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?