Rationalizing Torture
I would recommend the following (audio only at the moment): What Is Torture? Our Beliefs Depend In Part On Who’s Doing It.
The piece is about social science research on torture and notes, among other things,
1. Humans are likely to define “torture” differently if it their group doing it versus when other groups do it (spoiler: they give their own group a pass).
2. Even once the reality of the torture is clear, if done by one’s own group, the effects will be minimized and/or the actions will be rationalized as necessary.
Sound familiar?
(NPR usually has a transcript up by afternoon/the next day if listening isn’t possible).
Sadly, yes. Same $!^^% song, just a different verse. Some people have no room in their souls for anything other then themselves, others can’t see past minor issues to empathize with another human being. They will live and die with their beliefs, leaving nothing but broken people and ideals in their wake.
… and yet, the last thing in the Chest was Hope. The best curse of mankind – we can still Hope that this delusional nonsense will fade and America will abandon the torturous path and come back to the moral side of this issue where we belong.
Yes, defining “torture” is a funny thing…
President Bush:
(source http://www.nbcnews.com/id/9956644/ns/us_news-security/t/bush-we-do-not-torture-terror-suspects/#.VInJH_5ujmg )
Vice President Cheney:
Fox News anchor Bret Baier asked the former vice president whether the agency deliberately kept Bush in the dark about its so-called enhanced interrogation techniques.
Asked if there was ever a point where he knew more about the CIA’s activity than the President, Cheney said
Baier then asked if the former President knew about the “details” of the program. The report — which Cheney called “full of crap” — described brutal interrogation methods including waterboarding, extensive sleep deprivation, threats to harm detainees’ families and “rectal feeding.”
>>> Somebody is a liar. <<<
It's a dammed shame that people are seeing this as a right vs. left thing. It's not … it's a right vs. wrong thing.
In 1994, we (These United States) signed the United Nations Convention against Torture. It said:
(source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Convention_against_Torture)
Vice President Cheney must have known that we were well over the agreed boundaries, as in 2005…
(source:: http://www.nbcnews.com/id/9956644/ns/us_news-security/t/bush-we-do-not-torture-terror-suspects/#.VInJH_5ujmg )
Now consider what Vice President Cheney has recently said:
(source: http://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/09/world/dismissing-senate-report-cheney-defends-cia-interrogations.html?_r=0 )
So, his justification is EXACLY this type that is stated that should not be grounds for torture by our agreed international convention.
So, there is a very serious problem that will need to be addressed. We have an unrepentant torturer stating that America can do this at will.
We have lost the moral ground that would allow us to be shocked about beheadings by ISIS.
There’s three general schools of moral thought:
1. Deontological: specific acts are good or bad depending on their nature, regardless of who is doing them or why
2. Consequentialism: it is goals that are good or bad, and acts are good or bad depending on whether the goals they are intended to accomplish are good or bad
3. Virtue Ethics: people are by their nature good or bad and good actions are those performed by good people.
The results discussed here are the result of the virtue ethics crowd. The US is good people; good people don’t torture; therefore what we did is necessarily not torture.
In the 1950s an iconic movie was made starring William Holden called Stalag 17.
In one scene, a Red Cross monitor visits the camp and warns the German Kommandant that if he was “torturing” an American pilot by making him stand up for hours (the Red Cross monitor doesn’t actually see the torture, but surmises it from the actions of the POW who says “i just need some sleep) that after the war, there “will me consequences for violating the Geneva Convention”.
I remember clearly thinking at the time “thats why we beat the Nazis and why we will beat the Russians. WE DON’T DO TORTURE. And thats why we are proud to be Americans.”
I am not kidding about that moral superiority which we always carried with us and rightfully so.
Dick Cheney should be executed by Army firing squad plain and simple.
He is a Nazi facist evil piece of schitt and has no place in this country.
As for W, well, we can’t execute mental retards so he should be put in Leavenworth for the rest of his life.
We shot Private Eddie Slovak for dessertion. Cheney deserves no less.
I
Just something to remember. Both Washington, as head of the Revolutionary Army, and Lincoln, as President, were presented with the decision on whether to punish soldiers who tortured. Both chose to punish because they realized that abandoning the moral high ground would quickly lead to disgrace and eventually to ultimate destruction. And in both cases the threat to America was 1000 times greater than what the Bush/Cheney gang faced. It shouldn’t have even been a choice in their case – it was so obviously wrong. This isn’t about whether we should “move on”. They sowed the seeds of a killing cancer into our country by their actions. Moving on means ignoring the disease growing inside. Prosecuting the torturers and those who authorized them needs to be done to cut those the seeds out.
Wow!! Didn’t see THAT comin’ 😉
@Stormy Dragon: I’m late to this, but that is an absurd caricature of virtue ethics. The point of virtue ethics is that the actions we take shape us into certain kinds of people, not that “good people” are allowed to do whatever they want.
The last two popes have both condemned torture, and virtue ethics is a major part of Catholic theology.