How would history have judged a man who could have saved thousands of American lives but chose instead to adhere to some misplaced and misguided sense of idealism? – Michael Goldfarb
I’m sure that there are others who could do a better job of this than I, but for the time being how about: likely by way of the same morally repugnant rubric through which “history” “judges” as courageous and heroic a man who ordered the slaughter of thousands of innocent Japanese? Which is to say, only by ignoring those judgments which mark as “a crime against God and man” any act of war “directed to the indiscriminate destruction of whole cities or vast areas with their inhabitants”, or as a crime of war the “attack or bombardment, by whatever means, of towns, villages, dwellings, or buildings which are undefended”. Such judgments, however, have no purchase on the verdict of History, which moves undaunted toward the exculpation of the victors with the sort of disregard for elementary principles “idealism” that appeals to such empty abstractions are invariably intended to effect.
If the basic standards of ius in bello governing conduct toward civilians and prisoners of war do not apply to us, then they do not apply to anyone – and this is true no matter the cramp such standards may put on our desired modes of operation, or the corrective they may be to our typically congratulatory self-assessments. Sometimes it’s only by overturning the myths of our past nobility that we can face up to the sins of the present.
Addendum: Sorry, but while I’m on the subject:
I have not fully formed my thoughts on torture, yet. I think I am against it but with this one exception: if I have a choice between saving say, 5 million lives in a nuke-contaminated Chicago or being able to say, “but at least we didn’t waterboard that guy,” I am inclined to think I would go for torture. The 5 million might still die, it’s true, but at least I won’t have to answer for standing idly by and watching it so that my morals might remain intact. I will take the chance that my moral failing in that instance will simply join my other moral failings in life, and then God and I will work that stuff out.
Actually, you have to work out your moral failing, in either case, don’t you? If you torture, you have to work it out. If you allow millions to die because you’re “too good” to torture, that’s another moral failing you have to work out. And what is the moral failing? Not trusting that God will help you work that out.
Maybe when you don’t have an idea that you and God can work out your moral failings, you have a tougher time dealing with them? I don’t know. But “who saves a life saves the world, entire” may come into play here. I don’t want to kill the guy I’m torturing. But I want to save 5 million lives.
(This from a prominent Catholic blogger, mind you.) So far as I can make it out, the “reasoning” – such as it is – goes like so:
- People who refuse to violate inviolable moral principles are really being selfish, by keeping themselves all pure just so that they can brag about it; so
- It’s okay to violate inviolable moral principles; and furthermore
- Even not violating an inviolable moral principle is a moral failing, both because of (1) above and also because
- Really trusting God means trusting that he won’t hold you to account for violating inviolable moral principles; so
- Torture away, the Church’s categorical proclamations to the contrary notwithstanding; since after all
- The best way to “form your thoughts” on moral matters is just to ignore the relevant Christian doctrines and agree instead with your Republican friends.
Which, in short, is how we end up with this. Casuistry would be too kind, really.
Of course (1) is a venerable claim by critics of morality, including Machiavelli, Nietzsche, Weber, and, to some degree, Freud. The difference between these great thinkers and your garden-variety GOP casuist is that they insist that transgressor of morality must be willing to accept the political, personal, and spiritual consequences of his actions. What’s revolting about the so-called conservatism of our day is less its praise of the indefensible than its allergy to responsibility. That, not morality, is the vanity of the coward.
Yes, that’s right. And another difference between those great thinkers and this one is that they’re not Catholics, while she is.
But, it will be said, what is unjust is sometimes determined by expected consequences; and certainly that is true. But there are cases where it is not: now if someone says, “I agree, but all this wants a lot of explaining,” then he is right, and, what is more, the situation at present is that we can’t do the explaining; we lack the philosophic equipment. But if someone really thinks, in advance, that it is open to question whether such an action as procuring the judicial execution of the innocent should be quite excluded from consideration -I do not want to argue with him; he shows a corrupt mind.
- G.E.M. Anscombe
You’re certainly right that there was very little reasoning going on in the post you critique. Nonetheless I find it interesting that I’m sympathetic to this ‘line of thought’ in another context, namely lying. The most that shows, however, is that sometimes it is appropriate to consider very carefully whether what we see as a required adherence to an exceptionless norm might really be a form of pride masked by scrupulosity. By no means does that justify the immediate reduction of wanting to uphold an exceptionless norm, on the one hand, to the desire to be able to present oneself as morally pure, on the other. The latter immediately invites skepticism because it is suggests pride, scrupulosity, and concern with self-presentation. This little verbal trick does a lot of really bad work, it seems to me.
Right – nicely done, Joe. I was also thinking that this statement of Anscombe’s would of course be worth linking: http://www.anthonyflood.com/anscombetrumansdegree.htm. A key graf:
What a freaking great paper that is. I notice that she takes on and demolishes the attempts to fuddle things between conduct in war and torture, like Manzi’s piece on the demand for a non-pacificist case against torture. Not being a great philosopher, my inclination was to respond to that by charging Manzi with questioning the notum per the ignotum, which I think is still fair, but it’s nice to see the job done right.
Yeah … given the kind of issues at stake right now, pretty much the whole thing deserves to be excerpted.
[...] #2: Schwenkler has [...]
I am in general sympathetic with you, but there has been some convincing work done on the question of whether or not “inviolable moral principles” are compatible with Christianity (I know that sounds strange). When the rubber hits the road, of course, something like “inviolable moral principles” exist, but I don’t think we can lean to hard on them in an ontological sense.
Interesting paper on this question entitled “Can Morality Be Christian” by John Milbank, who, while not a Catholic, is about as sympathetic to Catholicism as one could possibly get (without formally converting).
http://sce.sagepub.com/cgi/reprint/8/1/45
Thanks for the tip on that Milbank paper – I’ll have to read it. And I basically agree that talk of inviolability isn’t an ideal way to make my point, though in this context it was a reasonably effective card to play.
Right on… I think there is a way to be resolutely anti-torture and anti-war while still being able to critique “Christian” deployments deontological ethics. (I’m thinking of certain kinds of “Christian pacifism.”)
“People who refuse to violate inviolable moral principles are really being selfish, by keeping themselves all pure just so that they can brag about it.”
Unfortunately, if I had a dollar for every blog post (or more often blog comment) that took that statement as a foundational premise, I would be, perhaps not wealthy, but comfortably well-off.
The Anchoress seems to be the last person standing who truly believes that George W. Bush could do no wrong, so even admitting that torture is usually wrong is probably a big step for her.
Yes, but she still hasn’t admitted that Bush tortured! So maybe it’s just half a step …
_The Anchoress_ is at First Things? What has happened to that publication?
Yeah, they’ve been expanding their web presence. She sure is an odd one …