In my open letter to an interrogator, I point out a serious problem with Terry Karney's "utilitarian" argument against torture: It's only as good as his data. Another blogger makes a similar point:
Consequentialist arguments are very efficient because people are generally willing to change their mind easily on those matters... but what make them successful also makes them weak : they can be replaced with other consequentialist arguments. Moral arguments are much tougher to make because people are more reluctant to accept a new moral philosophy, but they are also much more stable, and will likely be successfully passed onto children. Every consequentialist argument however is a step away from freedom as an end instead of freedom as a means. On the long term, the fate of the new belief is unknown... it may be replaced with an economic fallacy. It's negative effect on morality will always be damaging though.
Karney wants to do away with all torture. He offers the "utilitarian" case: "torture doesn't work". But every example where torture does work undermines this case. In order to preserve it, he has to refute each of these examples. In most cases, he doesn't have the data to refute them, and relies instead on smears against those who report the examples. His repeated use of such ad hominem attacks only weakens his case. Thus, in the long run, his use of a "utilitarian" argument against torture undermines the case he is trying to make.
No comments:
Post a Comment