# Isn't it bizarre to be against torture if we aren't against collateral damage **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [November 23, 2004, 8:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/isnt-it-bizarre-to-be-against-torture-if-we-arent-against-collateral-damage/276253 "2004-11-23T08:30:31Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![glee](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/b5a626/32.png) [@glee](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/glee)\ **Post date:** [November 25, 2004, 5:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/isnt-it-bizarre-to-be-against-torture-if-we-arent-against-collateral-damage/276253/61 "2004-11-25T17:28:38Z")
> [@Polerius](#): > > I think that this situation is similar to the ethics conundrum posed in these boards a couple of weeks ago. That is, there are two scenarios: > > 1. A train will either kill 5 people or 1 person, depending on how you pull a lever. > Most people have no problem pulling the lever to kill the 1 person, > rather than the 5. > > 2. A surgeon can go out onto the street and kill someone and harvest his organs > and save 5 patients who are waiting for organs. > Most people \*definitely \* have a problem with this, even though in both cases 1 life > is destroyed to save 5 lives. > > I think what gets people is the deliberate nature of the killing in scenario #2, and maybe this is what bothers people in the case of torture, because scenario #1 seems more like the collateral damage case, and scenario #2 seems more like the torture case. > > Anyway, since I can’t succintly describe why I’m OK with scenario #1, and not OK with scenario #2, I guess I can’t (at the moment) succintly describe why I’d rank torture as worse than collateral damage (although both are very bad). Surely in your first example, you can either **save** 4 lives or one. You are presumably not responsible for the situation and are only trying to help. (You could probably add “3. You risk your own death trying to stop the train”, and get some heroic answers.) The second example is of cold-bloodedly killing someone in the hope that his organs will be suitable, that no-one will die in the transplant and that no other donor will turn up. Not heroic. ---
**Author:** ![Evil\_Captor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/f17d59/32.png) [@Evil\_Captor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Evil_Captor)\ **Post date:** [November 25, 2004, 6:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/isnt-it-bizarre-to-be-against-torture-if-we-arent-against-collateral-damage/276253/62 "2004-11-25T18:27:08Z")
> [@marky33](#): > > As mentioned earlier in the thread, if a domestic airliner were to be hijacked again over US soil, the air force would not hesitate to shoot it down. Would those passengers not also be under the protection of the US government? > They would be sacrificed for the greater good. This is also not a good example because there’s a clear moral calculus here – there’s a clear and present danger that if we don’t act, the passengers die and they take others, perhaps many others, with them. Frankly, I don’t see much of a moral dilemma here at all. You don’t want to kill the passengers, but the hijackers force your hand. ---
**Author:** ![marky33](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e495f1/32.png) [@marky33](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/marky33)\ **Post date:** [November 26, 2004, 9:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/isnt-it-bizarre-to-be-against-torture-if-we-arent-against-collateral-damage/276253/63 "2004-11-26T09:12:28Z")
I am beginning to think that what it boils down to is that, however reckless an attack on an enemy is, we can always justify the resulting collateral damage as being accidental. This we can never to for sanctioned torture. **Evil Captor** , please see second point made in post #58. ---
**Author:** ![tagos](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/bbe5ce/32.png) [@tagos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tagos)\ **Post date:** [November 26, 2004, 4:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/isnt-it-bizarre-to-be-against-torture-if-we-arent-against-collateral-damage/276253/64 "2004-11-26T16:55:14Z")
> [@marky33](#): > > I am beginning to think that what it boils down to is that, however reckless an attack on an enemy is, we can always justify the resulting collateral damage as being accidental. This we can never to for sanctioned torture. > > **Evil Captor** , please see second point made in post #58. No - it cannot be always justified as ‘accidental’ Like firing rockets into civilian crowded streets to kill a single terrorist leader, or car-bombing a lot of civilians to kill collaborators (in their eyes), there is ‘callous disregard’. ---
**Author:** ![Evil\_Captor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/f17d59/32.png) [@Evil\_Captor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Evil_Captor)\ **Post date:** [November 26, 2004, 5:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/isnt-it-bizarre-to-be-against-torture-if-we-arent-against-collateral-damage/276253/65 "2004-11-26T17:12:01Z")
> [@marky33](#): > > I am beginning to think that what it boils down to is that, however reckless an attack on an enemy is, we can always justify the resulting collateral damage as being accidental. This we can never to for sanctioned torture. > > **Evil Captor** , please see second point made in post #58. The guys on the ground are not going to have the luxury of considering a hijacker’s motives any more, if the plane is near any large cities, any more than the passengers are. Anybody who tries to hijack a plane with a box cutter is gonna get rushed by his intended victims, and any hijacked ll be shot out of the sky. Would you advocate letting hjijackers pull another 9/11? It’s not callous if you really have no choice. ---
**Author:** ![Apos](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/838e76/32.png) [@Apos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Apos)\ **Post date:** [November 26, 2004, 6:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/isnt-it-bizarre-to-be-against-torture-if-we-arent-against-collateral-damage/276253/66 "2004-11-26T18:32:57Z")
> [@clairobscur](#): > > For instance, in your example of the man who has an epi pen in his pocket he has no use for and let a kid who need it dying on his doorstep, using the line : “What? I gave 20 $ to a charity that feed starving children in Africa yesterday. I’m better than you!!” will bring him nowhere. Your example doesn’t make any sense. Moral duty is not exhausted by previous good deeds. If you persist in trying imagine to bogus examples, then of course you’ll find things that seem silly to you. ---
**Author:** ![Apos](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/838e76/32.png) [@Apos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Apos)\ **Post date:** [November 26, 2004, 6:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/isnt-it-bizarre-to-be-against-torture-if-we-arent-against-collateral-damage/276253/67 "2004-11-26T18:42:40Z")
> [@glee](#): > > I know what you mean to say, but I have some challenges: > > - the goal of military action is not about “killing people”. Well, in many of our operations, that’s exactly what it is. We want certain bad guys to die so that they cannot do further harm later. Sure, there are also other ends, but I don’t think this particular digression really goes anywhere. > [@](#): > > For example, one of the major problems with the US in Iraq is that the political objectives were and are terribly muddled. Ok: so what? I agree: it may well be that our operations in Fallujah are essentially a pointless show. Our military is engaging in some of the most sophiscated manuver’s in history, all to an end that isn’t clear at all given that we aren’t fighting a conventional force. And… Are you relaly trying to hjiack my thread into yet another discussion of Iraq? > [@](#): > > you state “torture is to get information that ‘might’ save lives?” > How do you feel about torturing someone who doesn’t have the information? How do you feel about operations that end up missing their targets but causing CD? > [@](#): > > What does it say aobut your society that you are willing to use torture? That depends on how it is used. > [@](#): > > - you state “we’ve many times simply ended up killing innocent people and missing the enemy. We still accept the overall policy as a matter of course.” > Some of us **don’t** accept this. That’s nice, and I appreciate your sentiments. It’s just that your view happens to be a lot less interesting to me, because it does seem consistent, albiet at the price of also being, I believe, not very realistic. I have no interest in discussing whether the particular actions taking place in Iraq are worth the CD they cause: only that people agree that sometimes military goals are legitimately considered to be worth it even though there will be, our regrets aside, CD. > [@](#): > > Do you also accept ‘friendly fire’ as a natural consequence of US military action? Yes. > [@](#): > > one of the problems of having the most powerful armed forces is that politicians tend to think that should be the first response to problems. I suppose. But this is neither here nor there as far as the topic of this thread since I’m not talking about politicians, but moral choices. ---
**Author:** ![Apos](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/838e76/32.png) [@Apos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Apos)\ **Post date:** [November 26, 2004, 6:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/isnt-it-bizarre-to-be-against-torture-if-we-arent-against-collateral-damage/276253/68 "2004-11-26T18:50:05Z")
> [@marky33](#): > > I am beginning to think that what it boils down to is that, however reckless an attack on an enemy is, we can always justify the resulting collateral damage as being accidental. The problem is that I think this excuse is tissuepaper thin. If we can predict that there will be CD, then it is a known price that we choose to pay in order to achieve our objective. I think the major reason we are unwilling to accept this is because most CD is more distant and hands off than torture. Just as people are more willing to accede to hypothetical situations in which they are asked to pull a lever to kill a man than to shoot them in the face (i.e. Polerius train examples, except instead of a lever to divert the train from killing the five towards killing the one, we are asked to shoot a man as a means of diverting the train from killing five.) In other words, sometimes what we think is moral discretion actually seems more like amoral squeamishness. We will let ourselves and others do distant horrors as long they are abstract, and not act as quickly as we would if they are near and personal. That’s another reason not to trust clairobscur’s proud elevation of “gut” feelings: often they not only willy-nilly, but coldly evil. ---
**Author:** ![marky33](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e495f1/32.png) [@marky33](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/marky33)\ **Post date:** [November 26, 2004, 9:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/isnt-it-bizarre-to-be-against-torture-if-we-arent-against-collateral-damage/276253/69 "2004-11-26T21:46:51Z")
> [@Evil Captor](#): > > The guys on the ground are not going to have the luxury of considering a hijacker’s motives any more, if the plane is near any large cities, any more than the passengers are. My point entirely. The reason I brought up this example was in reply to the post that claimed we do not torture enemy captives because they under our protection. I was merely pointing out that innocent airline passengers are also “under our protection” and I was specifically refuting \*\*Apos’ \*\* post that this is irrelevant because they will probably die anyway - I was giving a situation in which they may not die anyway. ---
**Author:** ![Evil\_Captor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/f17d59/32.png) [@Evil\_Captor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Evil_Captor)\ **Post date:** [November 27, 2004, 12:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/isnt-it-bizarre-to-be-against-torture-if-we-arent-against-collateral-damage/276253/70 "2004-11-27T00:59:17Z")
> [@Apos](#): > > Your example doesn’t make any sense. Moral duty is not exhausted by previous good deeds. If you persist in trying imagine to bogus examples, then of course you’ll find things that seem silly to you. Some people’s sense of moral duty appears to be inexhaustible. I suppose the only truly moral thing for American soldiers to do is dig pits in the ground and strangle themselves to death so they don’t hurt anybody and will replenish the Earth. ---
**Author:** ![Evil\_Captor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/f17d59/32.png) [@Evil\_Captor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Evil_Captor)\ **Post date:** [November 27, 2004, 1:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/isnt-it-bizarre-to-be-against-torture-if-we-arent-against-collateral-damage/276253/71 "2004-11-27T01:05:31Z")
Apos, what would you say to the families of soldiers who die for lack of air cover because we’ve embraced your moral calculus, and what do you suppose the odds are that they would think you rather … callous and indifferent … to the lives of their loved ones? ---
**Author:** ![Apos](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/838e76/32.png) [@Apos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Apos)\ **Post date:** [November 27, 2004, 6:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/isnt-it-bizarre-to-be-against-torture-if-we-arent-against-collateral-damage/276253/72 "2004-11-27T06:07:33Z")
> [@](#): > > Some people’s sense of moral duty appears to be inexhaustible. I suppose the only truly moral thing for American soldiers to do is dig pits in the ground and strangle themselves to death so they don’t hurt anybody and will replenish the Earth. I’ve tried and tried, and I can’t seem to understand what the hell you are tlaking about here. Or here: > [@](#): > > Apos, what would you say to the families of soldiers who die for lack of air cover because we’ve embraced your moral calculus, Eh? I’ve not offered any opinion what’s the correct moral calculus is: only discussed two issues comparitively. To say I’ve advocated anything regarding not giving soliders air cover is pretty darn outlandish. > [@](#): > > and what do you suppose the odds are that they would think you rather … callous and indifferent … to the lives of their loved ones? What do you suppose the odds are that I know what you are talking about? 0? .0001? Seriously: what are you talking about? What lack of air cover? What indifference? ---
**Author:** ![Apos](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/838e76/32.png) [@Apos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Apos)\ **Post date:** [November 27, 2004, 6:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/isnt-it-bizarre-to-be-against-torture-if-we-arent-against-collateral-damage/276253/73 "2004-11-27T06:13:36Z")
> [@marky33](#): > > My point entirely. > The reason I brought up this example was in reply to the post that claimed we do not torture enemy captives because they under our protection. I was merely pointing out that innocent airline passengers are also “under our protection” and I was specifically refuting \*\*Apos’ \*\* post that this is irrelevant because they will probably die anyway - I was giving a situation in which they may not die anyway. Is there some sort of confusion party here that I wasn’t invited to? The only thing I pointed out in your example was that any plane worth shooting down contains people that were going to die anyway if we didn’t act, and so are in that sense a sort of “sunk cost” (i.e., we can’t save them no matter what we do) And the reason I pointed this out was not anything to do with anything other than the fact that it doesn’t give us a clear analougy to the CD situation in which it’s NOT clear that the people we kill will die anyway. Not that it really much matters whether they will or they wont: I just wanted to make sure we had clear examples that weren’t confused by extra layers of issues. You weren’t refuting anything, at least not in any way I can understand. I don’t agree that people being “under our protection” makes their lives any more or less valuable and worth consideration. THAT is what I said was irrelevant, not whether or not they’d die (which IS relevant in the sense that if they were to doomed to die no matter what, then shooting them down wouldn’t be as problematic as CD). ---
**Author:** ![Evil\_Captor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/f17d59/32.png) [@Evil\_Captor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Evil_Captor)\ **Post date:** [November 28, 2004, 4:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/isnt-it-bizarre-to-be-against-torture-if-we-arent-against-collateral-damage/276253/74 "2004-11-28T16:33:09Z")
> [@Apos](#): > > Eh? I’ve not offered any opinion what’s the correct moral calculus is: only discussed two issues comparitively. To say I’ve advocated anything regarding not giving soliders air cover is pretty darn outlandish. Well, you are correct there. It’s not your moral calculus in that sense. So let’s say it’s a moral calculus not your moral calculus. The idea of this OP is, it’s morally inconsistent to refrain from torturing terrorists – people we know or strongly suspect are guilty of having done Bad Things – and yet are indifferent to killing innocents due to collateral damage from bombing and missiles. So we say, whoa, to be morally consistent, which is of course a VERY IMPORTANT thing, we need to stop using bombs and missiles and probably artillery too. Just tanks, rifles and machine guns that can be aimed at specific targets. Might have to give up tanks, too. That’s when we have to address the issue of callous indifference to the lives of American servicemen, who would undoubtedly suffer many more casualties without air cover and artillery and missile support. You seem to be saying that there’s a simple two-sided calculus here. I’m saying there’s a third side, one that involves our moral duty to our troops. How do you account for that? ---
**Author:** ![The\_Flying\_Dutchman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/9fc348/32.png) [@The\_Flying\_Dutchman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Flying_Dutchman)\ **Post date:** [November 28, 2004, 4:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/isnt-it-bizarre-to-be-against-torture-if-we-arent-against-collateral-damage/276253/75 "2004-11-28T16:49:04Z")
> [@tagos](#): > > No - it cannot be always justified as ‘accidental’ Like firing rockets into civilian crowded streets to kill a single terrorist leader, or car-bombing a lot of civilians to kill collaborators (in their eyes), there is ‘callous disregard’. ‘Callous disregard’ you say ? How is that different from the life-altering destruction/punishment of the innocent lives of the family of a murderer condemned to death which no one seems to give a shit about. ---
**Author:** ![Apos](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/838e76/32.png) [@Apos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Apos)\ **Post date:** [November 29, 2004, 3:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/isnt-it-bizarre-to-be-against-torture-if-we-arent-against-collateral-damage/276253/76 "2004-11-29T03:49:46Z")
> [@](#): > > So we say, whoa, to be morally consistent, which is of course a VERY IMPORTANT thing, we need to stop using bombs and missiles and probably artillery too. Just tanks, rifles and machine guns that can be aimed at specific targets. Might have to give up tanks, too. I’m not sure where I advocated this position. If anything, I’vee suggested that it might make more sense to lean the other way. > [@](#): > > That’s when we have to address the issue of callous indifference to the lives of American servicemen, who would undoubtedly suffer many more casualties without air cover and artillery and missile support. You seem to be saying that there’s a simple two-sided calculus here. I’m saying there’s a third side, one that involves our moral duty to our troops. How do you account for that? Is that the same moral duty you couldn’t care less about when torture could perhaps save those same troops from a massive suicide attack? Moral consistency is important not because we are obsessive compulsive but because it serves to illuminate our biases and prejeduces when it comes to our gut feelings about what is right and what is wrong. ---
**Author:** ![Apos](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/838e76/32.png) [@Apos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Apos)\ **Post date:** [November 29, 2004, 4:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/isnt-it-bizarre-to-be-against-torture-if-we-arent-against-collateral-damage/276253/77 "2004-11-29T04:00:30Z")
> [@](#): > > How is that different from the life-altering destruction/punishment of the innocent lives of the family of a murderer condemned to death which no one seems to give a shit about. Not very different at all, I’d say. ---
**Author:** ![marky33](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e495f1/32.png) [@marky33](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/marky33)\ **Post date:** [November 29, 2004, 9:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/isnt-it-bizarre-to-be-against-torture-if-we-arent-against-collateral-damage/276253/78 "2004-11-29T09:05:18Z")
> [@grienspace](#): > > How is that different from the life-altering destruction/punishment of the innocent lives of the family of a murderer condemned to death which no one seems to give a shit about. Let me get this straight. You’re claiming that an equal amount of disregard is shown to a family killed in a CD incident as to the bereaved family of an executed murderer? If so, I don’t see it. I appreciate they are both (presumably) innocent victims but at least the murderer’s family still have their lives. ---
**Author:** ![blowero](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/41988e/32.png) [@blowero](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/blowero)\ **Post date:** [November 29, 2004, 9:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/isnt-it-bizarre-to-be-against-torture-if-we-arent-against-collateral-damage/276253/79 "2004-11-29T09:07:42Z")
[QUOTE=Apos] I believe we’ve already covered this. Yes, just as the efficacy of specific military attacks can be questioned because the CD might be too high, the efficacy of certain tortures might be questioned because the subject might be too well-trained or not well informed. But this is, again, just a matter of haggling over the relative price of the acts in specific situations, which is not the same thing as saying one is permissible and the other is not. Even if it is far less likely that we’ll find ourselves in a situation in which torture is worth the risk of trying it, that doesn’t make torture less viable or justifiable as an option: it just means that the chance comes up less. [/quoe] I disagree. Collateral damage is _not_ a means to an end. Torture is. The correct analogue to torture would be _deliberately_ attacking innocent people as a _means_ to an end, which IS disallowed as a military strategy, just as torture is. Collateral damage is not analagous to torture. And excessive collateral damage is disallowed as well. As I’ve said before, I can imagine a situation in which it might be necessary to launch an assault against an enemy in order to protect one’s own life, even if it might not be possible to _guarantee_ that no innocent people would be killed. However, I cannot imagine a _realistic_ situation in which it would be necessary to torture an individual. Sure, one could devise a _fictional_ situation where it would be the case, in the same way that Hollywood producers devise situations where a bus driver must continue driving above 50 mph, etc., but such situations don’t exist in real life. ---
**Author:** ![Apos](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/838e76/32.png) [@Apos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Apos)\ **Post date:** [November 29, 2004, 9:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/isnt-it-bizarre-to-be-against-torture-if-we-arent-against-collateral-damage/276253/80 "2004-11-29T09:46:53Z")
> [@](#): > > I disagree. Collateral damage is not a means to an end. Of course it is. While it isn’t something that we like, it’s something that’s an inevtiable part of many sorts of military operations. > [@](#): > > Collateral damage is not analagous to torture. The whole point of moral comparison is to figure out what differences are relevant and which are not between two situations. It doesn’t matter that torture and CD aren’t directly, exactly analagous. What matters is that the fact that we wish wasn’t a part of accomplishing our goals just isn’t a relevant difference. > [@](#): > > Sure, one could devise a fictional situation where it would be the case, in the same way that Hollywood producers devise situations where a bus driver must continue driving above 50 mph, etc., but such situations don’t exist in real life. Good to know that you think it’s impossible. We’d better not think about it then! [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/isnt-it-bizarre-to-be-against-torture-if-we-arent-against-collateral-damage/276253.md?page=3) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/isnt-it-bizarre-to-be-against-torture-if-we-arent-against-collateral-damage/276253.md?page=5)