Moral Equivalency

Is every given action absolutely good or absolutely evil? Are there some actions for which the motive is an important determining factor in whether that action is good, morally neutral, or evil? Are there some actions for which the result is an important determining factor?

Essentially, can the reason justify the means; can the end justify the means?

Take the following situation into account:
Person A shoots Person B; Person B dies.

Without knowing more about the situation, is it possible to determine the morality of this action?

Let's say that Person A is a police officer. Person B is a man committing armed robbery of an innocent Person C. By shooting Person B, Person A has saved Person C from harm. In this circumstance, was the action morally justified? However, suppose instead that Person A is a criminal committing the armed robbery of Person B. The morality of the situation becomes entirely different, yet the action itself was the same.

In the first scenario, the reason - the motive was to protect Person C. The end was the rescue of Person C. In this scenario, although Person A killed Person B, Person A has not committed murder. Murder is, then, defined as an unjustified killing, a killing with an unjust motive and an unjust end. In the second scenario, the reason - the motive was to exploit Person B, to gain some material benefit - ostensibly, Person B's property. The end was the theft of Person B's property and the loss of Person B's life. In this scenario, Person A has killed Person B, and Person A has committed murder.

Now, consider this:
Person A waterboards Person B.

Suppose Person A's reason for doing so is to punish Person B, to gain pleasure, or even to gain information. Suppose also that Person B divulges information, and the end use of that information is to facilitate the commission of murder. Has Person A tortured Person B?

Suppose Person A's reason for doing so is only to gain information. Suppose also that Person A has taken medical and physical precautions to prevent permanent harm to Person B. Suppose that Person B divulges information, and the end use of that information is to facilitate the saving of one life. The saving of one hundred lives. The saving of one thousand lives. Has Person A tortured Person B?

It may be helpful to know - in order to make your decision - that waterboarding, according to the memos released by the Obama Administration, is a technique specifically designed to cause no lasting physical or psychological damage. The subject, even though he knows that he is not actually drowning and that no real harm will befall them, experiences a sensation of drowning. At no time do they actually believe that they will drown or that they will die. They merely experience an uncomfortable sensation that they cannot avoid. Specific medical precautions are taken to ensure that the subject is not physically harmed.

Countless attendees of the Survive, Evade, Resist, Escape (SERE) military course - where military personnel are trained to resist divulging sensitive information to captors if taken as a prisoner of war - have been waterboarded. If our own servicemembers can be waterboarded with no lasting psychological damage, then we cannot go so far as to label waterboarding as "torture" simply by virtue of its severity.

Edit, 07:55 28 APR 2009:

If waterboarding met the legal and moral definition of torture, could we, under any circumstances - whether for training or not - apply that technique to our own servicemembers? My argument is that if it were so horrendous and severe as to be labeled torture, it would be illegal and immoral to use in every circumstance, including for training and regardless of consent. Do our servicemembers fire real bullets at one another to train for combat? No, they use blanks and laser gear. Do our servicemembers torture one another to train for the possibility of capture? No, they use waterboarding. Since we may obviously use it as a training aid, it must not be torture.

End edit, 07:55 28 APR 2009

Edit, 16:35 27 APR 2009:

In response to the claim that the definition of torture is "prolonged physical discomfort," I offer this counterclaim:

US CODE: Title 18, Part I, Chapter 113C, § 2340

As used in this chapter—

(1) “torture” means an act committed by a person acting under the color of law specifically intended to inflict severe physical or mental pain or suffering (other than pain or suffering incidental to lawful sanctions) upon another person within his custody or physical control;

(2) “severe mental pain or suffering” means the prolonged mental harm caused by or resulting from—

(A) the intentional infliction or threatened infliction of severe physical pain or suffering;

(B) the administration or application, or threatened administration or application, of mind-altering substances or other procedures calculated to disrupt profoundly the senses or the personality;

(C) the threat of imminent death; or

(D) the threat that another person will imminently be subjected to death, severe physical pain or suffering, or the administration or application of mind-altering substances or other procedures calculated to disrupt profoundly the senses or personality

As I previously stated, waterboarding was devised specifically so as not to meet the standard of torture. To water down the definition of "torture" to include discomfort is your prerogative, but you simply cannot claim that this definition is the legal definition according to US law.

End edit, 16:35 27 APR 2009

It IS always wrong to murder. It IS always wrong to torture. But is it always wrong to kill? Is it always wrong to waterboard? You decide.

Edit, 09:25 28 APR 2009

Every person maintains a certain standard that determines the lengths to which they are willing to go to save lives. There is a legal and moral definition of torture, and that definition does not comprise a list of techniques that you, as an individual, are unwilling to perform.

If we are not willing to make the self-declared enemies of our culture, our people, and our state extremely uncomfortable in order to save the lives of our people, that is our prerogative as a polity. However, to retroactively prosecute an administration that was willing to use calculated, enhanced techniques on certainly knowledgeable, high-value individuals when the conventional interrogative process failed is unacceptable.

End edit, 09:25 28 APR 2009