Ethics Of Torture

There's a thought-provoking article by Sam Harris at HuffPo entitled Why I'd Rather Not Speak About Torture.

In 2005, Harris published a controversial book entitled The End of Faith, in which he compares 'the ethics of "collateral damage" to the ethics of torture in times of war' and says: "I argued then, and I believe today, that collateral damage is worse than torture across the board."

He regrets the controversy it generated and says he wanted to emphasize the common acceptance of the brutality of "collateral damage", not to minimize the abhorrence of torture. He says:

"... I believe that there are extreme situations in which practices like 'water-boarding' may not only be ethically justifiable, but ethically necessary -- especially where getting information from a known terrorist seems likely to save the lives of thousands (or even millions) of innocent people."

He refers to people who are "... reflexively and categorically 'against torture'", a category I'd put myself in. He says he is "... sure that the world needs someone to think out loud about the ethics of torture." Sure. Why not? Torture is just unacceptable and not to be condoned under any circumstances. Right? Well, let's think about it.


I've always dismissed out of hand the "ticking time-bomb" justification for torture. Harris asks "... what should be done if a person appears to have operational knowledge of an imminent atrocity (and may even claim to possess such knowledge), but won't otherwise talk about it."

So far, I'm not paying too much attention.

"And yet most people tacitly accept the practice of modern warfare, while considering it taboo to even speak about the possibility of practicing torture."

That makes me sit up straight and take notice. It's true: We read of a drone strike in Pakistan killing a handful of bad guys and 20 innocent people, and we turn the page without giving it a second thought. War's a dirty business: Stuff happens. Is not torture a far lesser offence?

"In fact, very few critics of the collateral-damage argument even acknowledge how strangely asymmetrical our worries about torture and collateral damage are. A conversation about the ethics of torture can scarcely be had, and yet collateral damage is often reported in the context of a 'successful' military operation as though it posed no ethical problem whatsoever."

Okay, I recognize the hypocrisy there; he's made a point.

Then he says: "It is widely claimed that torture 'does not work' -- that it produces unreliable information, implicates innocent people, etc."

Ah-ha! I've always considered that a very strong position. The person being tortured will admit to anything at all -- things that may or may not be true -- to get the torture to stop. Such evidence is completely unreliable. I saw Jesse Ventura tell an interviewer that if he was allowed to water-board Dick Cheney, in ten minutes he'd have Cheney confessing to the Manson murders.

"My argument for the limited use of coercive interrogation ('torture' by another name) is essentially this: If you think it is ever justifiable to drop bombs in an attempt to kill a man like Osama bin Laden (and thereby risk killing and maiming innocent men, women, and children), you should think it may sometimes be justifiable to 'water-board' a man like Osama bin Laden (and risk abusing someone who just happens to look like Osama bin Laden). It seems to me that however one compares the practices of 'water-boarding' high-level terrorists and dropping bombs, dropping bombs always comes out looking worse in ethical terms."

Then he makes another good point:

"Clearly, the claim that torture never works, or that it always produces bad information, is false. There are cases in which the mere threat of torture has worked."

Okay; I think that's valid. It's not that the information obtained under duress is necessarily wrong; it's just unreliable. Hang on, Sam: while you've made your point that it is a false argument to say that "torture does not work", you haven't discredited the assertion that it "produces unreliable information, implicates innocent people, etc."

Harris goes on:

"Critics of my collateral damage argument always ignore the hard case: where the person in custody is known to be involved in terrible acts of violence and where the threat of further atrocities is imminent. If you think such situations never arise, consider what it might be like to capture a high-ranking member of al Qaeda along with several accomplices and their computers. The possibility that such a person might really be 'innocent' or that he could 'just say anything' to mislead his interrogators begins to seem less of a concern. Such captures bring us closer to a 'ticking bomb' scenario than many people are willing to admit."

Okay, while I'm not sure I accept that argument, Harris goes on to say that while the U.S. has capital punishment in some states, the fact that five-or-so people are executed every month does not lead society to moral and ethical collapse. Sorry, Sam; you're beginning to lose me. Not too many years ago, it was a lot more than five every year. Is it simply a matter of degree -- it's okay if it isn't too common, and it only gets bad if taken to extremes? I don't think so. Where do you draw the line? Five is okay? That's 60 people a year. How about 100? 200? 500? 5,000? Still fine with that, Sam? How many occurrences of something morally reprehensible do you tolerate before you start to get squeamish? If you're Pol Pot, the answer is, "Quite a few."

Then I think Harris veers off the track a bit. He maintains that torture should be illegal, but sometimes -- and I agree with this -- breaking a law is the just and moral thing to do.

"But our interrogators should know that there are certain circumstances in which it will be ethical to break the law. Indeed, there are circumstances in which you would have to be a monster not to break the law. If an interrogator finds himself in such a circumstance, and he breaks the law, there will not be much of a will to prosecute him (and interrogators will know this). If he breaks the law Abu Ghraib-style, he will go to jail for a very long time (and interrogators will know this too). At the moment, this seems like the most reasonable policy to me, given the realities of our world."

It seems to me he's saying that if it works, you're fine -- or at least you're unlikely to be prosecuted. And the Abu Ghraib scenario is a non-issue; I don't think even anyone in the Bush administration makes the argument that it's fine to torture people for fun and relaxation, even if you limit yourself to five people a month).

He elaborates on his idea that torture should be illegal, and proposes the following law:

"We will never torture anyone under any circumstances unless we are certain, beyond all reasonable doubt, that the person in our custody has operational knowledge of an imminent act of nuclear terrorism."

Further:

"It seems to me that unless one can produce an ethical argument against torturing such a person, one does not have an argument against the use of torture in principle."

Okay, Sam, now you've lost me entirely. It's okay to torture in a situation so narrowly defined that it's never occurred in the history of the world and may very well never occur? This is an argument justifying torture?

He concludes as follows:

"I have invited readers, both publicly and privately, to produce an ethical argument that takes into account the realities of our world -- our daily acceptance of collateral damage, the real possibility of nuclear terrorism, etc. -- and yet rules out a practice like 'water-boarding' in all conceivable circumstances. No one, to my knowledge, has done this. And yet, most people continue to speak and write as though a knock-down argument against torture in all circumstances is readily available. I consider it to be one of the more dangerous ironies of liberal discourse that merely discussing the possibility of torturing a man like Osama bin Laden provokes more outrage than the maiming and murder of children ever does. Until someone actually points out what is wrong with the 'collateral damage argument' presented in The End of Faith, I will continue to believe that its critics are just not thinking clearly about the reality of human suffering."

He definitely hasn't convinced me, but he did give me some pause for thought. I agree that most of us are pretty cavalier in our acceptance of "collateral damage", which is a much worse crime than torture and a crime of which we should be far more abhorrent.  And the argument that "torture doesn't work" is clearly faulty when, as he says, just the threat of torture sometimes works.

However, pointing out that torture is a lesser offense than mass murder of innocents, or that it may possibly bring positive results, does not justify its use -- even if you can get John Yoo to say that it does.