Harris on Torture

[Prodigy54321]

I hate these bizarre hypothetical torture situations...like the ones people often bring up (and the one that DS has brought up)...because they make my brain hurt..so I don't comment on them.

I have recently read The End of Faith.

Anyone care to offer a criticism of the part about torture and how it relates to out attack policies and collateral damage.

*If you haven't read The End of Faith..you probably don't know what Harris' argues...but I have to head out for a bit and I don't want to butcher Harris' argument..so I guess this will mostly be between those who have read it..

If someone wants to summarize his agrument, feel free.

I'll be back later

for now, I'll just say that, although his argument is quite simple, I'm ashamed to say that I had not considered it that way, and I found his argument quite convincing...

gogogogo

[ChrisV]

There are a number of problems with his argument in my opinion. I don't have the book to hand, but I remember that he skips somewhat glibly over the argument that torture produces unreliable intelligence. Also, his analysis of the costs of legalising torture is superficial. There are serious issues with expanding state power in that manner, and with the brutalizing effect on those tasked with carrying out the torture. (His suggestion that we could administer paralyzing drugs to torture victims to avoid the unpleasantness of witnessing their suffering is just ridiculous - that wouldn't make me feel any better about torturing someone, and how would they speak if they wanted to spill the beans?)

[Prodigy54321]

sorry, I completely forgot I made this post...

I just want to note that he doesn't necessarily claim to support torture...just that, as our current policies are with regards to using force (especially where collateral damage is possible or likely)...not torturing would be quite hypocritical.

[ QUOTE ]
There are a number of problems with his argument in my opinion. I don't have the book to hand, but I remember that he skips somewhat glibly over the argument that torture produces unreliable intelligence.

[/ QUOTE ]

he basically just says that, even if true, this is largely irrelevant...since we only need to get information that helps us save life a very small amount of the time to warrant torture...(again, as the US's current policies with regards to the use of force is concerned)

since we routinely cause collateral damage (which he claims is at least a mild form of torture for the victims)..for much less than most people would agree we should torture for.

[ QUOTE ]
There are serious issues with expanding state power in that manner, and with the brutalizing effect on those tasked with carrying out the torture.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree and I believe he would as well...

again the argument is...

allowing the state to do one (that is, drop bombs in Iraq, for instance)...but not the other (torture to get information that could save innocent lives)...is illogical..

[ QUOTE ]
(His suggestion that we could administer paralyzing drugs to torture victims to avoid the unpleasantness of witnessing their suffering is just ridiculous - that wouldn't make me feel any better about torturing someone, and how would they speak if they wanted to spill the beans?)

[/ QUOTE ]

I think you are misunderstanding the point of those comments..

he is basically condemning what he sees as people being fine with innocent people dying or being severly injured as long as they don't see it and don't have to think about it..

the paralyzing drug hypothetical, I believe, was meant to explain that people are not thinking clearly about this issue...again, they advocate policy that causes extreme devastationa and collateral damage of innocents..to deal with a possible threat...but not torture to deal with a threat...

we can certainly can't be 100% sure we are torturing a guilty person rather than an innocent person...but this is compared to bombing an area where killing innocents is virtually guaranteed.

I agree with him that it is generally a "both or neither" situation as the US's current tendencies to use force are concerned..

or course I would generally go with "neither" as it is.

[Prodigy54321]

another more specific question..

Harris argues that the suffering of innocents injured by bombing raids, for instance..(burns, wounds, destroyed limbs, etc)..can be considered torture...

basically that we are advocating torture (of innocents at that) when we advocate bombing an area (where innocents may be..or are likely to be)

or even just torturing enemies if there are no innocents...which many poeple (including myself) are still uneasy with.

agree or disagree that this can be considered torture? (maybe not in the means..but in the results at least?)

[kerowo]

Nope. Collateral damage is collateral damage. By watering down the definition to things that are common in war he is trying to minimize the distaste most people have to the idea of using physical or mental pressure to get information out of people, which has been a rare thing for Americans (whether you think the government has always used secret torture or not doesn't matter).

[ChrisV]

[ QUOTE ]
sorry, I completely forgot I made this post...

I just want to note that he doesn't necessarily claim to support torture...just that, as our current policies are with regards to using force (especially where collateral damage is possible or likely)...not torturing would be quite hypocritical.

[ QUOTE ]
There are a number of problems with his argument in my opinion. I don't have the book to hand, but I remember that he skips somewhat glibly over the argument that torture produces unreliable intelligence.

[/ QUOTE ]

he basically just says that, even if true, this is largely irrelevant...since we only need to get information that helps us save life a very small amount of the time to warrant torture...(again, as the US's current policies with regards to the use of force is concerned)

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, but that line of thinking ignores the damage that getting false information could do. False information in intelligence gathering is a huge deal. The most obvious example of the damage false information can do is nothing less than the invasion of Iraq itself. It is much, much better to have no information than to have information of dubious repute and treat it as legitimate.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
There are serious issues with expanding state power in that manner, and with the brutalizing effect on those tasked with carrying out the torture.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree and I believe he would as well...

again the argument is...

allowing the state to do one (that is, drop bombs in Iraq, for instance)...but not the other (torture to get information that could save innocent lives)...is illogical..

[/ QUOTE ]

Intent matters in the commission of a crime. It is not the same thing to kill someone with reckless driving as to grab them and slit their throat, even if you are aware that reckless driving might cause death. It is a whole other level of state power to grant the state complete power over selected individuals.