A Thinking Reed

Looking into the abyss

Written by

Lee M.

in

I’m not sure it’s worth anyone’s while to discuss something as over-the-top as this:

There is no moral reason for this country not to torture. If in self defense, we can lie, cheat, deceive, firebomb cities, shoot spies, defoliate jungles, assassinate enemies, annihilate armies, steal secrets, and even use atomic weapons—all of which are perfectly appropriate responses in a just war when a democracy has been attacked— it stands to reason that it is not only optional, but a moral imperative, to employ “cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment” in the name of defending ourselves and perhaps saving our civilization.

But it might be worth pointing out that if, as we’ve been incessantly told, what makes terrorism uniquely evil and despicable is that it involves the direct targeting of civilians, then once we’ve accepted targeting civilians, torture and the like as just tools in the policy kit, we’re well on our way to surrendering the moral high ground, aren’t we?

(link via Catholic and Enjoying It!)

Comments

3 responses to “Looking into the abyss”

  1. Johann Cornelius

    How can we be “saving our civilization” by abandoning all semblance of civilization? This is moral reasoning?

    Reply
  2. Joshie

    We’re not on our way to surrendering it, we already have if we accept targetting civilians.

    The whole thing seems to reflect the sort of soap opera mentality. The “good” and “bad” characters on a soap both lie, blackmail, commit adultery, even murder, but the audience is supposed to sympathize with the “good” characters because they’re presented as “good” even though there is no distinction between their behavior and that of the “bad” characters.

    America and our allies are good, so even if we do that same things as the bad guys of the world, we’re justified because we’re good. Like how brutal, repressive, lawless regimes like those in Uzbekistan, Pakistan and Saudi Arabia are “good” because they like us, and countries like Venezuela, Bolivia, and France are bad because they object to what we do. It’s Ok for Israel to have the bomb b/c they’re good, its bad for Iran to have it b/c they’re bad. Or for how its good for white Louisianans to forage for food and supplies and bad for black ones to loot. Same sort of thing.

    Reply
  3. Lee

    Absolutely right.

    I’m sure that if you asked, our government would say that, as a matter of policy, we don’t target civilians. But I suppose the real question is whether, if push came to shove, we would. We certainly have (WWII, e.g.), and I don’t know that the U.S. gov’t has ever repuditaed that strategy (and, of course, the entire strategy of nuclear deterrence depends on our willingness, at least in principle, to kill enormous numbers of civilians).

    Reply

Leave a comment

More posts