It gives me hope for my fellow-creatures that their reaction to an attempt at offering a justification for torture, however well argued, is still "No. That is wrong!"
Well, that's a good point. When you put it like that, yes, it gives me hope, too.
I guess I was just having a moment of being irritated by people in general (not anyone here specifically) jumping in without getting the facts. For example, I've heard a lot of dramatisation of Bagaric's position to imply or downright accuse him of advocating torture as a routine activity, or that his paper was written to help Bush feel better about the torture perpetrated on Iraqi soldiers. However distasteful and reprehensible I might find Bagaric's views about torture, this is not an accurate representation of what he's saying. He wrote, "Torture in order to save an innocent person is the only situation where it is clearly justifiable. This means that the recent high-profile incidents of torture, apparently undertaken as punitive measures or in a bid to acquire information where there was no evidence of an immediate risk to the life of an innocent person, were reprehensible."
Debating how one can define innocence, or whether the worth of one innocent person whose life might be saved vs the worth of the innocent person who may need to be tortured in order to save a life is still perfectly valid, as is speculation as to how this kind of attitude might pervade the rest of government, society, etc.
So on the one hand, although I'm pleased people have knee-jerk responses in the way that they do, I also think that this ugly, inhumane, short-sighted "recommendation" could also act as a catalyst for thought and analysis, potentially prompt an evaluation of how current government policies might allow unofficial torture, prompt governments to make policies and legislation even more stringent against torture and also highlight how much torture, official and unofficial, is actually going on in the world. And these possibilities aren't well-served by knee-jerk reactions that only serve to reinforce the status quo.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Date: 2005-05-17 04:49 pm (UTC)Well, that's a good point. When you put it like that, yes, it gives me hope, too.
I guess I was just having a moment of being irritated by people in general (not anyone here specifically) jumping in without getting the facts. For example, I've heard a lot of dramatisation of Bagaric's position to imply or downright accuse him of advocating torture as a routine activity, or that his paper was written to help Bush feel better about the torture perpetrated on Iraqi soldiers. However distasteful and reprehensible I might find Bagaric's views about torture, this is not an accurate representation of what he's saying. He wrote, "Torture in order to save an innocent person is the only situation where it is clearly justifiable. This means that the recent high-profile incidents of torture, apparently undertaken as punitive measures or in a bid to acquire information where there was no evidence of an immediate risk to the life of an innocent person, were reprehensible."
Debating how one can define innocence, or whether the worth of one innocent person whose life might be saved vs the worth of the innocent person who may need to be tortured in order to save a life is still perfectly valid, as is speculation as to how this kind of attitude might pervade the rest of government, society, etc.
So on the one hand, although I'm pleased people have knee-jerk responses in the way that they do, I also think that this ugly, inhumane, short-sighted "recommendation" could also act as a catalyst for thought and analysis, potentially prompt an evaluation of how current government policies might allow unofficial torture, prompt governments to make policies and legislation even more stringent against torture and also highlight how much torture, official and unofficial, is actually going on in the world. And these possibilities aren't well-served by knee-jerk reactions that only serve to reinforce the status quo.