That's pretty obvious right? Not to some torture opponents. Many people arguing against torture don't seem to understand that who gets tortured actually matters. They don't appear to make any distinction between a known leader of Al Qaeda, and an innocent child. Think I'm exaggerating? Steve Chapman has a post up at Reason's Hit & Run called, Torturing the Truth that illustrates this amazing lack of logical reasoning. Here's Chapman,
The problem with using "it worked" as an argument is that it justifies too much. By that rationale, we can justify subjecting enemy captives to every form of torture ever devised. We can even justify torturing and killing their spouses, siblings, parents, and children, right in front of them. [emphasis mine]
That last sentence makes sense only if you think terrorists are morally equivalent to innocents, otherwise it is completely illogical. It's much like saying that since we think putting criminals in prison works to deter crime, we can therefore justify imprisoning their entire families too.
Although you might not know it from reading the often hysterical polemics of torture opponents, there are actually many good, logical arguments against torture. Pretending that terrorists and innocents are somehow morally equivalent isn't one of them.
If you want to talk about the guilt and innocence of terrorists, fine, but it does not bear on the text quoted, and neither does the silly notion of thinking terrorists morally equivalent to innocents.
ReplyDeleteYour comments on the text emphasized makes no sense; terrorists aren't innocent, but their spouses, siblings, parents, and children certainly can be. The point being made is that "it worked" is not a valid justification for torture, because "it worked" would justify any number of things that are self-evidently unjust. Ergo "it worked" is not a sufficient justification and you need to argue on other grounds.
Because whenever a suspect is declared a terrorist and known to be guilty you believe this forfeits all their rights, I'm sure your posts on the subject will be not be compelling. But at least it's a logically consistent position founded on a bad conscience, poor strategic analysis, and a misguided glorification of state and intra-state actors over non-state ones—whereas this post here is mere nonsense.
"the silly notion of thinking terrorists morally equivalent to innocents."
ReplyDeleteThat's Chapman's silly notion, not mine.
"terrorists aren't innocent, but their spouses, siblings, parents, and children certainly can be."
No kidding. Again, that's the point. They are entirely different categories of person.
"because "it worked" would justify any number of things that are self-evidently unjust"
Yes, if you don't make a moral distinction between the guilty and the innocent. Otherwise that point is illogical. Which is the entire point of post.
"whereas this post here is mere nonsense."
What's nonsensical is your response. I'm not sure why you are incapable of grasping the simple logic involved. I'll try again to make it even clearer:
Justifying action against the guilty does not imply justification for the same action against the innocent, regardless of whether action against the innocent would bring greater utility.
Sigh. Your justification is not that "it works"--your justification is that "it's ok to do whatever we want with someone we've decided is guilty."
ReplyDeleteThe point being made here stands: "it works" is not a justification.
"Your justification is not that "it works"--your justification is that "it's ok to do whatever we want with someone we've decided is guilty.""
ReplyDeleteIt's both. If I didn't think it could work, I wouldn't see it as a viable option.
"The point being made here stands: "it works" is not a justification."
As an extremely narrow utility argument yes, just saying "it works" is a weak justification -- but that isn't the only factor under consideration. Who is making an isolated utility argument about torture? No one is arguing that we should be torturing innocent family members of terrorists to get better results. The utility argument is clearly confined to the terrorists themselves.
Implying that the argument has to be extended to innocents, and using that as an attack on the utility of torturing terrorists is illogical.
The piece is addressed to Cheney, who does want memos of the results of these techniques to be released.
ReplyDeleteAnd it points out, correctly, that "it works" is not a justification. Thats its purpose.
Your last sentence is irrelevant, as this argument against "it works"-as-justification is not restricted to innocents.
"The piece is addressed to Cheney, who does want memos of the results of these techniques to be released."
ReplyDeleteCheney doesn't make a pure utilitarian argument either. He hasn't advocated any means necessary -- far from it.
"And it points out, correctly, that "it works" is not a justification. Thats its purpose."
Do it in an illogical way isn't too useful.
"this argument against "it works"-as-justification is not restricted to innocents."
I know. That's the point. Chapman brought innocents into an argument confined to the guilty.
It's difficult to paint you a picture since I don't know what kind of lines your conscious is bound by when it comes to the guilty. Could be none.
ReplyDeleteBut for the vast majority of people--including those who might think torture is justified in some circumstances--there are things they wouldn't do even if they "worked". Possible candidates:
-Excruciating slow dismemberment
-Boiling a co-terrorist/militant alive and forcing a buddy to watch, saying "you're next".
-...
I could come up with a long list if tried, but I'm really not in the mood. Suffices to say there are all kinds of sick things you can do to known terrorists which could work for getting information.
Chapman's choice of example involves killing innocents, but he wasn't making a point about innocence. He was making a post about effectiveness, and his example serves that purpose as well as others.
So this post and our discussion here is stupid. You've made no point that alters the logic of Chapman's argument, all you've done is informed us that you're not in favor of killing innocents. Whoopdedoo, we knew that already.
"I could come up with a long list if tried, but I'm really not in the mood. Suffices to say there are all kinds of sick things you can do to known terrorists which could work for getting information.'
ReplyDeleteThat's a degree argument. And yes, people differ on what exactly they are willing to consider -- even for someone like KSM. When I say I would authorize more extreme measures than waterboarding, that puts me in a smaller minority. I recognize that.
"So this post and our discussion here is stupid. You've made no point that alters the logic of Chapman's argument"
Obviously I disagree. Chapman's argument is illogical and pointless for the reasons mentioned in the post, and in these comments.
"all you've done is informed us that you're not in favor of killing innocents."
My personal views on torture had really nothing to do with the post, which is about the illogic of Chapman's argument.
Chapman's argument is also a question of degree, and the involvement of innocents is tangential to his point.
ReplyDeleteRemove the involvement of innocents and you have the exact same argument, as I've explained.
Please admit you were wrong and move on.
The argument Cheney uses, "it worked", doesn't make any distinction between a known leader of Al Qaeda, and an innocent child, it treats them as morally equivalent. Cheney introduces no moral distinctions. He said “it worked, therefore it is justified” not “it worked, therefore it is justified against only the guilty”
ReplyDeleteJustifying an action does imply using the same action in other circumstances. Justifying action against the guilty does imply justification for the same action against the innocent, especially when the “it” under discussion includes the Soviet's and other regimes' use against innocents, not to mention recent allegations that US personnel may have done so. Chapman agues these implications should be restricted, just as do you, only less logically.
uzza: "Justifying action against the guilty does imply justification for the same action against the innocent"
ReplyDeleteNot necessarily, no. You can justify some actions against the guilty that you couldn't justify against the innocent--such as capital punishment or life imprisonment.
The actual salient point which UNRR keeps missing is that the question of harming innocents is entirely separate from whether something works or doesn't work.
Chapman made his point by saying "just because killing innocents could work, doesn't make it justified".
His point stands even if you were already predisposed to be against harming innocents, as I assume all of us are.
Once again, Chapman understands it's matter of degree, and that just because something works doesn't make it justifiable.
The only real objection UNRR raises here is that Chapman happened to pick an example that involves innocents, which UNRR was already opposed to. But this objection is irrelevant, because the point stands with non-innocent examples.
uzza,
ReplyDeleteDoes Cheney really have to put that into words? He isn't talking about anyone other than terrorists.
"Justifying action against the guilty does imply justification for the same action against the innocent"
So you think an argument that imprisoning criminals deters crime implies that imprisoning their innocent families is also justified?
Gherald,
"Chapman's argument is also a question of degree, and the involvement of innocents is tangential to his point."
It destroys his point by creating an illogical implication.
"Please admit you were wrong and move on."
Obviously I don't think I'm wrong. And I feel this is a vital point in the whole torture debate. Arguments that maintain that we can't take action against the guilty, because the same or similar action would be unjust when used against the innocent, are illogical and pointless.
"The actual salient point which UNRR keeps missing is that the question of harming innocents is entirely separate from whether something works or doesn't work."
ReplyDeleteIt can be, but Chapman combines them.
"But this objection is irrelevant, because the point stands with non-innocent examples."
If he used a different example, then I wouldn't be objecting to it. I'm not objecting to the basic argument that utility doesn't imply justification. I'm arguing against his specific example,
You falsely equate 'we can't take action against the guilty' with his simple and straightforward point that "it works" is not a justification for torture or anything else, and that you need some other justification. So quit tilting at straw men.
ReplyDeleteObviously if you want to argue for taking action against the guilty, the question of quilt/innocence matters.
But when all Chapman is doing is saying that "it works" is not a sufficient justification for any treatment--be it for the guilty or the innocent--then the issue you've raise remains irrelevant.
"with his simple and straightforward point that "it works" is not a justification for torture or anything else, "
ReplyDeleteSee comment immediately above.
"I'm arguing against his specific example"
ReplyDeleteCongratulations, you've already successfully demonstrated that killing innocents can be objected to on grounds other than what Chapman was talking about.
You get a medal. Can we go home now?
Because--yet again--you can't pretend to invalidate Chapman's argument by objecting to the example he offered by saying it was too obvious.
Try symbolism. Let:
P(x) :: x works
J(x) :: x is justified
k = killing innocent relatives
Cheney's claim: For all x, P(x) -> J(x) [if something works, then it's justified]
Chapman wishes to disprove his claim. The proof is by contradiction:
1. P(k) [assumption]
2. ~J(k) [assumption]
3. For all x, P(x) -> J(x) [assumption for reductio]
4. P(k) -> J(k) [instantiation of 3 -- assumptions 3]
5. J(k) [affirming the antecedant 1,3 -- assumptions 1,3]
6. ~For all x, P(x) -> J(x) [reductio 2,5 removing assumption 3 -- assumptions 1,2]
Therefore just by knowing #1 and #2, Chapman has disproved Cheney's claim.
Your objection to his proof is to yell "But we already knew ~J(k), no one was arguing against that!!!!!"
But you can hardly invalidate Chapman's argument by saying you already knew one of his assumptions and that it should be obvious true. So stop fucking trying.
"by objecting to the example he offered by saying it was too obvious."
ReplyDeleteI haven't said that at all. I said that the specific example he used is illogical. Here's his final paragraph,
"Cheney and others have yet to advocate going that far. But if they really believe what they say about the techniques we've used, here's a question they need to answer: Why not?"
Because they are only arguing for using those techniques on terrorists, i.e. their utility argument is restricted in scope. They are not arguing for using them on clearly innocent people. If they argued that utility concerns were the ONLY consideration in using torture, then Chapman would be correct.
Chapman, and apparently you, think his question is logical extension of Cheney's argument. It isn't. It is only logical if you willfully ignore everything else we know.
When Chapman says, "Why not?", the obvious answer is, "because torturing innocent people is entirely different situation."
Chapman: "Cheney and others have yet to advocate going that far. But if they really believe what they say about the techniques we've used, here's a question they need to answer: Why not?"The reason why not is because they, like all of us, have something against killing innocents. We all understand this. Chapman's point is to disprove Vx(Px->Jx) -- not to actually pretend Cheney is in favor of murdering children.
ReplyDeleteHe's reduced Cheney's argument to absurdity. That's what a reductio ad absurdum does, by definition. Chapman doesn't actually think Cheney would agree to J(k) on the merits, he's just demonstrated that for Vx(Px->Jx) to be true you would have to believe J(k).
So Chapman's point remains, as ever, that Vx(Px->Jx) is ridiculous and invalid.
Please study how reductio arguments work and stop misrepresenting Chapman's position.
Perhaps the problem here is that you want to introduce an additional predicate:
ReplyDeleteI(x) :: x does not harm innocents.
So you would do Cheney a favor and restrict his argument to:
For all x, (P(x) & I(x)) -> J(x)
Then since I(k) is false, the k example would never be applicable.
Ok. We all understand taht.
But there are other examples--such as the dismemberment and boiling alive ones I offered--for which I(x) holds.
So long as such an example exists, Cheney's position that (P(x) & I(x)) -> J(x) can never be true.
That's Chapman's point, and it doesn't depend on the k example your'e objecting to by introducing the I(x) requirement. Capice?
Here's my math example,
ReplyDeleteYou have two sets, set T and set Ti. Set T contains two variables, A & B.
A = the utility of torture
B = terrorists should be tortured
Set Ti contains one variable, C
C = innocents should be tortured to make terrorists talk.
The question is: If A is positive, A = B Considering set T, is A positive?
Chapman says, If A is positive A=B. If A=B, then A=C.
But C isn't even part of the equation. He's introduced a variable from a different set. We aren't using set Ti for this particular problem.
The issue you raise is addressed by my introduction of I(x) in my follow-up comment.
ReplyDeleteAlso, I should be more precise and fully specify "For all x (P(x) & I(x)) -> J(x)" ---- the "for all x" is important, since it's what allows you to instantiate any identifier such as k.
Note that in the case of killing innocent children it's obvious that ~J(x)
If we're using one of my examples other than k, such as:
w :: waterboarding
b :: boiling comrade alive
d :: slow dismemberment
Then you would first have to accept ~J(x) for that identifier before you'd be able to disprove Cheney's argument.
But so long as there exists at least one identifier for which P(x) is true, I(x) is true, yet we can agree J(x) is true --- Cheney's argument fails.
That's what Chapman showed.
Sorry, I meantyet we can agree ~J(x) is true .... a negation of J(x).
ReplyDeleteI think I would accept your argument if it weren't for Chapman's last paragraph. If he was only making a reductio ad absurdum argument, that paragraph wouldn't be there. But including it appears to mean that he really thinks that torturing innocents is a logical extension of the utility of torturing terrorists.
ReplyDeleteBut that's actually precisely how you do a reductio ad absurdum in plain language most people can understand: You demonstrate that the logical outcome of someone's arguments could be preposterous.
ReplyDeleteChapman picked an emphatically objectionable example only to emphasize the contradiction--it wasn't because it's the only example available, or because he thought he'd made a breakthrough discovery that killing innocents during interrogations is a line Cheney would want to cross. His point is only that there must be lines other than a mere effectiveness test.
publius gets it
"His point is only that there must be lines other than a mere effectiveness test."
ReplyDeleteIf that was his point he could have just said so, especially since no one disagrees anyway.
"publius gets it"
He gets it wrong. He says,
"there’s simply no way that the effectiveness of torture can solely justify its use. And I think he poses a difficult logical problem for torture supporters."
The problem is, no one is making that argument. No one is arguing its effectiveness can solely justify its use. So no logical problem exists. The logical problem is with using an argument that doesn't even apply. We are talking about apples and Chapman says that cutting up apples implies cutting up oranges.
It may not be your argument. But many on the right, including Cheney, have basically been saying:
ReplyDeleteThis torture--I'm sorry, enhanced interrogation techniques--was a success. Look at all the good, valuable, and important for national security (!!) information that we got!! That justifies it. The techniques worked, ergo what we did was o.k.
Setting aside whether their claim is even true, arguing for torture based solely on effectiveness is illogical. Chapman shows it to be illogical. Your objections to Chapman boil down to "my argument is different, and he's not addressing it". Whoopdedoo, go talk about your argument in a new post then.
i.e. ...explain to us why waterboarding is surely ok but more extreme "matters of degree" might not be. Explain where you think the U.S. should draw the line and why it's not arbitrary. Per Chapman, we know there must be a line. All we need is you to make a compelling case for why it should include some things that work and not others which could also work.
ReplyDelete"Setting aside whether their claim is even true, arguing for torture based solely on effectiveness is illogical. Chapman shows it to be illogical. Your objections to Chapman boil down to "my argument is different, and he's not addressing it". "
ReplyDeleteAgain, no one, including Cheney, is arguing based solely on effectiveness. Chapman hasn't shown anything to be illogical, except for an argument no one is making.
"i.e. ...explain to us why waterboarding is surely ok but more extreme "matters of degree" might not be"
The question of what techniques are ok is yet another different argument. So now we have three arguments:
1)should we torture terrorists if it effective
2)should we torture innocent people if that would make the torture of terrorists more effect
3)If we torture terrorists, how far can we go in torturing them.
Responding to argument 1 by citing problems with arguments 2 or 3 is illogical and meaningless. Using my previous example:
Argument 1 = putting criminals in jail deters crime
Argument 2 = putting the innocent families of criminals in jail deters crime even more
Argument 3 = if we put criminals in jail, how long of a sentence is acceptable?
1) No we shouldn't, as Chapman points out. For the upteenth time, you need other reasons. This was and is and remains the whole bloody point.
ReplyDelete2) Nobody thinks so, that I know of.
3) This is a question for which no sustainable answer has been provided. Unless one is that passes muster, the use of torture hasn't been justified.
And no they are not separate arguments. The negation of 2) was used to to prove that the answer to 1) is logically false. On other words effectiveness is an insufficient condition to justify torture.
ReplyDeleteBecause it's insufficient, what you call the "separate argument" of 3) needs to be answered, since we need to be able to distinguish between what is and is not justified. This requires that all techniques and matters of degree, etc, be addressed to come up with a distinguishing line between what's justified and what isn't.
"1) No we shouldn't, as Chapman points out. For the upteenth time, you need other reasons. This was and is and remains the whole bloody point."
ReplyDeleteThe point is that his point is irrelevant to the point of anyone advocating torture of terrorists. Torture of innocents is a separate category. 2) has nothing to do with 1). It does not prove anything about 1).
"3) needs to be answered, since we need to be able to distinguish between what is and is not justified. This requires that all techniques and matters of degree, etc, be addressed to come up with a distinguishing line between what's justified and what isn't."
Yes, it's a related question tied to 1) (or even to 2) if someone is proposing 2)). 1) can be conditional on 3). But it doesn't have to be. If I argue that any degree at all is ok with 1), then 3) is irrelevant.
What you are saying, I think, is that if one accepts that waterboarding a terrorist is ok, why is it not ok to also burn him with a hot poker? Why is only some torture acceptable?
I have no problem with the underlying logic of that line of argument. But it is not the same thing as saying, why isn't it ok to torture an innocent victim? That is a completely separate category of person.
Harming innocents isn't automagically unjustified, just look at Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
ReplyDeleteYou've specified that it's unjustified in the case of torture in more controlled circumstances. That's great, Chapman and I agree with you, but the example still proves the point that effectiveness is insufficient and you need other dividing lines.
One of the lines happens to be no killing innocents, which we can integrate logically as:
Vx((Px & Ix))->J(x))
But presumably this still leads to contradictions because there are cases which satisfy Px and Ix but not Jx.
So you need to specify additional criteria.
Vx((Px & Ix & .... & ..... & .... )->J(x)
All you've been doing in this thread is saying the Ix requirement should have been obvious, which is much ado about nothing.
You want Ix -- great, I put it in there. Now tell us what else is missing, because it's insufficient unless you think all cases like Jb or Jd are true. (Obviously you think Jw is true, we know that much)
"Harming innocents isn't automagically unjustified, just look at Hiroshima and Nagasaki."
ReplyDeleteTrue, but that's yet another situation and another argument.
"ut the example still proves the point that effectiveness is insufficient and you need other dividing lines."
I agree that effectiveness alone is insufficient. I don't think your argument is the same as Chapman's. And I'm attacking only the one point of his argument.
Btw, I mentioned to my wife that we have a 30+ comment argument on this and she thinks we are insane :).
Let me go off on another tangent, because there is a similar argument to Chapman's that I have heard repeatedly from certain death penalty opponents, particularly on the left. It is to attack anti-abortion people who are pro-death penalty, as if there was some logical correlation between killing the innocent & killing the guilty. There isn't. Both are killing (at least to anti-abortion types), but there is nothing logically inconsistent about being in favor of executing a criminal, but not wanting to kill the innocent. Pretending that the guilty & the innocent are somehow equivalent is the logical fallacy.
The part of Chapman's argument that I am attacking is the same sort of logical error of falsely equating the innocent and the guilty.
> logical error of falsely equating the innocent and the guilty.
ReplyDeleteBut he's not equating them, that's a pointless straw man. I'll phrase his argument yet another way:
If we only care about effectiveness, that could lead to actions that are not justified--of which harming innocents happens to be one. This proves that effectiveness is an insufficient criteria, and that there are lines it is unjust to cross. Given this, anyone claiming that torture is justified must define those lines.
So go about defining your lines, and stop complaining about a false equivalence that doesn't exist.