I was pondering something similar just this week. The results of torture are the same. If you resort to "ends justifying means" arguments and you use means that are essentially corrupt, even if it's for a good end, you've entered into a Devil's Bargain.
There will be a price for this. There is always a price. The first law of thermodynamics is universal.
Sometimes the price may be worth it, but there's no way of knowing in *advance* what some of the long term consequences will be. Allying with Stalin was seen as *necessary* to win WWII. Allying with Hussein was seen as a means to the end of opposing the advance of Communism. And on and on it goes.
And by the time you're in a situation where torture is seen as the only way to accomplish your goals in the time you have, it's really too late.
The time to not "fall off the wagon" for an alcoholic is when you refuse that first drink. The second, the third, the fourth, all of those get progressively harder, and the consequences for bad choices in increasingly impaired conditions is... Worse. Why is anyone ever surprised by this phenomenon?
The problem with seeing "situations" where torture is necessary completely avoids and COPS OUT of the reality that that "situation" is inevitably the result of a CHAIN of bad choices that have already cascaded. Choosing torture at that time, therefore, will make the Big Picture worse, not better.
That BTW, is also why I am increasingly confident that our Republican "majority" government, with it's ostensible "mandate" is going to fail on itself. They keep making these *bad* choices and justify their means by citing their noble "goals". And they keep digging themselves deeper and deeper into moral and fiscal debt doing it. Sooner or later they'll have to pay. Nixon did, Clinton did, Bush will.
"There will be a price for this. There is always a price. The first law of thermodynamics is universal."
Yup. TANSTAAFL. But it's human nature to keep hoping for exceptions to that. *sigh*
"Allying with Stalin was seen as *necessary* to win WWII. Allying with Hussein was seen as a means to the end of opposing the advance of Communism. And on and on it goes."
A light bulb just went on. This is like introducing a non-native organism to deal with an environmental problem, having unintended consequences bite you in the ass, bringing in a non-native predator to deal with the first non-native organism, discovering a new round of unintended consequences ... and now I've got a song stuck in my head. "I don't know why she swallowed the fly. I think she'll die."
I'm not sure why I didn't make the connection between the environmental and political manifistations of this particular error until now.
"Why is anyone ever surprised by this phenomenon?"
We may solve a lot of other problems if we answer that one question.
(no subject)
If you resort to "ends justifying means" arguments and you use means that are essentially corrupt, even if it's for a good end, you've entered into a Devil's Bargain.
There will be a price for this. There is always a price. The first law of thermodynamics is universal.
Sometimes the price may be worth it, but there's no way of knowing in *advance* what some of the long term consequences will be.
Allying with Stalin was seen as *necessary* to win WWII.
Allying with Hussein was seen as a means to the end of opposing the advance of Communism. And on and on it goes.
And by the time you're in a situation where torture is seen as the only way to accomplish your goals in the time you have, it's really too late.
The time to not "fall off the wagon" for an alcoholic is when you refuse that first drink. The second, the third, the fourth, all of those get progressively harder, and the consequences for bad choices in increasingly impaired conditions is... Worse. Why is anyone ever surprised by this phenomenon?
The problem with seeing "situations" where torture is necessary completely avoids and COPS OUT of the reality that that "situation" is inevitably the result of a CHAIN of bad choices that have already cascaded. Choosing torture at that time, therefore, will make the Big Picture worse, not better.
That BTW, is also why I am increasingly confident that our Republican "majority" government, with it's ostensible "mandate" is going to fail on itself. They keep making these *bad* choices and justify their means by citing their noble "goals". And they keep digging themselves deeper and deeper into moral and fiscal debt doing it. Sooner or later they'll have to pay. Nixon did, Clinton did, Bush will.
(no subject)
Yup. TANSTAAFL. But it's human nature to keep hoping for exceptions to that. *sigh*
"Allying with Stalin was seen as *necessary* to win WWII. Allying with Hussein was seen as a means to the end of opposing the advance of Communism. And on and on it goes."
A light bulb just went on. This is like introducing a non-native organism to deal with an environmental problem, having unintended consequences bite you in the ass, bringing in a non-native predator to deal with the first non-native organism, discovering a new round of unintended consequences ... and now I've got a song stuck in my head. "I don't know why she swallowed the fly. I think she'll die."
I'm not sure why I didn't make the connection between the environmental and political manifistations of this particular error until now.
"Why is anyone ever surprised by this phenomenon?"
We may solve a lot of other problems if we answer that one question.