Moral Absolutism and Torture

With the "Torture Memos" released recently by the Obama administration, there has been much debate about torture and whether to prosecute the torturers etc. The most difficult part of writing this blog on torture is where to start. There is the debate on whether or not it is right to torture with one side of the argument saying it is okay to torture to save lives. There is another debate on whether what the Bush administration allowed to occur was torture or just "enhanced interrogation techniques." Ah, semantics. For my purposes here, it's all torture, and I won't give anyone a pass because they call it something else. Rationalization and justification is all that it is so they can sleep better at night.

The argument comes down to whether or not it is right to torture to obtain information that might save lives. Was the Bush Administration correct in allowing torture to occur on the suspected terrorist prisoners? There are two competing moral philosophies that come into play when arguing whether or not the actions of our Administration were correct. There is utilitarianism and moral absolutism. The utilitarian argument states that the action that brings about the greatest benefit is the correct action. Moral absolutism would argue that an action is either always right or always wrong no matter what the circumstances.

Those that are arguing in favor of torture, are using the utilitarian philosophy by saying that the torture was justified because it stopped future acts of terrorism, future loss of American lives, etc. Therefore, the torture was the correct action and the perpetrators should not be punished.

Those arguing from the perspective of moral absolutism would argue that torture is always wrong or always right. Putting that into the perspective of Christian ethical philosophy, the moral absolutist argument would, therefore, be torture is always wrong in any situation even if it potentially saves lives. I would be remiss if I did not mention that this falls under the categorical imperative as developed by philosopher Immanuel Kant. The ends should not justify the means.

Personally, I subscribe to this moral absolutist philosophy. It is always wrong to torture. Those who would use torture, therefore, are capable of using it in any situation, even if it does not result in some sort of greater benefit, which is scary.

The irony here is, most of the people arguing that the torture was justified are Republicans, "right-wingers" or consider themselves to be Christian or whatever (non-liberals). Those arguing that torture is wrong tend to be those of us liberals (on the left side of the political spectrum), you know seen by the Republicans as godless heathens.

I don't find the utilitarian argument to be consistent with Christianity whereas the moral absolutist philosophy is. Christian moral philosophy is absolutist. Clearly, this is a case more hypocrisy from the right-wing.