On the issue of whether the Bush administration's actions amounted to torture, "rational" discussion (unfortunately) seems to allow those in favor of what our CIA did to maintain their cognitive and moral bearings. Not that it should. The arguments offered in defense of American torture clearly fail. However, its not too difficult to set up a low epistemological threshold for propositions that we want to believe, and a high epistemological threshold for propositions that we don't want to believe.
If I want to accept a proposition like "American officials did not torture the detainees pursuant to orders from our highest elected officials," I'll probably ask myself "can I believe that?" I'll be wondering, even if I don't realize it, "is there any conceivable way to interpret the available evidence so that it will allow me to infer that the proposition is true? And, because there is almost always some way to interpret the evidence to render one's favored belief plausible, one can almost always continue to believe whatever one wants to believe irrespective of the evidence.
Similarly, If I want to reject a proposition like, "American officials tortured detainees pursuant to orders from our highest elected officials," I'll probably ask myself "Do I have to believe that?" In effect, I'll be asking myself,"is the evidence so airtight and unassailable that there is no conceivable way to avoid the stated conclusion?" And again, because the evidence is rarely so airtight that a disliked conclusion cannot be avoided, one can almost always refuse to believe whatever one doesn't want to believe irrespective of the evidence
It would great if everyone constantly asked themselves, "what should I believe, given the evidence that is before me?" But alas . . . partisanship has gripped many like a fever.
That's why rational argument and evidence has so little effect on those who've drank the kool-aid.
Fortunately, this clip by John Stuart really cuts through the crap!
Joe H.
Posts
The Years Of Writing Dangerously
9 years ago
2 comments:
I'm curious, can you address what kind of behavior constitutes torture? Is there a particular moral line that one crossess in terms of behavior that constitites torture and are there degrees of torture? For example, the behavior described in the memos differes from what some think of when they hear the term torture: pulling people's finger nails, car battery to the testicles, dislocating or breaking of bones (i.e. John McCain can't lift his arms), starvation, etc? Maybe part of the problem is that the descriptions in the memos appear to be so clinical and not that graphic (with the exception of waterboarding, many of our country's police departments have probably used a variation of these in the past). Also, do you think that the effects upon individuals receiving treatment deemed to be torture have to be considered, both physical and mental? I'd be interested in your opinion.
"Torture" is inflictng unbearable pain or suffering upon another person.
Actually, "torture" probably occurs before the suffering or pain becomes unbearable. But "unbearable" seems to be the goal, and the Bush adminstration adamantly insists that the "enhanced interrogation techniques" "worked," so I'll settle for "unbearable" pain.
Why are you anonymous, by the way?
Joe H.
P.S. Not all of the methods mentioned in the memos constitute torture, but waterboarding clearly does.
Post a Comment