Why Torture is Naturally Wrong
Dane Shelly Wednesday, 19 April 2006
It has been a frustrating couple of years for Americans. Evidence from Iraq and Guantanamo Bay confirms our worst fear: We have joined the league of ordinary nations namely, the league that tortures some of its prisoners.
President Bush has stated unequivocally "We do not torture." But this statement can be considered true only if one accepts his administration's redefinition of torture to mean something other than the normal international standard. There is a certain internal logic to this position, but it is classic Orwellian double-speak and we should recognize it as such.
American Christians, for the most part, have been silent on the issue of torture, perhaps because it is indeed a dangerous time and we face an ephemeral enemy. While we need not descend into the abyss of moral equivalence (Guantanamo is not the same as the Soviet gulags), we should take little solace in the fact that some nations behave even less honorably than the U.S. when it comes to torture.
Unfortunately, in a time when clear thinking is essential, the debate over torture languishes in the quagmire of utilitarianism. For instance, in an oft-quoted article in the Weekly Standard, Charles Krauthammer argued for torture in the "ticking bomb" scenario. If a terrorist knows the location of a bomb, we should torture this one person to save thousands. Or, as Krauthammer puts it, "Not only is it permissible to hang this miscreant by his thumbs. It is a moral duty." Then, anticipating acquiescence, Krauthammer pounces: "Even if the example I gave were entirely hypothetical, the conclusion yes, in this case even torture is permissible is telling because it establishes the principle: Torture is not always impermissible."
According to a recent poll conducted by the Pew Research Center, two-thirds of American Christians agree that torture is "often," "sometimes," or "rarely" justified and only one third said it was "never" justified. In other words, two thirds of Christians seem to accept Krauthammer's basic utilitarian argument and reject a categorical prohibition on torture.
Christians should be actively engaged in the debate over torture, providing an alternative to Krauthammer-style arguments rather than uncritically aligning with them. Specifically, in articulating this alternative Christians must not fall into the trap of trying to counter crude utilitarianism with still more utilitarianism. In other words, torture is wrong not just because it does not get the reliable results that its apologists assume. Rather it is wrong as a matter of first principles. As Mark Danner has noted, "The religious community is uniquely situated to argue the question of torture in the way that's most important, which is that torture is wrong."
How difficult is it to counter Krauthammer's argument? I think he is right about one thing: If we accept torture in the ticking bomb scenario, we jump on the sliding scale of utility and can no longer advocate an absolute prohibition. But Christians need not make this leap. In fact, the Christian natural law tradition provides a solid foundation for an absolute prohibition against torture. A proper understanding of natural law from the teleological perspective is the key.
Teleology refers to the "end" (meaning something like target or perfection) of a created thing. When speaking of humans, the telos can be thought of as the purpose for which we are created. So, when Augustine wrote in his Confessions, "You have made us for yourself, oh Lord, and our hearts are restless until they rest in you," he was making a profound statement about human teleology, and thus human rights. Or, put another way, since God created humans for a certain purpose, there is a natural order an "ought" to creation.
The French philosopher Jacques Maritain understood this view of creation as the basis of universal human rights. He used a memorable metaphor to illustrate this point: a piano is created for the purpose of making piano sounds. If a child takes a drumstick and bangs on the side of the piano he creates sounds, but not the piano sounds for which the piano was created. One could say the child is abusing the piano. (Of course, it is permissible to hit a drum with those same drumsticks). In order to make piano sounds, one must use the piano in the manner in which it was intended. Humans, no less than pianos, are created for a purpose. Treating them in ways that do not conform to that purpose is simply wrong. For this reason, torture is always wrong because that is not what we were created for.
God created humans in a way that gives moral weight to how we treat others. Torture, then, offends the natural order (and its Creator) for two reasons: Humans were not created to torture others, and humans were not created to be tortured. This understanding should give Christians clarity when discussing torture, cruelty, and abuse. At the same time, it frees us from having to debate the merits of utilitarian arguments for torture. With an absolute prohibition based upon a teleological view of human rights, the utilitarian argument never gets off the ground. The utilitarian argument fails because it treats humans not as ends with inherent dignity, but as means to the desired end.
In another context, Robert Kaplan has argued that leadership in a dangerous world demands a "pagan ethos" that is, the moral imperatives that guide Christian ethics are too cumbersome in the fog of war. What, then, can be the Christian response? Only that there are lines that must not be crossed. Some victories — such as intelligence gained by torture are pyrrhic because we forfeit that which makes us different than our enemies. Christians must understand the foundations of their moral absolutes, and then stand firm against all assaults.