False Moral Dilemma No. 1 - Torture

Moral or ethical dilemmas are often presented in an attempt to manipulate us to accept a particular point of view, no matter how distasteful we find it.  In many cases, the dilemma is bogus, based on illogical or unsupportable premises...a false dilemma.  This is the first of a set of articles that I plan to write that discuss and unmask these false dilemmas.

When the controversy over torture of captured terrorists erupted a year or so ago, an Email was circulated on the Web posing the following dilemma:

You have captured a terrorist, and he has information that will save the lives of some American soldiers, but he refuses to talk.  Should you torture him?

This seems to be a classical moral dilemma, pitting the reader's moral and ethical abhorrence of torture against his/her patriotic loyalty to our troops.

It is similar in many ways to the question:  "Have you stopped beating your wife?"

A simple yes or no answer to either question is impossible.  But any attempt at an explanation, particularly to the first question, is greeted with jeers and accusations that you are "avoiding the question."

The problem with both questions is that they are based on one or more false premises.  The wife-beating question obviously assumes that you ARE beating your wife.  If you do not beat your wife, you cannot answer this question with a simple yes or no.  It is necessary to explain that you do not, nor have you ever, beaten your wife.

In the case of the question on torture, the premises are a bit more subtle.  The question makes several assumptions:

a) That the (accused) terrorist has information.

b) That the information will lead directly to the saving of soldiers' lives.

c) That torture will convince the individual to supply the information.

d) That the information supplied will be correct.

Let us consider each of these assumptions.

a) How do the captors know that the person in question has any useful information?

b) How do they know that the information, if they can get it, will save soldiers' lives?

c) Experts on torture have said that it is often not successful at making victims talk.

d) How would they determine that any information they obtain is correct?

They can never be even reasonably sure of ANY of these assumptions, but consider b) in particular:  What sort of information could a captive have that would have the immediate effect of saving troops' lives?  The names of co-conspirators?  Locations of caches of weapons or explosives?  While this information, if he had it, might have a long term effect on a terrorist cell's operations, it could hardly be defined as an immediate threat to the lives of specific soldiers.  If that kind of information justifies torture, then almost any captive could be tortured at any time.  A slippery slope, indeed.

Furthermore, it is very unlikely that a prisoner would have detailed knowledge of future attack plans.  Anyone who knows anything about terrorists knows that they "compartmentalize" such information so that captives cannot compromise operations that they are not involved in.  There are so many uncertainties about this that it becomes clear that the question is as invalid as "Have you stopped beating your wife?"

The correct answer to either question is:

"The question you pose is illogical because it is based on a false premise."

But of course, you must be prepared for the ridicule and invective that will be heaped upon you for this answer.

There are many other false moral dilemmas, but I will save them for future articles.

As a teaser, consider these questions:  Collateral Damage, Abortion.

They both contain false moral dilemmas.  In the case of abortion, it is interesting that neither rabid anti-abortionists nor fervent pro-choicers would acknowledge any dilemma at all, but for many other "in-betweeners," a moral dilemma exists.  I will argue that it is a false dilemma...most of the time.

Stay tuned.