Torture, Nukes and Certainty
In a recent interview with WORLD Magazine, Barnard College professor and lefty evangelical Randall Balmer, author of the recently released book "Thy Kingdom Come: How the Religious Right Distorts Faith and Threatens America: An Evangelical's Lament", didn't shirk from addressing a tough question about torture. It seems that Balmer's book charges the Bush Administration with condoning torture, so WORLD put the screws to Professor Balmer (who, unlike members of the Bush Administation, isn't under pressure to produce results in the War on Terror) in the following exchange:WORLD: Agreed that torture is terrible and sometimes useless in gaining information, but if the imminent explosion of a nuclear bomb would kill millions of people, and if by applying some kind of physical pressure to a terrorist you could gain information that would lead to its location and disarming, would you do it?
BALMER: No, absolutely not, and I'm surprised that you would even suggest such a thing! I was under the impression that conservatives were allergic to utilitarian arguments; certainly that is what I learned from Paul Ramsey in graduate school. No Christian, he insisted, ever made an ethical decision solely on utilitarian grounds -- what is the greatest good for the greatest number of people -- especially if it comromises the worth and dignity of an individual.
Wow. Is the question really that easy to answer? He would really let millions die before he would do something unpleasant to a terrorist to save them? Even if I can accept his answer -- and I'm not sure I can -- I find myself wishing he'd struggle with it a little before giving it. He's surprised at the question? Really? Sure, at one time it might have sounded purely hypothetical, but in 2006? Is the answer that obvious?
At the least, it would seem appropriate to say something like "As difficult as it would be to refrain from using torture in such a situation, I still think that's the right thing to do because torture is always and everywhere wrong, just like worshipping a false god, or adultery." Then he could admit that he is not sure he'd be able to resist the temptation to beat Mohammed with a rubber hose.
Usually, when we discuss whether a particular thing that is usually evil, like killing a human being, can ever be justified, we immediately and easily turn to self defense or the defense of another as a complete justification. "It was self defense!" and "He was going to kill her!" are solid ethical and legal arguments if the facts support them. So if saving the life of person A can justify the killing of person B when person B is about to harm person A, then why is torture of person C to prevent the imminent incineration of persons D to the 10th power so clearly impermissible when person C has responsible for what's about to happen?
What am I missing here?
posted by Under The Mountain | 9:22 PM
5 Comments:
have you read balmers new book?
No, I haven't. Have you? Does he elaborate on this subject?
Whatever our government says, I'm pretty sure that people get tortured at Gitmo.
Su
I just realized that this doesn't bother me as much as it should, either.
Su
I have a good friend who used to serve on Senator Sessions' staff. He went to the Guantanamo prison with Senator Sessions. He said the inmates were getting treatment for worms, dental decay and various other things they'd never received any medical treatment for in their lives. Amnesty International had a station set up on site.
While it is of course possible that torture occurs there (though the "flushing the Koran" incident apparently never happened), it actually doesn't seem terribly likely to me. But I certainly can't know for sure.
I personally find it much more disturbing that thousands of men are raped in US prisons every year with impunity than I do that our government might torture a suspect in a terrorist chase somewhere. Not that the latter is OK; I just find the former more disturbing. But nobody wants to talk about that.
Post a Comment
<< Home