I have a lot of respect for Sam Harris, and his attack on
irrational religious belief in general (The
End of Faith, 2004). I don’t entirely
agree with all of his points. For example, I think he is a bit too doctrinaire in
condemning (I'm paraphrasing here) the enabling
effect of “liberal” Christianity, in particular, as having the effect of
giving a pass to irrational beliefs that are actually practiced and cause harm
by more fundamentalist Christians. (He argues that, essentially, all of Islam
is fundamentalist, which is also arguably an exaggeration).
Still, his arguments are well reasoned and very well
written. I recommend this book to anyone who wants to consider the position and
moral value (or otherwise) of religious faith
in a world where the necessity of rational policy decisions is becoming more
and more critical, to the point even of being a question of survival of our
civilization.
He makes one argument, however, that I genuinely abhor,
namely a claim that equates, in terms of ethics, “collateral damage” in warfare with
torture. He argues that collateral damage is much more ethically problematic
than is generally acknowledged; but that there are situations where it is the ethical choice. He then argues
that, at least as a thought experiment (the “ticking time bomb” type
situation), there are circumstances where torture may be ethically justifiable.
(Not that it should be legal, but
that it could, in extreme cases, be moral). Much has
already been written about this (see his own response here), so my comments
here are no doubt not original (especially since it’s been eight years since
this book appeared). Nonetheless, here goes:
I think any equation of collateral damage in war with
torture is simply fallacious. Harris himself elsewhere talks about “perfect
weapons,” and the fact that they don’t exist; collateral damage is the
intentionally invoked probability of death and suffering being caused to
innocents which necessarily results from waging even “just war.” So far, so
good. But there is no specific intent
to harm; every effort is made to avoid harming anyone other than so-called
legitimate targets, and there is an at least tacitly acknowledged
responsibility to strive, continually, to make weapons ever more perfect, so that
danger and harm to noncombatants is minimized, or, better, eliminated. These
are the moral imperatives of those who would attempt “just war.”
Torture is entirely different. Even the most evil person,
taken prisoner, is not only no longer a combatant, he is not even in the
theater of war. He is in custody.
Prisoners, who are by definition under the control of their captors and no
longer capable of waging warfare in return, in a civilized society, are treated not under
the rules of engagement with combatants, but under legal process. I hold as an absolute tenet that under such
circumstances, it is never justified
to use torture. Not only because it creates a slippery slope where unchecked
state power is likely to lead to all manner of hideous, and increasingly
terrible, consequences, with more and more people falling into categories of
prisoners for whom torture is deemed justified, but because centuries of
terrible experience has proven, once and for all, that torture does not work;
that its results are uniformly unreliable and indeed useless.
So, on this point, I think Sam Harris is flatly and entirely
wrong.
Nonetheless, much of what he has to say in The End of Faith and the more recent The Moral Landscape and Lying
is very well thought through, original, and highly probative.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Gyromantic Informicon. Comments are not moderated. If you encounter a problem, please go to home page and follow directions to send me an e-mail.