I think you are right to categorize torture as morally wrong but you may be arguing against people who look at dilemma in a totally different way. If you say that you put torture in a category of moral unacceptability, then that puts you in a different sect of thinkers and problem solvers than those with whom you are in disagreement. I think that people who argue that torture is okay and are willing to weigh out the good are possibly the kind of people who look for debatable information rather than for reliable assurance. These people may be more comfortable on the fence of issues than working intellectually toward a mental solution that would then give them a clear opinion, properly reflective of themselves.
Sometimes I think that harsh certainty one way or another on an issue like this (or possibly anything) shows a lack of enlightenment as to how one thing is part of a much bigger issue. I automatically dismiss to some degree anyone who says that they know that abortion is wrong or that capital punishment should be abolished. Even if someone’s general opinion is the same as mine, I have to also agree with him as to how he arrives at such a position. And if someone is a little too passionate for my moderate taste, I am immediately alarmed that he and I are likely to think very differently about life. For instance, if someone told me that he takes no issue with torture if it saves lives, then he would be showing me his restricted scope of his attitude toward the rest of the world. That person may take more seriously the argument of torture than the reality of torture.
This “flexibility” allows them to mold their “beliefs” to what is important to them, like the company they keep or personal circumstances. I would be willing to bet that this mentality is a reverse logic system fueled by trivial bias. People seem to be “installed” with a set of core beliefs that only make sense when you start there and work backward to justify it. I invite you to imagine how far away from someone’s point B one actually can get through valid logic. But I should get back to the topic at hand.
If torture is justified in any way, then one can ask, “Are we acting for terrorism or against it?” Harming someone for a greater good is a pretty good working definition for terrorism. Terrorists use this tactic to startle and scare people into doing things their ways. Taking a stand for non-violence would require that one not use violent techniques to accomplish goals. In other words, don’t hit someone back to try to teach them that hitting is wrong. In the end, serving as an example of your values not only preserves them in yourself and in others like you, but it solidifies them in the minds of opponents as inextinguishable.
I enjoyed that last paragraph of your post but I have to disagree with you on some minor points. I think that your rant did not start until you proclaimed that it had ended and that you were knowingly and willingly unfair, but correct with some good points. However, I know that you didn’t really think that the particularly religious with whom you spoke on this issue would have been guided by moral absolutes. In addition, you were very bold in suggesting that there is room for logical requisites in religion, but you’re wrong, and you know it. Sorry, but I just can’t let you get away with it for the sake of bringing up good points about the religious. My diligence consumes me like the “burning bush” its leaves.
