramatically. You even get lefties buying into that “elite” discourse crap (inner-city educated people are ‘elite’, and so on). Witness Margaret Simons’ otherwise excellent article in the latest Griffith Review.
Selwyn, this is NOT a partizan issue and therefore should not be treated as such. All this left/right branding with “culture wars” thrown in is utterly ridiculous.
Selwyn, this is NOT a partizan issue and therefore should not be treated as such. All this left/right branding with “culture wars” thrown in is utterly ridiculous.
How so? How does this recent article NOT fit neatly into the culture wars campaign
How so? How does this recent article NOT fit neatly into the culture wars campaign
And what do you mean, ‘this is not a partisan issue’? Of course it is, on every level.
And what do you mean, ‘this is not a partisan issue’? Of course it is, on every level.
People are obsessed with the left/right/whatever labeling – “if you think this, you might be this.” There were claims that only the right (or the “pro-war crowd”, another stupid label) would take a position in favour of torture, and that none of the left would. That it somehow fits with “rightism” ideals and was caused by the “war on terror” etc etc etc. Its cringe-worthy and just results in yet another slugfest between “left” and “right”.
Not everything is a partizan issue, and this certainly is not. What your poitics is, who you voted for, etc does not dictate your opinion on this topic, or at least it damn well shouldnt.
People are obsessed with the left/right/whatever labeling – “if you think this, you might be this.” There were claims that only the right (or the “pro-war crowd”, another stupid label) would take a position in favour of torture, and that none of the left would. That it somehow fits with “rightism” ideals and was caused by the “war on terror” etc etc etc. Its cringe-worthy and just results in yet another slugfest between “left” and “right”.
Not everything is a partizan issue, and this certainly is not. What your poitics is, who you voted for, etc does not dictate your opinion on this topic, or at least it damn well shouldnt.
So the basic issue of how you view the world is totally irrelevant to the position you take on issues. OK.
So the basic issue of how you view the world is totally irrelevant to the position you take on issues. OK.
Not quite. Im reacting against the “I am a leftist and I vote Labor, therefore I must take this position on this issue” mentality.
Not quite. Im reacting against the “I am a leftist and I vote Labor, therefore I must take this position on this issue” mentality.
Mmm, I dont know Selwyn – as much as Ive enjoyed seeing the pro-torture campaigners torn apart, and appreciated following the arguments that have annihilated the weak logic of the offending article- I have found the dismissal of the mere possibility that such a ‘ticking bomb’ situation could arise the weakest point of the critique. Middle Oz will easily imagine such a situation being at least possible, and if you have kids – the emotions are too powerful for logic. If we’re just standing around saying “cant even happen” we will lose.
Im just saying – do we really need this “cant happen” line to demolish the pro-torture argument? Seems a weak, unnecessary ( and potentially falisfiable) link in an otherwise solid case. I really wouldnt like to rely on it if the debate hots up. Perhaps your unnamed lefty friends agree?
Mmm, I dont know Selwyn – as much as Ive enjoyed seeing the pro-torture campaigners torn apart, and appreciated following the arguments that have annihilated the weak logic of the offending article- I have found the dismissal of the mere possibility that such a ‘ticking bomb’ situation could arise the weakest point of the critique. Middle Oz will easily imagine such a situation being at least possible, and if you have kids – the emotions are too powerful for logic. If we’re just standing around saying “cant even happen” we will lose.
Im just saying – do we really need this “cant happen” line to demolish the pro-torture argument? Seems a weak, unnecessary ( and potentially falisfiable) link in an otherwise solid case. I really wouldnt like to rely on it if the debate hots up. Perhaps your unnamed lefty friends agree?
Nic, Nic.
Who said “I am a leftist and I vote Labor, therefore I must take this position on this issue”? You’re misrepresenting the argument, here. (And who willingly votes Labor these days?)
There are many people on the right, Liberal voters, who oppose the torture argument. What I said, in fact, was that this issue feeds very neatly into the neoliberal culture war ethic. If you want some background to this, Google ‘culture wars’ & read up on it. In Australia, read the work Robert Connell, Mark Davis, Marian Sawyer, Sean Scalmer, Stuart MacIntyre, Ian Syson, Jeff Sparrow, David Marr and lots of the contributors to Overland (see http://www.overlandexpress.org) as well as the Overland editorials by former co-editors Nathan Hollier & Katherine Wilson. (Nathan Hollier is still editor & has great commentary).
I’m not suggesting this to be condescending; just to give you some background on how the culture wars operate in Australia so you can make sense of what I’m talking about here. Perhaps some other bloggers can suggest other readings.
Nic, Nic.
Who said “I am a leftist and I vote Labor, therefore I must take this position on this issue”? You’re misrepresenting the argument, here. (And who willingly votes Labor these days?)
There are many people on the right, Liberal voters, who oppose the torture argument. What I said, in fact, was that this issue feeds very neatly into the neoliberal culture war ethic. If you want some background to this, Google ‘culture wars’ & read up on it. In Australia, read the work Robert Connell, Mark Davis, Marian Sawyer, Sean Scalmer, Stuart MacIntyre, Ian Syson, Jeff Sparrow, David Marr and lots of the contributors to Overland (see http://www.overlandexpress.org) as well as the Overland editorials by former co-editors Nathan Hollier & Katherine Wilson. (Nathan Hollier is still editor & has great commentary).
I’m not suggesting this to be condescending; just to give you some background on how the culture wars operate in Australia so you can make sense of what I’m talking about here. Perhaps some other bloggers can suggest other readings.
Aswan, Look, I’m not saying it’s absolutely impossible (neither is it absolutely impossible that anvils would fall out of the sky), I’m just saying it’s on par with the reds-under-the-beds hysteria. It’s based on fear and an unlikely hypothetical that has no precedent and fits nicely into the ‘war on terror’ campaign. A very real, politically-generated fear (of a terrorist threat) has been used to seduce people into an argument based on fantasy.
And as a colleague pointed out, doesn’t that scenario actually implicitly argue for better policing than for torture? How would police possibly know Where, Who, Why, When and not What? There is an excellent article arguing against this scenario on http://www.democraticunderground.com/articles/04/03/11_torture.html. It articulates the position far better than I have.
Aswan, Look, I’m not saying it’s absolutely impossible (neither is it absolutely impossible that anvils would fall out of the sky), I’m just saying it’s on par with the reds-under-the-beds hysteria. It’s based on fear and an unlikely hypothetical that has no precedent and fits nicely into the ‘war on terror’ campaign. A very real, politically-generated fear (of a terrorist threat) has been used to seduce people into an argument based on fantasy.
And as a colleague pointed out, doesn’t that scenario actually implicitly argue for better policing than for torture? How would police possibly know Where, Who, Why, When and not What? There is an excellent article arguing against this scenario on http://www.democraticunderground.com/articles/04/03/11_torture.html. It articulates the position far better than I have.