Saturday, October 22, 2005
Is Torture Ever Justified?
I'm a fan of the show 24, but at times while watching it, I have to turn off my moral sensors. In the back of my head, I'll ask about the civil rights of those being tortured.
Let me step back a second. In the tv show, "24," there is the main character of Jack Bauer. He's a special op whose focus is in anti-terrorism. He'll go to any length to thwart terrorism, including torture, defying orders, breaking laws and so forth.
Yep he tortures, he also gets tortured. I would say the moral of the show is that it takes a hero with villainous traits to thwart villains.
Does it work in the real world, though? Is torturing people justified?
We could ask the "ticking time bomb" question that is posed in most college ethics courses. If you have a terrorist in custody who is threatening to set off bombs in a major city, what length do you go to get him to tell you where the bombs are so they can be defused?
The problem of the ticking time bomb scenario is that it is a no win scenario. It practically leads the argument to take a pro-torture stance. In other words, you'd be justified in torturing a terrorist if it would save the lives of thousands of people.
It overlooks the greater problem. If you torture to get information, at what point does it stop? Secondly, by torturing, you are giving your enemy the green light to torture your own people/soldiers. Torture begets torture. Evil begets evil.
Ghandi proclaimed that "eye for an eye" justice creates a world filled with blind people.
Now, I don't want to argue that in extreme cases, that torture should be used, but if it was to save the lives of thousands, tens of thousands, or millions of people. I would say it is justified. That being said, the prisoner abuse at Abu Ghraib was sickening and perverse.
How is torturing and humiliating those prisoners going to help us in our effort to thwart terrorism? I mean the US should have just started printing up posters for Al Qaeda recruitment with that nonsense. The thing is, that is the torture we've heard about. How much more rotten things are our troops doing overseas?
Again, if we want to win the war against terrorism, we need to be smart, not brutal. Evil begets evil. We may create a form of peace, but it will be a restless peace because there was no justice.
Darwin's God
Recently, I've read the book "Finding Darwin's God" by Kenneth Miller. Miller is a cell biology professor at Brown University, and his book is well written and very informative about why the theory of evolution is good solid science. He debunks creationism, intelligent design theory, and other attacks against the theory of religion.
What makes this book different? Miller is also a Christian. He argues that the theory of evolution adds to the understanding the universe and to better understanding the true nature of God.
Currently, there is a court trial in Dover, PA, which will determine the fate of intelligent design theory being taught in the classroom. They've called Michael Behe to the stand as one of ID's major proponents and advocates. Miller's book trashes Behe's argument of intelligent design.
The problem is that intelligent design theory doesn't just step on the toes of the theory of evolution, it would undertake a radical change in all the sciences for intelligent design theory to be true. Ulitimately, ID claims that the "irreducible complexity" of living things is evidence of an intelligent designer. The thing is, that biologists have been answering questions Behe proposed, and others on a daily basis. Every day, new information comes forward that proves again and again that Darwin's theory still holds up.
Now, to me the problem with ID is that it is not science. In fact, it's anti-science. What I mean is that by saying things are irreducibly complex, ID then claims that something so complex cannot ever be understood by humans. It's a system that stifles curiousity, learning, and study.
Science functions as a system to solve problems in an orderly, logical manner. It's strength is in peer review. If you have a theory which is not tested or cannot be tested, it would not be considered valid by the scientific community.
There's now way to prove that an intelligent designer, a God, or an extra-universal construction company built life or the universe. The primary reason for this is that there is nothing observable that can verify such a thing. There is also no method for indicating if/when some supernatural force tinkered with life.
Now, what I suspect with the court case in Dover is that it's a ploy by the advocates of ID to sneak God into the classroom. What ID does is undermine good science, with junk science. ID is a political gimmick. No matter how the court goes, the ID advocates win, and America and American science loses.
If the ID advocates win, then ID can be taught side by side with evolution in classrooms across the country. Bad science taught as good science. Our children need and deserve good scientific education. The strength of our economy and the defense of our nation will be in jeopardy if we begin to undermine science with wishful thinking.
If ID loses, the ID advocates will continue to fight in the courtrooms and at the election booths to get ID friendly people in power.
Keeping this in mind, one has to wonder what the objective of the ID advocates is. Is it to put a valid question to the theory of evolution, or is it something else? When you can't win a scientific battle or argument in the field of science, take it to the streets.
With the greater population believing God in one form or another, I could easily see evolution being pushed to the back of the bus. At that point, I could easily see the US beginning its decline into Third World status.
If you are in the dark about evolution, confused by it, and you worship God, or believe in God, I'd recommend reading this book. (If you don't believe in a god or supernatural things, I'd recommend reading it also. It's a good thing to keep in mind that those who are people of faith, are frightened of what science can mean to them, and to the greater future at large.)
I'm a fan of the show 24, but at times while watching it, I have to turn off my moral sensors. In the back of my head, I'll ask about the civil rights of those being tortured.
Let me step back a second. In the tv show, "24," there is the main character of Jack Bauer. He's a special op whose focus is in anti-terrorism. He'll go to any length to thwart terrorism, including torture, defying orders, breaking laws and so forth.
Yep he tortures, he also gets tortured. I would say the moral of the show is that it takes a hero with villainous traits to thwart villains.
Does it work in the real world, though? Is torturing people justified?
We could ask the "ticking time bomb" question that is posed in most college ethics courses. If you have a terrorist in custody who is threatening to set off bombs in a major city, what length do you go to get him to tell you where the bombs are so they can be defused?
The problem of the ticking time bomb scenario is that it is a no win scenario. It practically leads the argument to take a pro-torture stance. In other words, you'd be justified in torturing a terrorist if it would save the lives of thousands of people.
It overlooks the greater problem. If you torture to get information, at what point does it stop? Secondly, by torturing, you are giving your enemy the green light to torture your own people/soldiers. Torture begets torture. Evil begets evil.
Ghandi proclaimed that "eye for an eye" justice creates a world filled with blind people.
Now, I don't want to argue that in extreme cases, that torture should be used, but if it was to save the lives of thousands, tens of thousands, or millions of people. I would say it is justified. That being said, the prisoner abuse at Abu Ghraib was sickening and perverse.
How is torturing and humiliating those prisoners going to help us in our effort to thwart terrorism? I mean the US should have just started printing up posters for Al Qaeda recruitment with that nonsense. The thing is, that is the torture we've heard about. How much more rotten things are our troops doing overseas?
Again, if we want to win the war against terrorism, we need to be smart, not brutal. Evil begets evil. We may create a form of peace, but it will be a restless peace because there was no justice.
Darwin's God
Recently, I've read the book "Finding Darwin's God" by Kenneth Miller. Miller is a cell biology professor at Brown University, and his book is well written and very informative about why the theory of evolution is good solid science. He debunks creationism, intelligent design theory, and other attacks against the theory of religion.
What makes this book different? Miller is also a Christian. He argues that the theory of evolution adds to the understanding the universe and to better understanding the true nature of God.
Currently, there is a court trial in Dover, PA, which will determine the fate of intelligent design theory being taught in the classroom. They've called Michael Behe to the stand as one of ID's major proponents and advocates. Miller's book trashes Behe's argument of intelligent design.
The problem is that intelligent design theory doesn't just step on the toes of the theory of evolution, it would undertake a radical change in all the sciences for intelligent design theory to be true. Ulitimately, ID claims that the "irreducible complexity" of living things is evidence of an intelligent designer. The thing is, that biologists have been answering questions Behe proposed, and others on a daily basis. Every day, new information comes forward that proves again and again that Darwin's theory still holds up.
Now, to me the problem with ID is that it is not science. In fact, it's anti-science. What I mean is that by saying things are irreducibly complex, ID then claims that something so complex cannot ever be understood by humans. It's a system that stifles curiousity, learning, and study.
Science functions as a system to solve problems in an orderly, logical manner. It's strength is in peer review. If you have a theory which is not tested or cannot be tested, it would not be considered valid by the scientific community.
There's now way to prove that an intelligent designer, a God, or an extra-universal construction company built life or the universe. The primary reason for this is that there is nothing observable that can verify such a thing. There is also no method for indicating if/when some supernatural force tinkered with life.
Now, what I suspect with the court case in Dover is that it's a ploy by the advocates of ID to sneak God into the classroom. What ID does is undermine good science, with junk science. ID is a political gimmick. No matter how the court goes, the ID advocates win, and America and American science loses.
If the ID advocates win, then ID can be taught side by side with evolution in classrooms across the country. Bad science taught as good science. Our children need and deserve good scientific education. The strength of our economy and the defense of our nation will be in jeopardy if we begin to undermine science with wishful thinking.
If ID loses, the ID advocates will continue to fight in the courtrooms and at the election booths to get ID friendly people in power.
Keeping this in mind, one has to wonder what the objective of the ID advocates is. Is it to put a valid question to the theory of evolution, or is it something else? When you can't win a scientific battle or argument in the field of science, take it to the streets.
With the greater population believing God in one form or another, I could easily see evolution being pushed to the back of the bus. At that point, I could easily see the US beginning its decline into Third World status.
If you are in the dark about evolution, confused by it, and you worship God, or believe in God, I'd recommend reading this book. (If you don't believe in a god or supernatural things, I'd recommend reading it also. It's a good thing to keep in mind that those who are people of faith, are frightened of what science can mean to them, and to the greater future at large.)
