A reader writes:
What the torture apologists don't give people credit for is that most people will break the law when they deem it to be the last-resort, unavoidablw, least worst thing to do. If one of the ticking time-bomb scenarios that Harris describes does arise, the interrogator always has the option to break the law and commit torture to save lives. However, it is not institutionally condoned and I think this shifts the consent line to exactly the right point. A torturer would have to justify putting their own ass on the line in order to torture someone. If they were right and foiled some extreme scenario, there are mechanisms by which they could get out of trouble (presidential pardon, etc.) But for our government to condone torture as appropriate under the law makes it way too easy for the horrible situations we saw in Abu Ghraib and Gitmo.
Another writes:
You omitted what I think is a relevant comment that Sam Harris makes later in the interview:
…if you ask me what our policy on torture should be, I think it should be illegal. I think we should say we don't torture, it's illegal, there are good reasons never to do it. Yet I can well imagine an interrogator being in a situation where clearly the ethical thing to do is to make someone uncomfortable until they talk.
This is a somewhat more nuanced and thoughtful position than what I gathered from your post.
Another:
Reading the interview you link to, I don't quite see in Harris' words what you see. He does not appear to be making a case for legalizing torture or for justifying the Bush regime's use of torture. What he is clearly saying is that blind doctrine about torture – in which its use can never be discussed, its relative value never weighed – is hypocritical in light of our apathy over collateral damage. He wonders if our issue with torture isn't more a cognitive issue than a moral one – we tend to react more strongly when the person we are hurting is identifiable than when lots of people are killed at once. But wondering these things and calling out the hypocrisy is hardly shilling for torture.
Another:
I find your criticisms of Harris's logic on torture to be hollow. For years you have conceded that in the highly improbable "ticking time bomb" scenario, torture is justified:
In extremis, a rough parallel can be drawn for a president faced with the kind of horrendous decision on which Krauthammer rests his entire case. What should a president do? The answer is simple: He may have to break the law.
Despite all of the extreme caveats that you attach to your conclusion, you still admit that torture may be an acceptable or even necessary decision. A truly courageous stance, and I believe the correct one, is that torture is always and everywhere wrong. It should never be done under any circumstances. But such unequivocal morality may smell too much like fundamentalism for your tastes.
One of your peculiar characteristics in moral reasoning is that you always leave a little wiggle room in which you can casuistically maneuver to your desired conclusion (see: abortion). In this case, it just feels wrong to conclude that the president should sacrifice New York rather than torture one individual. By opening up a crack in the logical foundation, you undermine the whole moral edifice. If there is a difference between you and Harris, it is merely where each of you is willing to draw a line that should never be drawn.
Yes. And yes. Practically speaking there is little daylight between us. But in the interview, Sam conflated the rare theoretical act of torture with the routine torture techniques of the Bush administration. It seemed to me to go too far in justifying what they did. And there is an approach to torture which seems to me to give too much credit to its practical effect and too blithe in its treatment. But in the entire context of the interview – and of his other writing on the subject – it's clear he does not defend the war crimes of the recent past. And there are nuances and care in his written prose that can sometimes be lost in conversation.
The Dish 