Photo by DOH4
I have long maintained a page on my website where I address various distortions, misunderstandings, and criticisms of my work. I take it to be either a sign of carelessness or masochism on my part that this page is the #1 Google search result for the phrase "response to controversy." Surely, I need not have courted quite so much controversy. But there it is.
While most of my work has been devoted to controversial topics, I have taken very few positions that I later regret. There is one, however, and I regret it more with each passing hour: It is my "collateral damage argument" for the use of torture in extreme circumstances. This argument first appeared in The End of Faith (pp. 192-199), in a section where I compare the ethics of "collateral damage" to the ethics of torture in times of war. I argued then, and I believe today, that collateral damage is worse than torture across the board.
However, rather than appreciate just how bad I think collateral damage is in ethical terms, many readers mistakenly conclude that I take a cavalier attitude toward the practice of torture. I do not. Nevertheless, I believe that there are extreme situations in which practices like "water-boarding" may not only be ethically justifiable, but ethically necessary -- especially where getting information from a known terrorist seems likely to save the lives of thousands (or even millions) of innocent people. To argue that torture may sometimes be ethically justified is not to argue that it should ever be legal (crimes like trespassing or theft may sometimes be ethical, while we all have interest in keeping them illegal).
I sincerely regret making this argument. Rational discussion about the ethics of torture has proved impossible in almost every case, and my published views have been the gift to my critics and detractors that just keeps on giving: It seems that every few weeks, someone discovers the relevant pages in The End of Faith, or notices what others have said about them, and publicly attacks me for being "pro-torture." Journalists regularly steer interviews on any subject in this direction -- not so that they can understand my position, or coherently argue against it, but so that readers can be shocked by whatever misleading gloss appears in their final copy. The spectacle of someone not being reflexively and categorically "against torture" seems just too good to pass up.
And so, I am now a bit wiser and can offer a piece of advice to others: not everything worth saying is worth saying oneself. I am sure that the world needs someone to think out loud about the ethics of torture, and to point out the discrepancies in how we weight various harms for which we hold one another morally culpable, but that someone did not need to be me. The subject has done nothing but distract and sicken readers who might have otherwise found my work useful.
The topic of torture surfaced recently in a profile of me published in The New Statesman. The author, Jonathan Derbyshire, concluded his piece with a misleading summary of my views (among other things, he neglected to say that I think torture should be illegal). He later published the raw transcript of our interview, presumably so that I could speak for myself on so inflammatory a topic. Nevertheless, even my unedited remarks proved difficult for many people to understand, as witnessed by the fact that even one of my friends, Andrew Sullivan, felt the need to publicly repudiate them. Thus, I have been goaded to clarify my view on torture once again. I certainly hope it is for the last time.
[What follows is a revised section of the article "Response to Controversy," referenced above.]
I am not alone in thinking that there are potential circumstances in which the use of torture would be ethically justifiable. Liberal Senator Charles Schumer has publicly stated that most U.S. senators would support torture to find out the location of a ticking time bomb. Such "ticking-bomb" scenarios have been widely criticized as unrealistic. But realism is not the point of such thought experiments. The point is that unless you have an argument that rules out torture in idealized cases, you don't have a categorical argument against the use of torture. As nuclear and biological terrorism become increasingly possible, it is in everyone's interest for men and women of goodwill to determine what should be done if a person appears to have operational knowledge of an imminent atrocity (and may even claim to possess such knowledge), but won't otherwise talk about it.
My argument for the limited use of coercive interrogation ("torture" by another name) is essentially this: If you think it is ever justifiable to drop bombs in an attempt to kill a man like Osama bin Laden (and thereby risk killing and maiming innocent men, women, and children), you should think it may sometimes be justifiable to "water-board" a man like Osama bin Laden (and risk abusing someone who just happens to look like Osama bin Laden). It seems to me that however one compares the practices of "water-boarding" high-level terrorists and dropping bombs, dropping bombs always comes out looking worse in ethical terms. And yet, most people tacitly accept the practice of modern warfare, while considering it taboo to even speak about the possibility of practicing torture. It is important to point out that my argument for the restricted use of torture does not make travesties like Abu Ghraib look any less sadistic or stupid. I considered our mistreatment of prisoners at Abu Ghraib to be patently unethical. I also think it was one of the most damaging blunders to occur in the last century of U.S. foreign policy. Nor have I ever seen the wisdom or necessity of denying proper legal counsel (and access to evidence) to prisoners held at Guantanamo Bay. Indeed, I consider much of what occurred under Bush and Cheney -- the routine abuse of ordinary prisoners, the practice of "extraordinary rendition," etc. -- to be a terrible stain upon the conscience of our nation.
Some people believe that, while collateral damage may be worse than torture, these are independent evils, and one problem does not shed any light upon the other. However, they are not independent, in principle. In fact, it is easy to see how information gained through torture might mitigate the risk of collateral damage. If one found oneself in such a situation, with an apparent choice between torturing a known terrorist and bombing civilians, torturing the terrorist should seem like the more ethical option. And yet, most people's intuitions seem to run the other way. In fact, very few critics of the collateral damage argument even acknowledge how strangely asymmetrical our worries about torture and collateral damage are. A conversation about the ethics of torture can scarcely be had, and yet collateral damage is often reported in the context of a "successful" military operation as though it posed no ethical problem whatsoever. The case of Baitullah Mehsud, killed along with 12 others (including his wife and mother in law), is a recent example: had his wife been water-boarded in order to obtain the relevant intelligence, rather than merely annihilated by a missile, we can be sure that the event would have been met by torrents of outrage.
It is widely claimed that torture "does not work"--that it produces unreliable information, implicates innocent people, etc. As I argue in The End of Faith, this line of defense does not resolve the underlying ethical dilemma. Clearly, the claim that torture never works, or that it always produces bad information, is false. There are cases in which the mere threat of torture has worked. As I argue in The End of Faith, one can easily imagine situations in which even a very low probability of getting useful information through torture would seem to justify it -- the looming threat of nuclear terrorism being the most obvious case. It is decidedly unhelpful that those who claim to know that torture is "always wrong" never seem to envision the circumstances in which good people would be tempted to use it. Critics of my collateral damage argument always ignore the hard case: where the person in custody is known to be involved in terrible acts of violence and where the threat of further atrocities is imminent. If you think such situations never arise, consider what it might be like to capture a high-ranking member of al Qaeda along with several accomplices and their computers. The possibility that such a person might really be "innocent" or that he could "just say anything" to mislead his interrogators begins to seem less of a concern. Such captures bring us closer to a "ticking bomb" scenario than many people are willing to admit.
While I think that torture should remain illegal, it is not clear that having a torture provision in our laws would create as slippery a slope as many people imagine. We have a capital punishment provision, for instance, but this has not led to our killing prisoners at random because we can't control ourselves. While I am strongly opposed to capital punishment, I can readily concede that we are not suffering a total moral chaos in our society because we execute about five people every month. It is not immediately obvious that a rule about torture could not be applied with equal restraint.
It seems probable, however, that any legal use of torture would have unacceptable consequences. In light of this concern, the best strategy I have heard comes from Mark Bowden in his Atlantic Monthly article, "The Dark Art of Interrogation." Bowden recommends that we keep torture illegal, and maintain a policy of not torturing anybody for any reason. But our interrogators should know that there are certain circumstances in which it will be ethical to break the law. Indeed, there are circumstances in which you would have to be a monster not to break the law. If an interrogator finds himself in such a circumstance, and he breaks the law, there will not be much of a will to prosecute him (and interrogators will know this). If he breaks the law Abu Ghraib-style, he will go to jail for a very long time (and interrogators will know this too). At the moment, this seems like the most reasonable policy to me, given the realities of our world.
The best case against "ticking-bomb" arguments appears in David Luban's article, "Liberalism, Torture, and the Ticking Bomb," published in the Virginia Law Review. (I have posted a PDF here.) Luban relies on a few questionable assumptions, however. And he does not actually provide an ethical argument against torture in the ticking bomb case; he offers a pragmatic argument against our instituting a policy allowing torture in such cases. There is absolutely nothing in Luban's argument that rules out the following law:
We will never torture anyone under any circumstances unless we are certain, beyond all reasonable doubt, that the person in our custody has operational knowledge of an imminent act of nuclear terrorism.
It seems to me that unless one can produce an ethical argument against torturing such a person, one does not have an argument against the use of torture in principle. Of course, my discussion of torture in The End of Faith (and on this page) only addresses the ethics of torture, not the practical difficulties of implementing a policy based on the ethics.
While my remarks on torture span only a few pages in a book devoted to reducing the causes of religious violence, many readers have found my views deeply unsettling. (For what it's worth, I do too. It would be much easier to simply be "against torture" across the board and end the discussion.) I have invited readers, both publicly and privately, to produce an ethical argument that takes into account the realities of our world -- our daily acceptance of collateral damage, the real possibility of nuclear terrorism, etc. -- and yet rules out a practice like "water-boarding" in all conceivable circumstances. No one, to my knowledge, has done this. And yet, most people continue to speak and write as though a knock-down argument against torture in all circumstances is readily available. I consider it to be one of the more dangerous ironies of liberal discourse that merely discussing the possibility of torturing a man like Osama bin Laden provokes more outrage than the maiming and murder of children ever does. Until someone actually points out what is wrong with the "collateral damage argument" presented in The End of Faith, I will continue to believe that its critics are just not thinking clearly about the reality of human suffering.
Follow Sam Harris on Twitter: www.twitter.com/SamHarrisOrg
PANETTA: No, I think some of the detainees clearly were, you know, they used these enhanced interrogation techniques against some of these detainees. But I'm also saying that, you know, the debate about whether we would have gotten the same information through other approaches I think is always going to be an open question.
WILLIAMS: So, finer point, one final time, enhanced interrogation techniques -- which has always been kind of a handy euphemism in these post-9/11 years -- that includes waterboarding?
PANETTA: That's correct.
All their coffee and chocolate purchases have been vetted for slave labor?
These purchases are active steps in supporting barbarous activities if these steps have not been taken.
My beans come green from indiviudual fair trade/organic. I'm guilty on the chocolate and electronics.
But with some assertions of "always" and "never" and the implicit purity that goes with it in this comment section, I thought I might point out that merely being present on the internet shows that the "always" "never" conditions have already been broken by everyone here.
I'm not even sure how common the knowledge is with regard to coltan or problems in the coffee and cocoa supplies.
At my college, the 'Hope for Africa' (in association with Reformed University Fellowship) produces documentaries to "raise awareness". You'll have thousands of students in the "Save Darfur" facebook group who don't actually donate any time or money, but feel that they are helping things by "being aware". Then they go back to studying with a cup of Kenyan AA coffee and a fine hershey bar, completely unaware of the back-breaking and often forced labor associated with getting those things. Moreover, they can stay connected to their other "aware" friends via their iPhones and get all the comments from people who let them know how caring and philanthropic they are.
Having said all that, I'm not demanding they quit doing whatever they do, just that they quit the self-righteous and self-rewarding practices, and actually do something that helps (which doesn't mean going to Africa for 4 weeks to have pictures taken in Namibia or another country that is relatively harmonious and tourist-friendly). I've had enough of these people trying to show the social media world how much they care, when the truth about their dedication to humanitarian efforts is just so obvious.
Sorry I just posted a lengthy rant in response, it just got me thinking you know. Good post Buck.
People became sensitized to torture in no time. And in a military prison somewhere, Bradley Manning has sat naked in solitary confinement. In communities everywhere, police officers are using tasers to incapacitate sassy grandmas and other fresh-mouthed scofflaws. I think that if this trajectory continues, torture will work its way into the most banal everyday conflicts.
Isn't it something like only three people who have been waterboarded?
Does the small number there mean we don't have to deal with the ethics of it?
It's a myth that people believe because they want there to be torture, and that's the scenario they consider a slam dunk. The reality has shown that prisoners know less than we think, that they lie and say anything the torturers want to hear just to stop the torture. I would too. Torture produces little if anything of value, and it debases the torturers and us on whose behalf they torture.
If you are unwilling to challenge a personal belief, then you do not hold that belief.
I know that it what you meant and I am in profound agreement.
A lot of posts criticizing Harris here, in much the same spirit as he describes in the article, I believe have missed his point. He is not in favor of t0rture; he clearly isn't cheerleading for Bush and Cheney. He is simply unready to uniformly dismiss it while our general acceptance of collateral damage remains unanswered. As a culture, we do seem to be logically inconsistent in the way he describes.
Harris hasn't changed my mind about t0rture here, but he has made me think about its ethical relationship to collateral damage. There's some value in that.
Collateral damage is Orwellian Doublespeak for Intentional targeting of innocents.
When we target an individual or group, knowing that we will also hit innocents, that is intentional targeting of innocents.
If that target, entered the house of the person with his finger on the button...would the guy still press the button? Of course not.
By the way, throwing out Orwell references only sounds smart if you use it correctly. Orwell wrote about "doublethink," the process of simultaneously believing two directly opposed ideas. He also invented Newspeak, which had nothing to do with euphemistic language.
The truth is, I probably basically agree with you, but the black-and-white way with which you brush off a complex issue makes me annoyed that I do.
First, does that mean *neither intended or expected* or *either not intended or not expected*?
For you, CG, expectation entails intent in this case. Why? This is not always the case. I have grown to expect my posts on HP to be misunderstood. But I do not *intend* them to be misunderstood.
We have a term for expected but unintended consequences: side effects. The doctor prescribes chemotherapy as a treatment for cancer, warning you it will also make you nauseous. But she is not 'targeting' your digestive tract; she is 'targeting' your cancer. She prescribes chemotherapy intending to cause the remission of your cancer, not intending to make you nauseous, even if she quite confident that it will make you nauseous and not at all confident that it will force your cancer into remission.
I had thought 'collateral damage' just military-speak for 'side effect'. But, by including 'unexpected' in its definition, the OED disagrees with me. As I suspect you do, CG. So maybe you can calm down and tell us what you think a non-Orwellian definition of 'collateral damage' might ne, and how it differs from a side effect.
Thanks, mps
Like all unethical acts torture is tempting in the short run. I need money -- steal it. Perhaps the person who has the money is unsympathetic and undeserving. I and my family are sympathetic. Taking the money is quick and easy. Undoubtedly stealing sometimes "works" -- certainly no one can prove it always fails. But stealing is terrible long term strategy. Few thieves die rich, many honest men do.
Like stealing or adultery, torture is sometimes tempting, sometimes "works", but is terrible long term strategy. It corrupts the practitioner, and damages those surrounding the practice.
Even a "successful" act of torture can be unjustified. A success is not much of a success if it creates a martyr, produces numerous new terrorists, inspires future attacks, and costs more lives in the long run. In such a light the moral imperative becomes NOT pursuing the successful act of torture. Even more so, when experience shows us that a multitude of failures is necessary to produce even one success.
Finally, considering the weak-minded, easily corrupted, morally relativistic (relative to how scared they are) individuals who endorse torture, the moral imperative is to emphasize the unethical destructiveness of the act, not the idealized thought experiment that justifies it.
That said, interesting article.
The supposed dilemma arises only when private acts are conflated with public policy. If a person of authority feels it is necessary to t0rture a person in custody, the official must never do it in his official capacity. If he should choose to t0rture in his private capacity he must be judged accordingly. T0rture must never be condoned as a policy of the state.
That's WIN/WIN !
There's an assumption of fact with no links or even quotes to back it up followed by a celebration of human suffering. Pretty much the backbone of every conservative argument.
Facts are facts only if you can back them up.
No one deserves to suffer, the attitude that some people do deserve to suffer is barbaric and one of the ugliest undertones present in our culture and society.
Never confuse emotivism for critical thinking skills
No one has the power to create life from nothing, and no one should have the power to eradicate the life of another living human being.
When we target a house or group...knowing there are also inncocents present, we are also intentionally targeting those innocents.
"What would I do if tortured?" The answer is one of two things, tell them what you think they want to hear... or decide you are going to mess them up and give them totally false "information" making "them" waste time, money, and resources chasing wild geese.
You want to pour water up MY nose, fine.... but it is an action that I personally would never forgive... or forget. I can't imagine that anyone "accidentally" caught up in our war on "terror" (war to steal access to oil) and sent to Git-mo would feel any differently.