Torture remains one of the most controversial words in English. Can we put it to rest and "let the fly out of the fly bottle?"
Philosophers are particularly good at untangling unclear concepts; they are experienced at the task of formulating problems clearly and logically; they are ready to unmask the hidden presuppositions underlying a particular formulation. This is the kind of work Wittgenstein describes as "letting the fly out of the fly bottle"; it is what J. L. Austin does so well in "Three Ways of Spilling Ink." Drawing distinctions and formulating ideas clearly — these are core intellectual tools, and they lie at the root of philosophy Understanding Society.Everyone would agree that torture is deplorable, perhaps the most abominable in human behavior. Are there circumstances, however, under which it might be justifiable or permissible?…
Article comments
26 - Maurice
Roger #14
I think it is indicative of your thought process. For example my first analogous thought of torture would not be cruelty but required action that brings about a desired result. For example a drill sergeant would appear to the outsider to be cruel and perhaps even enjoy debasing his recruits. Whether he enjoys it or not he is really just trying to accomplish a goal. I would compare the professional interrogator to the drill sergeant and not the sadist.
27 - Cindy
26
I'm not surprised by that though process. It's pretty typical.
28 - roger nowosielski
Let's talk.
I was operating with a different paradigm in mind, and I quote:
"If we look at torture in civilian life we never see cases where torture is employed to elicit information. Torture is employed for personal amusement by twisted personalities." (page 1)
Whether the above (i.e., cases of torture in civilian life) constitute the main core of the concept, I'm not yet prepared to say. But you would agree, wouldn't you, that instances of sadism, intentional/deliberate cruelty, also form a significant number of cases. Wouldn't you?
Why I found the subject remark of interest -and capable of being milked - was that it offered a fairly clear contrast, I think, between torturing without a purpose as opposed to cases when EITs are being employed with some specific purpose in mind (eliciting information possibly being one example).
I'm not quite convinced of your drill sergeant example. Are some of the rough training techniques that used to be in effect, remember, as part of the Marine training torture. They were inappropriate and way beyond the pale - and the guilty party was punished (Jack Nicholson's movie, e.g., but there were also real incidences when some of the recruits had died) but were they instances of torture? I'm not certain I'be be prepared to say that. Perhaps you'd have to provide much more detail to make your example a viable one.
29 - roger nowosielski
Thanks for the dig, Cindy. I doubt whether Maurice had meant it in quite the same way in which you put it. At least I didn't take it that way. But your comment leaves no doubt in my mind. But that's OK. I'm used to it by now.
30 - Cindy
though = thought (27)
Hey Roger,
I think you might have information I need. If I understand what you say in your article, then language would change to accommodate the acceptance of something previously unacceptable. So, for something like torture to be accepted, it would require a change in the language--a new word to remove it from its previous context?
Okay, is that close at all?
This seems to fit with my idea that language is modified by dominant culture to facilitate its ends. So, redefining things creates conceptual differences. Something that is unacceptable can be made into something acceptable (over time and through generations and often sooner).
That is why I said I don't like to think of things as other than what they are--I reject new words that attempt to modify perception so, and keep the original meaning.
If I understood, or was close in my first paragraph, then I need more information about this. It would provide another viewpoint on something I think is important.
31 - Doug Hunter
The most likely scenario in which torture would work is if you had a long window and a clearly defined piece of information you were looking for. For example, you were torturing a person about where they hid their treasure and didn't need to find it by any certain date. If they lied you could simply check where they told you and increase the level of torture progressively until they broke.
In the terrorist fighting world, something like that rarely comes up. Maybe you don't know exactly what you're looking for so they reveal a minor plot yet keep the major one concealed. Usually you don't have a long time horizon because the plan will either be carried out or remaining terrorist members will change plans knowing you may have information for the person you have captured.
32 - roger nowosielski
#30
"So, for something like torture to be accepted, it would require a change in the language--a new word to remove it from its previous context?"
It's not exactly how it works - though of course there'll always be those who coin buzz words and doublespeak (to use Orwell's term) for their own propaganda purposes. But natural languages are naturally resistant to such perverted attempts - as we can always (if we care to pay attention, of course) recognize "doublespeak" and all such from the real McCoy.
And it's especially true when the attempted linguistic revisions (contrast that now with the natural evolution of language) touch upon the area of morals. "Torture is never reasonable" - doesn't that just sound very right to the ear? - and I'd tend to agree that there are no exceptions. So for as long as the linguistic incongruity persists (as when one someone would argue, for example, for reasonableness of torture), it's a clear sign that something doesn't jibe and there's a problem.
I was only exploring the concept, that's all.
33 - Doug Hunter
"This seems to fit with my idea that language is modified by dominant culture to facilitate its ends."
Everyone (including you) tries to do it; only the dominant culture succeeds. You will pick and choose your words purposefully selecting the most negative descriptions for your enemies and describig you own positions in the most positive light possible.
34 - Maurice
Roger,
not sure why you are "unconvinced" with my drill sergeant example..? I was trying to get the point across that people sometimes respond to negative treatment. I am not sure of your reference to a movie? Seems like a bad idea to base your opinion on a work of fiction.
I think all of us can recall a time when we were tested by a negative situation. I remember in college being told by my professor that 66% of us would fail his class. It was the kind of torture of the mind that motivated me to try harder. Does that make sense?
One other example of my thought process. I am a gun owner and would use it to defend my family. I had a buddy in Detroit that was horrified at the prospect to gun use and violence in general. I asked him if he would use a gun if someone had a hold of his wife and threatened her life. He said he absolutely would not use the gun. I am a caring and feeling person but I would kill someone that threatened my wife and children. I think torture used correctly in the hands of professionals to save the innocent is appropriate and necessary.
35 - Maurice
Dr. Dreadful,
it is good to be bad. The only reason is I was recently laid off from Micron Technology and now am at home with time on my hands. My boys are doing much better. Both are on probation and trying to find jobs. NA is a big influence on both of them and it helps that I am home all day to monitor their activities.
36 - Maurice
Crap! Good to be "back"! Not "bad"!
Okay, maybe I am bad....
37 - roger nowosielski
Maurice,
No argument with what you say that people respond to ill-treatment. Everyone has a breaking point, they say. So that's not at issue. What's more at issue, I think, is whether the information obtained via these methods are reliable or whether they could not be obtained by different techniques. Again, don't forget the main reasons why the Chinese used it on American GIs in Korea - not for any information but for propaganda purposes.
I think it's little easier to think about it when you reduce it to the individual level, as when your loved ones are in jeopardy (although it's possible that some such thinking might extend to averting a mass catastrophe). But it all turns, as I say, on being able to come up with a credible example.
That's why I don't understand why you discount films or fiction. A novelist are known for their imagination. And just because it's not drawn from real life is no reason why credible fictional situations can't occur in real-life situations. If it's conceivable, then it can happen.
As to your drill sergeant example, I don't think it's drastic enough for my taste. Same with the examples you cite from school. I think they trivialize the term.
38 - Maurice
Roger,
honestly I am not trying to trivialize. What I am trying to do is provide examples that illustrate from 0-100 the different levels of torture. I quit watching TV back in 1998 because I found it torturous. Back when I did watch TV there was an episode of Outer Limits where a hippie guy kills himself and goes to hell. He is all excited by the prospect of being tortured by fire and the devil himself. Instead he is put in a room with some middle aged tourists and forced to watch their slide show from their latest vacation. Ahhhhhhhhhh!
Torture can vary from uncomfortable (0-10) to near death (90-100). What I am wondering is what level do we tolerate in which situations. For example the Japanese had the WWII soldiers squat on their haunches for long periods of time. This was not torture in the minds of the Japanese because that was their accustomed waiting position. The GI's interpreted it as a mild form of torture. I would consider this the 0-10 level of torture even if unintentional. What the Germans did to the Jews is the 90-100 level.
So now what is our acceptable level?
39 - roger nowosielski
I understand what you're doing, Maurice, and I wasn't talking about you trying to trivialize it, only of your example.
Read the bracketed part from CK's article (as per the article link), a part which I omitted:
"Under those circumstances, you do what you have to do. And that includes waterboarding. (To call some of the other "enhanced interrogation" techniques -- face slap, sleep interruption, a caterpillar in a small space -- torture is to empty the word of any meaning.)"
That's why I don't want to engage in discussion concerning gradations - to as "not to empty the word of any meaning," if you know what I mean, because once you do, it's a slippery slope. In short, I want to keep the concept's content as full and pregnant as possible - precisely because it is intended to serve as the most severe kind of injunction.
Let's just say there is a certain threshold beyond which it's beyond interrogation. Why can't you be comfortable with that?
And again, I know you mean it lightheartedly, but seriously now, don't bring up the TV. As Doc commented rather astutely up the thread, you don't have to watch it.
40 - Arch Conservative
Torturing jihadi scumbags is kind like making sausage. You don't want to talk about it, see it happening, or even necessarily know that it's going on, but you're pretty happy to partake of the end results.
41 - roger nowosielski
Very clever analogy, Archie. But if you do know what goes into the sausage, why would you want to eat it?
42 - roger nowosielski
Cindy, #11:
Number 1: "Historically, males in war would rape the women of their enemy to defile their enemy's 'property' and cause ego damage. Does this mean that when people refer to a rapist as sick and twisted the language is being used to prevent this historical even from recurring?"
No! The function here is not to protect, only to describe - and by virtue of that description, to exclude all nonesuch as the kinds of people with respect to whom moral language and argument would be useless. (I did speak of this in the article when I say that moral rebuke, etc., is not effective with "the sickos" but therapy and/or lock & key). And BTW, this follows an old tradition when the ancient Greeks, for instance, spoke of "freaks of nature." And with respect to freaks of nature, the laws of nature - reason, logic, morality - do not apply (because they're freaks and in that sense, outside the range of humanity.
Number 2: "The language of your torture scheme does not have to have developed in any different way than the language against any other abhorrent acts. In fact it's more likely it developed the same way--as description not protection."
Correct as to the first sentence. Even moral language has its roots in function - to protect the society. So the process is most likely the same as to the origins and subsequent development - although one can't discount variations as to the kinds of acts, because they all have different logic (and the corresponding language reflects that).
But even in its pre-moral, more fundamental stage, it goes beyond description because of the function (again, to protect the society and/or its members); and once it acquires full moral status (which is when we've all but forgotten its functionally-based origins), it serves then not just as a description but primarily as a protection. In fact, the primary purpose of moral language, when fully developed, is to prevent wrongdoings (and not just to describe the act). Which is why the second proposition is only partly correct.
Again, it goes without saying that moral language is not effective with "the sickos" because they are sickos.
And torture, being an abhorrent act, is properly represented by equally strong moral language mitigating against it. (I believe I made that point in the article also.)
I'll get to your other comments later.
43 - Cindy
29 - Roger,
The dig was for Maurice, not you. It related specifically to this comment he made:
For example my first analogous thought of torture would not be cruelty but required action that brings about a desired result.
That sounds like a typical attitude to me. Sorry, I reread and realized that wasn't clear.
44 - roger nowosielski
Sorry, Cindy. I misunderstood it then.
45 - Cindy
"No! The function here is not to protect, only to describe..."
"But even in its pre-moral, more fundamental stage, it goes beyond description because of the function (again, to protect the society and/or its members)"
You seem to be saying two different things. When I imply your idea that the function of language might be to protect would need to be carried over in the analogy I made--you correct me and say it's not for protection, only for description.
When I suggest it might not be for protection, you then say it is.
I am confused about what exactly you think.
46 - roger nowosielski
Two different cases here, Cindy.
A) with respect to the freaks, moral language is of no effect; and we simply speak to their pathological condition
B) With respect to all others, "normal" human beings, moral language and terms of approbation work and it's to them that it's directed.
The functions of language are multivarious - and it being a description in some cases doesn't preclude it from being an injunction in others. And one could keep on enumerating as many functions as there are purposes to which language is being put to use (human purposes) - like "performatives," e.g., when you say "I do" during marriage ceremony, or "strike" when an umpire calls a pitch. Look up J. L. Austin on the performatives (How to do things with words," or John Searle's "Speech Acts."
The context and the intent of the speaker are primary consideration when it comes to determining which particular function is at work and to which particular purpose we say what we do.
Wittgenstein: Thing of a tool box: a hammer, a sew, a screwdriver, all kinds of tools. Words are like tools and the meaning in any given situation (or incident of a linguistic act/utterance) is determined by our use of them, which in turn is determine by our purposes/intention.
47 - Cindy
Yes, Roger I believe I do understood you.
I think the problem is you don't see the idea of torture as being analogous with rape, where as I do. At this point, I think you'd have to explain why you don't believe rape is analogous.
Either you didn't consider my context carefully or you did and you feel it doesn't warrant the analogy.
48 - roger nowosielski
I didn't cover all your points yet.
49 - Cindy
Okay, in that case I'll bbl (be back later).
50 - roger nowosielski
Cindy, #47:
"I think the problem is you don't see the idea of torture as being analogous with rape, where as I do. At this point, I think you'd have to explain why you don't believe rape is analogous."
I'm going to try to respond to this remark alone since I can't seem to find the proper context in which the was first brought up. And if my response is inadequate, perhaps you'll redirect me.
So in what sense is "rape," "torture," and all manner of abhorrent acts analogous? I suppose one could include here all kinds of compulsive/obsessive "acts" and/or behavior - such a kleptomania (I admit, mild by comparison). I'm drawing a blank here, so perhaps you can help me.
Well, for one thing, we regard it as "abhorrent," but that's only a part of the story. So is "burglary," "highway robbery,"
"criminal homicide," again, you're free to add on to this skimpy list. More importantly, however, there's another point of similarity when it comes to the items first mentioned: it represents a compulsive/obsessive behavior. "Rape," for instance, has been argued as stemming from one's sense of inferiority and need to assert oneself - more an act of violence rather than arising out of the sexual impulse - and I'm restricting my remarks now to these kinds of cases (knowing full well that there are other cases which you mention, like during wartime).
Well, the same is the case with sadism and all acts of intentional and/or deliberate cruelty. And I do consider "sadism" as more or less "defining" what I take to be "the core element of the concept of torture."
And so, in this particular respect, "rape" (in the restricted sense I'm considering it)
and "torture" ARE analogous, and that respect is: obsessive/compulsive behavior.
In what sense are they different. Well, I suggest one would be hard put to think of a viable example whereby rape is being used in to attain purposes that are extraneous to the act itself or the individual involved; and if you do, I'd be willing to reconsider my position.
Torture, on the other hand, in addition to its primary (or perhaps primitive) meaning, which is to feed the sadistic impulse, has been known - I hope you don't disagree - to be used for other, extraneous purposes: eliciting information, getting the person to do what we want them to do, and so on - and that's regardless of whether one is a sadist or not. (In short, we could well imagine cases when sadism, again, as originally defined, is not part of the picture.)
So here is the main point of disanalogy between the two: obsessive behavior vs. behavior/action that is purpose driven. Which is why the term torture carries so strong a negative connotation. And as I argue in my article, it's not to dissuade the sickos but "reasonable people" from ever using it as a method - whatever the reason.
51 - roger nowosielski
Breaking news: Legality of Torture went Unquestioned.
52 - roger nowosielski
The digest:
"The NYT off-leads with an exclusive look at newly declassified documents and correspondence on the Justice Department's views of torture. E-mails dating back to 2005 reveal that certain Justice Department lawyers who urged against the use of waterboarding and other controversial interrogation methods never questioned the legality of such tactics. The department's Office of Professional Responsibility will release a report this summer on how the decision was made to allow enhanced interrogation methods. The critical period seems to have been between 2004 and '05, around which time DOJ lawyer James B. Comey presciently warned that the issue would come back to haunt the department."
Slate Magazine
53 - Cindy
Roger,
I am so sorry you took the time to write all that. I wish I realized you must have missed what I said in #11.
Yes, #50, I did understand the rules you set and that is why I chose rape, not something else like child molesting for my analogy. I recognize not all heinous acts would fit. I understand how you distinguish the two types of acts. One as done by a deviant, another as done with an intent to achieve a purpose. I hold rape was actually used with an intent to achieve a military purpose.
Please, if you could, reread #11 and tell me what you think.
54 - roger nowosielski
Cindy,
I think I covered all the objections in #11 except for this:
"That there is no equivalent to 'interrogation purposes' for you to fit into your puzzle is a meaningless red herring. It's merely an extra condition that doesn't apply. However I could use rape and do the same thing." Am I right?
First off, I'd agree with you that rape may have been used as an instrument to undermine the enemy morale. One could go even further and claim that it may have been used to "deplete the enemy," "change their loyalty," and generally speaking, even to alter the balance of power. (Good example here: the "prima nocte" policy instituted by Henry the Longshanks (some claim it a myth) in Braveheart, for the purpose of minimizing the possibility of Scottish rebellion/opposition).
So in the sense that rape can be thought of and used as a means to an end, it is true that it may be comparable to the idea of torture (when also so used).
I don't know what else follows from that, so perhaps you can rephrase your question now (in terms of the red herring thing you spoke of), in light of the progress we've made thus far. It would be easier for me to discern than the main point of your counter-argument.
55 - Bliffle
#26 - Maurice
"...For example my first analogous thought of torture would not be cruelty but required action that brings about a desired result. "
I'm sure that Saddam thought the same when he gassed the Kurds. Dare I mention the holocaust and it's Prime Mover?
Words, words, words. Aren't they wonderful? The most awful acts are de-fanged by bureaucratic bafflegab.
Many years ago I read an article by the chief US interrogator in Vietnam, who was credited with very successful intelligence gathering from VC and NV soldiers. His most effective interrogation tool: ping pong!
56 - Clavos
His most effective interrogation tool: ping pong!
He didn't talk about pushing one Gook out of a chopper at 3,000 feet to make the others talk?
57 - Dan(Miller)
Clav,
I seem to recall having read somewhere that the technique to which you refer was called "aerial reconnaissance." What might have been "ping pong?" Several possibilities come to mind. What are those spherical things one bats around with a ping-pong paddle? Such trivia often escape me.
I shall now go and pray*.
Dan(Miller)
Please see definition at comment #106 here.
58 - Clavos
Say a prayer* for me, Dan(Miller).
A heathen like me could use some prayer.*
*As defined previously.
59 - Lilith (the destroyer)
Roger,
But natural languages are naturally resistant to such perverted attempts - as we can always (if we care to pay attention, of course) recognize "doublespeak" and all such from the real McCoy.
But, do many people really pay that much attention? Today's doublespeak is tomorrows common description, no? If you control language you can influence how people think about things. Isn't that a reason why government tries to control language in this way? (like George Carlin's routine: (WWI) shell shock -> (WWII) battle fatigue -> (Korean war) operational exhaustion -> (Vietnam war) post-traumatic stress disorder.
Isn't this part of the natural development of language? If not, how do you conceive of this being different? As a child would I know it's different if that's what I learned to call something?
60 - roger nowosielski
Good point, Lilith. It is a part of the "natural" development, as you say. But we still have the language of Shakespeare, for example, and that of other great novelists. You're taking the notion of education out of the equation. So there are old and proven standards for comparison purposes. Plus, you seem to be assuming the general dumbing down of the populace - not an impossible scenario but quite a leap. Recall Fahrenheit 451 by Bradbury,remember, books being burned, we had a little community where each person became a book: a far-fetched story, true, but not without a moral. More generally, perhaps, most of us at least (I'd like to believe) strife towards sense and light rather than nonsense and ignorance.
On the foundational level, much in language reflects our practices. And in order for these practices to have a staying power and the corresponding longevity, they, too, must make sense. Sooner or later, practices either improve in time, become more refined, or become obsolete (if they fail to serve the purpose or make sense). And the same goes for the language relating to those practices.
So praxis, ultimately, is the ground-zero so to speak which keeps the language honest.
61 - roger nowosielski
"But, do many people really pay that much attention?"
Maybe not! But buzz words and doublespeak will always be challenged (by some). You can't get away with murder forever. Don't underestimate native intelligence even among the uneducated. And as I said, all those who have no stake in self-deception (prompted by their selfish, narrowly conceived self-interest)naturally are attracted to light, not darkness.
The BC community represents a rather skewed picture. Everyone is so keen on expressing their own pet theory because they know they can't be taken to task.
In real life, which is to say, face-to-face communications, the situation is nowhere as hopeless. There are supplemental tools at our disposal to change minds (and more importantly, hearts). And it does happen.
Again, BC is an anomaly. One's almost led to believe it's a waste of time, unless of course the one and only motive is to hear oneself speak (or improve their writing skills).
62 - roger nowosielski
While this site is still under construction, please direct all your comments to this or the preceding article(s) to my own weblog if you expect a response.