Torture Part 4: Justification

The main question surrounding torture today is whether or not there is ever a case where it is justifiable. Would torturing someone to save the lives of thousands be considered right? Can you torture someone to save the life of just one other person? What if that one person is close to you, and your judgment clouded by your own distress? Can you ever really be certain that the person you are torturing is going to tell you what you want to know in time, or that they even know anything at all? It seems as though there is a never-ending stream of questions that jeopardize any attempt to legitimize an instance of torture. When, then, could we say it is acceptable, or is there ever even a case where it is? To save the life of one other person is to say that the attempted murder committed by the recipient is more heinous an act than the torture used against them to prevent that murder. To torture in order to save the lives of thousands is to say that, despite the probability of not getting the proper information in time or even having the right person to torture, it is acceptable to at least try because of what is at stake. Whether or not to torture becomes increasingly relative, almost to the point of there being no case in which every question is answered sufficiently and efficiently enough to justify the act before the torture even begins. So, is it then right to say that anyone who engages in an act of torture has ignored one of these questions, and is therefore acting immorally? I believe that it is. Without sufficient justification prior to torturing, the act then becomes questionable and, because of its incredibly violent nature, immoral.

In what hypothetical cases could torture be completely justified, if any?
Are any of these cases realistic or probable enough to reasonably institutionalize or excuse torture?

Torture Part 3: Mental

Defining extreme mental pain is significantly more difficult than defining physical pain simply because it is so much more subjective. Not everyone can be tortured mentally in the same ways. A sociopath would not give in so easily to seeing friends and family tortured as a mentally sound person, nor would the average person be distressed as easily by certain cases where any number of a group of animals such as rats, spiders or snakes were introduced as someone who had a phobia of these animals. A person's metal fortitude also becomes a factor, as many terrorists have likely undergone training to desensitize themselves, as well as having a goal in mind that is important enough to them to withstand the mental distress at any cost to themselves until their objective is complete. Extreme mental torture, then, is only truly discernible in the aftermath; does the recipient develop a phobia, or some kind of mental disorder, or do they suffer an extreme physical reaction as a result of their mental stimuli (e.g. a heart attack or going into shock)? Mental torture, unlike physical torture, is a true gamble; you can never be sure of exactly how much you are going to damage a person when distressing them psychologically, as every person is different.

Torture Part 2: Physical

To define physically hurting a person, one must be causing the recipient distress in a bodily manner. To define the extreme physical pain required for torture becomes a case by case scenario. If a person is restrained and the torturer has the objective of breaking their will for some purpose, then all that is left is to cause severe physical pain. If, for instance, the torturer decided to simply slap the recipient, then the pain is not necessarily extreme. It is highly unlikely that a terrorist in a ticking-bomb scenario would give in to his captors if they were causing him a physical distress that could be easily managed. Excessively harming the person, such as cutting them in multiple places, searing their skin with hot irons, drilling through their teeth or sticking needles underneath their fingernails is a case where the recipient may, eventually, reveal the information. However, since the method used to obtain this information has now reached a point of extreme physical violence, then the case has become one of torture. To define "extreme physical pain" in any case is subjective, although there the eventuality to which a majority would agree that there is, in fact, a discernible point of "extreme" on a case by case basis.

Torture Part 1: Definition

There is a reason why torture must include the following: 1. A restriction of autonomy, 2. The desire to break the recipient's will, and 3. the use of extreme physical or mental pain/anguish. To remove any or two of the three breaks the definition of torture, and the act simply becomes another instance entirely.
Cases involving only certain criteria:
#1: This is simply restricting a person's ability to do things on their own, such as a parent holding back their child from crossing the street when cars are coming, to putting a prisoner in jail or a rehabilitation center to, in the former, make society safer, and, in the latter, make the criminal a better person. This is not torture, it is simply confinement.
#2: A person's will can be broken through coercion, and torture is a form of extreme coercion. However, offering a person a large sum of money in return for information is not torture, though tempting their greed can be seen as a way of breaking their will. Whether or not what the person then reveals is true is not important; an attempt has been made to break their will, and it could work, given proper circumstances. This is simply coercion.
#3: Hurting a person without the intent to gain information from their or without restricting their autonomy is one of two cases: either it is malicious, and is just violence, or it is abuse, and abuse, by it's own definition, is a separate case from torture.
#1 and #2: A person who is restricted who's will is made to be broken results in a number of cases that are not actually torture. A prisoner wants to be free, but they are held in jail. They also may hold a desire to harm others, but, in the ideal prison scenario, then punishment they are undergoing is an attempt to deter them from doing such. However, a prisoner rarely undergoes mental or physical pain; in that case, it would be torture. A prisoner who is simply kept in his cell and prohibited from committing the violent or illegal acts that landed him/her there is not torture, then.
#1 and #3: A person who is restricted and is undergoing extreme physical or mental pain is not being tortured, they are being radically abused. If there is no desire to break their will, then the case becomes one of maliciousness on the part of the propagator; they are hurting another with no desired outcome, and it is not clear when they will stop, or if they will stop before the recipient has died due to their condition.
#2 and #3: Holding a gun to a person on the street is not a restriction of autonomy. It is, however, an attempt to break the person's will, whether they are being robbed or questioned for information, and it can become a case of extreme physical or mental pain, e.g., shooting the victim in non-vital places so as to break their will, or turning the gun on a family member or loved one so as to cause anguish on the part of the victim. It is possible to harm someone for a reason without breaking their autonomy, and as long as the person has a way to escape or fight back, and is aware that they have this choice, then it is not torture, it is simply violence.
It is the meshing of these three criteria, then, that defines torture. A person must be restrained, they must be undergoing extreme physical or mental distress, and the torturer must have some objective in mind that involves breaking the person's will.

A Tale of Three Blacksmiths

This is an explanation that shows what I believe to be the differences between benign and invidious envy, as well as fitting or unwarranted envy.
There are three blacksmiths in the same village. They all vary in skill level; one is fairly good with the basics, the second is becoming very good at specific kinds of tasks, specifically weapons and armor, and the third is a master of all trades. Their king comes to town, looking to promote one of them to head blacksmith back at the keep. He decides to promote the second one, the one who is good with weapons and armor. When the other two hear of this, they both becomes envious of the prestigious position, but for different reasons. The beginner blacksmith decides that, in order to impress other potential employers, he will continue to improve his trade and become the best in the land. This is benign envy. The master blacksmith, however, is angry, and thinks that he should have gotten the position. This is invidious envy. He goes on to become upset with his mediocre counterpart, thinking he should have gotten the position and that the man who did is unworthy. This is resentment. As well as these forms of envy, it could be said that the beginner blacksmith's envy was fitting, for he was upset but did not deserve the position, while the master's envy was warranted, as he was the most qualified candidate and therefore has justification for the way he feels.

Why might the assumptions I have made about what these characters feel and why they should feel what they do be wrong?

The Story of Capitalism

Humans work in groups to accomplish tasks that they would otherwise not be able to do. Whether or not they do it for their own gains or for the gains of the group is irrelevant, the fact is, they choose to do it. We have computers, cars, large buildings, electricity grids, running water, etc., not because humans chose to work alone and for their own gain, but because they chose to work together for the betterment of the group as a whole. However, America breeds the idea of the individual making their way to the top, and Capitalism breeds competition. Put these two together, and you have the perfect mixture for the ruthless and greedy among the group to take control away from the others. Who builds our computers, cars, buildings, puts up power lines and lays down pipe for running water? The people at the bottom, the ones left behind. They're the ones still doing the job we value, the ones still working towards the betterment of the group. Who rose to the top, and is making several hundred times more than any of them? The one who decided to be the "executive", the person so far removed from the actual task, they have little to nothing to do with actually providing the service. They are businessmen; they make all the profit by making the wages of the group (the ones who are actually providing you with the essential service of the company) close to nothing. So, they get to take home millions of dollars, the people who actually provide the service live on welfare or in the lower class, and the group as a whole continues to suffer. Why does it continue to suffer? It needs those resources! There's only so much money that a person will need to live well, only so many millions of dollars before it just becomes excess. Wouldn't it be nice if a CEO who earned $40 million running a company of 12,000 last year had decided to split his check with the rest of the company and give them all a $3,000 bonus? I don't know of many wire-splitters or pipe-layers that would say they wouldn't want that check at the end of the year. The math for this still comes out to be a $4 million pay for the CEO, which is reasonable enough, considering no human being nor family of human beings actually needs $4 million, proven by the fact that there are families of workers within that company who would value the extra $3000! Sure my company is hypothetical, but it wouldn't be hard to find examples like this all over the country. There are just a few people who have propelled themselves to the top, and they seem to think the drastically large amounts they earn are justified while they leave behind those who are fulfilling the very services those at the top are getting paid so much to manage.

Is it reasonable that so executives make so much?
It is reasonable that some employees makes so little?

Response: "Why do we incarcerate such a high number of people?" - Lauren

I agree with the main points of your post, that the situation in our prisons doesn't look good, and that it is hard to determine where a lot of our prisoners come from. Part of the problem, I believe, is how we deal with "criminals". Just what makes a person a criminal, and what kind of rationale is used to determine how long they are sentenced?
This is an interesting story I heard from a friend a while back. His cousin had been asked a favor by a friend; she was to give him a lift, just a short ride, only about a half hour. When they crossed state lines and entered the town the cousin's friend had been asked to go to, they were pulled over by the police. Both of them were arrested, and it turns out that a warrant had been put out for the friend, as it was revealed that he was a fairly "big-time" drug dealer. The two were charged, one with the possession and distribution of illicit substances, the other with the voluntary transport of a wanted man. The drug dealer got 3 years, the woman 9. Arbitrarily, she was given a sentence three times longer than the sentence of her friend, since the minimum requirements of the law said that she must get at least 9, whereas the drug dealer hired lawyers that got his sentence knocked down to 3. So, morally, what's the bigger crime, selling dangerous drugs to people of all ages, or transporting a drug dealer who is also a friend when you are unaware of why he is asking you for a ride? I find this to be a failure of our law system, that the minimum requirements imposed by precedents remove any opportunity to truly judge on a case by case basis. This woman clearly did not deserve nine years in jail, morally, but she was forced to serve them and is now considered a convict, legally.
It's cases like this that build up our prisons. Relatively innocent people locked away for an arbitrary number of years so the people on the outside can feel a sense of security coupled with vengeance. If only we could do away with such petty feelings towards those who wronged us, then maybe we'd realize that the cousin was innocent and the drug dealer needed a better education system so s to get a well-paying job.

Are there some criminals who are truly impossible to rehabilitate?

Flying your Opponent's Flag

As an analogy: Two armies with the same flag, same armor and same weapons approach each other in civil war. They both claim to be fighting for the same cause and they both approach the field with the same desire to see their side win. What separates these armies? They must have some disagreement, otherwise they wouldn't be fighting each other.
This is how I view the redefining of the word "patriot". If you say "I am working to make a new kind of patriotism," then you are bound to confuse your opponents. Your argument is different than theirs, and to make clear your differences you cannot simply repeat, "I am trying to be my version of a patriot." Instead, you would say something along the lines of, "You think a patriot is someone who supports their country no matter what, and I think a patriot is someone who plays a positive, active role in the development of their country while still admitting to its faults and mistakes." Why then does this sentence have to include "patriot"? It still makes just as much sense without the word, "I think one should support their country's good, justifiable actions and will protest when it does wrong, rather than support it no matter what." The word "patriot", then, has become an interesting mixture of redundancy and uselessness. Our arguments do not have to be summed up using the same vocabulary as our opponents; they can speak for themselves. I agree with Robert Jensen that we can indeed say "goodbye" to patriotism. We can fly a stronger and more straightforward flag than our opponents by emphasizing the differences in our ideals. By removing the word "patriot" from discussion, we get to the root of the actual issue at hand, rather than getting bogged down in different definitions and opposing views of a particular word. Those who believe in community and the core principles of democracy should therefore not feel a need to somehow be "patriotic"; we can easily let the word die along with it's negative connotations, and move forward with this new-found sense of working together for unity in good and dissent in evil.

What makes a "moderate American patriot", meaning someone who will applaud at their country's best and protest at it's worst, any different than a democratic citizen?
(enough so that continuing to use the word "patriot" would assist such a philosophy?)