Can we Take the Easy Way Out by Assuming that Torture is Both Morally Wrong and Ineffective?

Medical ethicist M. Gregg Bloche argues “no” (May 29 Washington Post). Those who decry torture can’t have it both ways. His review of the available information argues that torture can, indeed, be effective—but not through the commonly accepted mechanism. Enhanced interrogation methods such as waterboarding can initially stiffen resistance, as many suppose. The underlying theory, however, is that harsh measures can lead to truth-telling by inducing hopelessness, which allows interrogators to “shape behavior through small rewards” such as bathroom breaks and an occasional kind word (known in other contexts as the “good cop, bad cop” strategy). Bloche therefore concludes that we must make the difficult choice between the moral repugnance of torture and its potential efficacy.

Contrary to Bloche’s view, however, only those who fool themselves on the moral issue face a difficult choice. Would those who say that waterboarding and similar methods are morally wrong refuse to use them if there were the slightest chance they might produce information that could actually -- actually -- save the life of their spouse or one of their children? Would they argue, as they now do, that critical information might be obtained through less-harsh methods? Wouldn’t they take the opposite view: “I don’t care; I would do whatever I could if there were some chance of saving my family’s life. It cannot be morally wrong to take action to protect my family.” Wouldn’t that be the common thought of people who do not fool themselves about the reality of the matter?

Can God and science coexist? from Washington Post On Faith panel

According to The Washington Post for May 21 (page B2, "On Faith"), the Anglican Bishop of Durham, England says yes. Heaven isn't where peole go when they die. Heaven is God's space while Earth is our space. Seems pretty clear so far. But he also says, "And the Bible makes it clear that the two overlap and interlock." So if the spaces overlap, why can't you get from Earth-space into Heaven-space when you die? Curious.

The rabbi of Sinai Temple in Los Angeles shows that no religion has a monopoy on epistemological confusion. He says that science discovers truths about physical reality, but it's a mistaken leap of logic to assume that physical reality is the only thing that really exists. So what else is there? Do things like justice, beauty, morality and the soul exist? Certainly; but only as concepts that help us describe the behavior of physical beings—people.

Nor is the East under-represented. A former Hindu monk says that nothing scientists and religionists believe can be known with absolute certainty. They both deal in beliefs, which are not proven certainties. Completely misses the crucial distinction. Scientific theories are hypotheses that have held up under empirical testing, a procedure that's completely missing from religious beliefs.
Posted by Dan Levine at 11:30 AM