![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
A Bad Question.
Dec. 17th, 2014 09:02 pmTwo days ago, on my way home and listening to NPR, I listened to an interview and discussion on the topic of the recent revelations regarding the US and torture. Of course, the discussion went over details of how it happened, the reaction of people who were actually carrying out the orders, and how it didn't work. I think you can derive a couple hints as to my perspective on torture from what I've already written, but that isn't the topic.
During the call-in portion of the show, a woman explained her position that one has to ask what one would want if one's own family member were in the hands of Isis or Al-Qaida or some other terrorist organization. Would we, in that situation, want the CIA or the military or some other official organization to torture suspects for information?
Thesis: That question is frelling stupid.
Quick digression: I like Farscape.
Back to topic, this question has a basic format that should invalidate it as a test for whether or not a particular action is good, either on a moral level or on the level of accomplishing a wider goal.
The same question was posed to Michael Dukakis during the 1988 election. The details were slightly different. On the condition that his own wife had been murdered, would he support the death penalty? He tried to handle it with respect to whether or not the death penalty was actually good for crime prevention.
But, that wasn't the question. And, that is part of the problem.
Let's break this question down to generalities. On the condition that you/your loved one is/are killed/severely injured/severely threatened, would you approve/support/actively engage in action X?
Note that this question only seems to come up when action X is, in some way, commonly objectionable. We can object to the taking of a life in the issue of the death penalty or to torture in the issue of... torture, so this question comes up.
Note also that this question usually comes up after the initial arguments in support go away. The death penalty is proven not to be an effective deterrent, but is proven to kill the innocent and to be applied unjustly. Torture, is proven not to acquire reliable information.
There's a third thing to note that is the real problem, here.
Humans are not, by instinct, rational actors. We like to think we are. It's a part of my self-image that I'm a reasonable person who reacts to new information and can change one's personally held beliefs upon the addition of new information. But, that's not instinct. That's an act of will... and not an easy one. I fail at it more often than I realize. I couldn't not.
Take a human being, one with the capacity for reasoned thought, and place that human being under pressure. What happens to that reasoned thought? What happens to otherwise held priorities?
That's the essence of this question. Take your capacity for reason. Place so much pressure upon that capacity that one is readily forgiven for losing all of that capacity in its entirety. At this point, you are at your least capable of realizing the consequences of your actions, including whether or not action yields intended result. At this point, you are at your least capable of understanding the consequences of that action and whether or not the costs are worth it. At this point, would you agree that action X is morally acceptable and the best course of action?
How can this possibly be an appropriate test of good policy?
Now, I'm not saying that, in such a situation, the actions a person takes cannot be the right actions. So, I'm not arguing that this is a reverse test. It's just not a good test at all. It's a sign that someone has given up the moral and the rational and just wants to take refuge in that place where we are most likely to and most forgiven for abandoning both morality and reason.
During the call-in portion of the show, a woman explained her position that one has to ask what one would want if one's own family member were in the hands of Isis or Al-Qaida or some other terrorist organization. Would we, in that situation, want the CIA or the military or some other official organization to torture suspects for information?
Thesis: That question is frelling stupid.
Quick digression: I like Farscape.
Back to topic, this question has a basic format that should invalidate it as a test for whether or not a particular action is good, either on a moral level or on the level of accomplishing a wider goal.
The same question was posed to Michael Dukakis during the 1988 election. The details were slightly different. On the condition that his own wife had been murdered, would he support the death penalty? He tried to handle it with respect to whether or not the death penalty was actually good for crime prevention.
But, that wasn't the question. And, that is part of the problem.
Let's break this question down to generalities. On the condition that you/your loved one is/are killed/severely injured/severely threatened, would you approve/support/actively engage in action X?
Note that this question only seems to come up when action X is, in some way, commonly objectionable. We can object to the taking of a life in the issue of the death penalty or to torture in the issue of... torture, so this question comes up.
Note also that this question usually comes up after the initial arguments in support go away. The death penalty is proven not to be an effective deterrent, but is proven to kill the innocent and to be applied unjustly. Torture, is proven not to acquire reliable information.
There's a third thing to note that is the real problem, here.
Humans are not, by instinct, rational actors. We like to think we are. It's a part of my self-image that I'm a reasonable person who reacts to new information and can change one's personally held beliefs upon the addition of new information. But, that's not instinct. That's an act of will... and not an easy one. I fail at it more often than I realize. I couldn't not.
Take a human being, one with the capacity for reasoned thought, and place that human being under pressure. What happens to that reasoned thought? What happens to otherwise held priorities?
That's the essence of this question. Take your capacity for reason. Place so much pressure upon that capacity that one is readily forgiven for losing all of that capacity in its entirety. At this point, you are at your least capable of realizing the consequences of your actions, including whether or not action yields intended result. At this point, you are at your least capable of understanding the consequences of that action and whether or not the costs are worth it. At this point, would you agree that action X is morally acceptable and the best course of action?
How can this possibly be an appropriate test of good policy?
Now, I'm not saying that, in such a situation, the actions a person takes cannot be the right actions. So, I'm not arguing that this is a reverse test. It's just not a good test at all. It's a sign that someone has given up the moral and the rational and just wants to take refuge in that place where we are most likely to and most forgiven for abandoning both morality and reason.
