The definition of torture 2
The Catholic Church has declared that torture is intrinsically — always — wrong. But it is not totally clear what constitutes torture, and what does not. The subject regularly crops on on places like Mark Shea's blog, which has still not come up with a useful definition. Instead, Mark offers four suggestions for coming up with a definition (so that he doesn't actually define torture, but indirectly offers places that a definition might be found):
Try a dictionary
Well the Oxford English Dictionary offers the following as a definition: "The infliction of severe bodily pain, as punishment or a means of persuasion". That has problems: what does "severe" mean? Different people might legitimately have different subjective opinions about that, and that is incompatible with the notion of torture being something intrinsically wrong.
Consult the Geneva Conventions
But who were the people who came up with the Geneva Conventions, and why should we trust them?
Ask a cop. They have regulations which govern their treatment of prisoners.
Which cops?
Check the Army Field Manual on how to treat prisoners.
Which army, and which version of which manual, and why?
I'm of the opinion that Mark considers the definition of torture as something requiring only a limited amount of common-sense, and consequently that attempts to ask for something more precise are symptomatic of a wish to evade awkward questions about political and practical conduct. He may be right about that for some people, but not for all. In which case the lack of a definition hurts his cause (which is in fact my cause, since we share the Church's cause, and belief in its teaching). I'm extremely dubious that his approach is capable of coming up with a definition that is an intrinsic one, and not merely subjective.
I suggested an approach to an actual definition before, and would like to tune it further. I start from this principle:
It is always morally wrong to inflict pain on someone that is not to their direct benefit.
To clarify this (particularly the word "direct"), we need to consider some hypothetical cases:
- Suppose I vaccinate someone against a disease via a painful injection. Can that be allowable? Surely so, because the direct result is that the person has received a chance of not getting the disease.
- Suppose I give someone a unwilling painful injection, with its only purpose being the intention of subsequently giving them $1000 as compensation. Is that allowable? No, because there is no direct link between the $1000 and the pain. (You could give them the $1000 without the injection, or you could change your mind after the injection.)
- Suppose I put someone in prison (after a just verdict) as punishment for a crime. Is that allowable? Yes, because it directly gives them the opportunity of redressing (in various ways) the disorder caused by the offense.
What then is torture? It would be the morally-wrong infliction of severe pain.
But doesn't such a definition leave itself open to the objection that "severe" isn't defined, and would be subjective? No, because in this case "severe" doesn't determine whether the action is morally wrong; even such actions below the level of severe are morally wrong.
The role of conscience
Besides torture being wrong, the Church has also taught (in Veritatis Splendor) that attempts to coerce the spirit are always wrong. This means attempts to coerce a person into acting against his conscience. In ordinary secular matters of crime, this is hardly ever of significance — criminals rarely steal because their conscience tells them to.
But during wars, it is much more common for conscience to be an issue. It is not unheard of for both sides in a war to be convinced that they are fighting because it is morally right to fight. In such cases, it is much easier to offend by an attempt at coercion. If I say to someone convinced of the rightness of their cause: "If you tell me your army's plans, I will give you a house and money," then I am wrongly attempting to coerce them to act against their conscience. Such cases do not get the attention necessary, though they are currently very relevant.
There’s a simple reason I give these definitions: they are the best I have. I am neither a moral theologian, nor a law enforcement professional. So I follow subsidiarity and refer people to those who are likely to have expertise in this area. People who are actually interest in knowing what is illicit coercion say, “Thanks” and go consult with those more like to have expertise than me. People who are bound and determined to be baffled and make the case for fog lie and say I refuse to give a definition and lament their terrible confusion about the difference between waterboarding and saying “hands up” while steadfastly refusing to lift a finger to offer one themselves.
My point, as I weary of saying, is that the real question is not what exactly precisely is torture anyway? The real question is “How do we treat prisoners humanely?” If you aim to treat prisoners humanely you will not accidently torture them. If you aim to tiptoe right up to torture but not quite cross the line, you are already on the same dubious moral ground as the married man who wonders how far he can go with the secretary before it’s technically precisely exactly adultery.
You’re right – those cases of bribing people for “information” have not come sufficiently to the public’s attention. I’ve heard reports on BBC and NPR that that’s exactly how a lot of innocent people ended up in Guantanemo Bay. The military offerd a few thousand dollars for info on Al Quida, which is a lot of money there, and people started turning in others just for cash.
From what I’ve heard and read, torture is also well known to produce false confessions and other forms of misinformation. To me this doesn’t really seem too surprising. If you tell someone you’ll either make them rich or beat them up for saying what you want them to say, a lot of people are going to tell you what you want to hear! But the Cheney Bush administration seems convinced, all evidence to the contrary not withstanding, that force or threat of force is pretty much always the way to go.