To the Editor:
Re “A Dubious C.I.A. Shortcut” (Op-Ed, April 24):
Philip Zelikow uses a cost-benefit framework to assess whether the United States should torture its enemies. He says that a “thoughtful inquiry parsing the pros and cons is necessary” to ascertain whether torture’s “added value” outweighs its downsides.
Like Mr. Zelikow, I agree that torture’s costs outweigh its benefits. That said, Mr. Zelikow’s framing of the issue echoes the kind of thinking that led us to use torture in the first place.
Decent nations do not engage in torture, regardless of whether its benefits outweigh its costs.
Aaron Belkin
Berkeley, Calif., April 24, 2009
The writer is an associate professor of political science at the University of California, Santa Barbara.
Note from KBJ: Logically, there are three possible positions on torture. The first is that torture is intrinsically wrong and may never be performed, no matter how much evil will be prevented thereby. Fiat justitia, ruat cœlum. The second is that torture is intrinsically wrong but may be performed when a certain threshold of preventable evil is reached. The third is that torture is not intrinsically wrong and should be performed whenever the act produces more good (or prevents more evil) than any alternative, counting everyone equally. The first position is absolutist deontology. The second is moderate deontology. The third is consequentialism. The letter writer is an absolutist deontologist. Almost no moral philosopher outside of the Roman Catholic tradition endorses such a doctrine. Most moral philosophers think it is a nonstarter. Where are the moral philosophers? Why are they not criticizing the new absolutists? Where, in particular, is Peter Singer, the consequentialist? He does not hesitate to criticize the sanctity-of-life doctrine, which holds that it is always wrong to take innocent human life. Why is he not criticizing those who are willing to allow tens of thousands of innocent human beings to suffer and die rather than inflict pain on one suspected terrorist? Is this a case of putting political correctness ahead of moral principle?
Note 2 from KBJ: The letter writer believes that torture is wrong, no matter how much evil it prevents. Does he believe that killing the innocent is wrong, no matter how much evil it prevents? In particular, is he opposed to abortion? If not, then, unless there is a morally relevant difference between fetuses and infants, he is inconsistent. Please note that he cannot invoke the interests or rights of women. An absolutist doesn't weigh harms. If killing the innocent is intrinsically and absolutely wrong, then, if fetuses are innocent, no amount of harm to their mothers can justify killing them.
Note 3 from KBJ: To be consistent, the letter writer would have to prefer painful deaths for himself and his extended family to the infliction of pain on a single suspected terrorist. How many of you think that if he were in a position to make such a choice, he would say, "Don't torture! Let us die!" Why, then, is he willing to allow other people and their families to die horrible deaths? Is this simply a failure of imagination? Is it a case of selfishness? Has he not thought the matter through? It's mind-boggling to hear intelligent people say such preposterous things. But hey, it's academia. It's why we have the expression, "It's academic."
Keith Burgess-Jackson, J.D., Ph.D. 