Morality of Water Torture

[coberst]

Morality of Water Torture

The present question regarding the nature and morality of torture offers us an excellent opportunity to advance the level of sophistication of our understanding of morality. We learn best when we are questioning a matter that is meaningful to us.

I was eleven years old when Germany and Japan surrendered and WWII was finally over. One searing memory of this war were the stories I read and the movies I watched during and after the war regarding the torture and general brutality that the German Gestapo inflicted upon the people they conquered. I do not know why this left such a strong impression on me but it certainly did.

Coincidentally I have been studying “Moral Imagination” by Mark Johnson. This is the same Johnson who coauthored the book “Philosophy in the Flesh” with George Lakoff. I have decided to apply the theories Johnson presents in his book as a means to illuminate this matter regarding the morality of water torture used by my country in our struggle with Islamic extremists.

Moral understanding is like any other kind of experience; when we examine a domain of experience that relates to human relationships we must focus our attention on human understanding it self. If we do so we discover that human understanding is fundamentally imaginative in character.

“Many of our most basic concepts have considerable internal structure that cannot be accounted for by the classical theory of concepts as defined by necessary and sufficient features…The primary forms of moral imagination are concepts with prototype structure, semantic frames, conceptual metaphors, and narratives.”

To become morally insightful we must become knowledgeable of these imaginative structures. First, we must give up our illusions about absolute moral codes and also our radical moral subjectivism. Second we must refine our “perception of character traits and situations and of developing empathetic imagination to take up the part of others.”

Empathy is a character trait that can be cultivated by habit and will. Sympathy is somewhat of an automatic response.

When we see a mother weeping over the death of her child caused by a suicide bomber we feel immediate sympathy. Often we will come to tears. But we do not feel anything like that for the mother who may be weeping over the death of her child who was the bomber.

To understand the bomber we must use empathy. We attempt through imagination and reason to create a situation that will allow us to understand why this was done. This is a rational means to understand someone who acts different than we would.

“Empathy is the idea that the vital properties which we experience in or attribute to any person or object outside ourselves are the projections of our own feelings and thoughts.”

The subject viewing an object of art experiences emotional attitudes leading to feelings that are attributes of qualities in the art object thus aesthetic pleasure may be considered as “objectified self-enjoyment in which the subject and object are fused.”

The social sciences adopt a similar concept called ‘empathic understanding’, which refers to the deliberate attempt to identify with another person and accounting for that persons actions by “our own immediate experience of our motivations and attitudes in similar circumstances as we remember or imagine them”. This idea refers to a personal resonance between two people.

“What is crucial is that our moral reasoning can be constrained by the metaphoric and other imaginative structures shared within our culture and moral tradition, yet it can also be creative in transforming our moral understanding, our identity, and the course of our lives. Without this kind of imaginative reasoning we would lead dreadfully impoverished lives. We would be reduced to repeating habitual actions, driven by forces and contingencies beyond our control.”

Can you imagine an individual who is a hard headed realist and very accomplished at empathy sanctioning the use of water torture on anyone, friend or enemy?

[Brutha]

When we see a mother weeping over the death of her child caused by a suicide bomber we feel immediate sympathy. Often we will come to tears. But we do not feel anything like that for the mother who may be weeping over the death of her child who was the bomber.

Maybe you don't, but I would. Not as strong as in the other case, but certainly more than nothing.

Can you imagine an individual who is a hard headed realist and very accomplished at empathy sanctioning the use of water torture on anyone, friend or enemy?

Yes I can imagine such a person.
While I personally would never sanction torture, I can image people who fit that descripton sancioning it.
One example would be the case where a kidnapper is hold by the policy but the child he kidnapped isn't recovered.
There people who feel enough empaty with the starving child to overule both their moral sense that torture is wrong and the empaty to the kidnapper.

A hard headed realist might even be less influenced by the idealistic notion that torture is in principle wrong.
A very empathic person might also be stronger influenced by his feeling for the child that will die (and starvation is a painful death) without the use of torture.

[coberst]

It appears to me that few people have ever been taught anything about empathy. Empathy is an effort of the imagination to walk in the shoes of another. I suspect that anyone who understand the meaning of empathy and has been able to walk in the shoes of another could not torture that individual.

Take anyone who you know well and truly despise then imagine torturing that individual. I do not think any normal person could do such a thing.

I think that one of the reasons that we humans are on the path to self destruction is partially due to the fact that our culture has never embraced the understanding of empathy.

[JimOfferman]

Originally Posted by coberst

To understand the bomber we must use empathy.

I disagree. I can understand the reasons why some people become (suicide) bombers, but I have very little empathy for them. Neither do I have empathy for torturers, although, again, I can understand their motivations.

I think it is wrong to inflict a crime upon others to further your own agenda - doesn't matter whether you're a secret agent trying to find the perpetrators behind some terrorist attack or a religious zealot set out to rid the world of a few more infidels.

But then again, I also rescue spiders from dying a certain death in my shower... 'do no harm' is rooted quite deeply in my beliefs.

[coberst]

Empathy is about understanding. We understand our best friend and we need to understand our worst enemy. Ignorance can lead to catastrophy. Empathy does not mean we sanction another's behavior.

[Brutha]

Take anyone who you know well and truly despise then imagine torturing that individual. I do not think any normal person could do such a thing.

You are changing the topic. Above you spoke about sanctioning torture. That different from actually torturing.

Take anyone who you know well and truly despise then imagine torturing that individual. I do not think any normal person could do such a thing.

In addition you don't understand what focus and passion can do to an individual that has a purpose.
A average person wouldn't be able to torture something for the single reason that they despise them. When they on the other hand think that the act of torturing might save another life (for which they also feel empaty), the focus on saving the life might overpower the empaty for the victim of the torture.

Empathy is about understanding. We understand our best friend and we need to understand our worst enemy. Ignorance can lead to catastrophy. Empathy does not mean we sanction another's behavior.

You should also keep that in mind when you speak about the people who use torture.

[JimOfferman]

Originally Posted by coberst

Empathy is about understanding.

Empathy and understanding are similar, but not the same. I have empathy for my friends; I have empathy for both the lion and the pray it kills; I have empathy for the victim of a crime, but I have only understanding for the perpetrator.

That is, I can many times understand the motivations, maybe see things from the perpetrator's perspective even...

...but I do not feel for him, like I do for the friend, the lion, the pray and the victim.

Nor do I feel that I would need to feel for him, because it is his very actions that cost him my empathy in the first place.

(and to my mind the torturer is a much a criminal as the bomber, no matter how legitimate the agency he works for pretends to be)

[coberst]

Originally Posted by JimOfferman

Empathy and understanding are similar, but not the same. I have empathy for my friends; I have empathy for both the lion and the pray it kills; I have empathy for the victim of a crime, but I have only understanding for the perpetrator.

That is, I can many times understand the motivations, maybe see things from the perpetrator's perspective even...

...but I do not feel for him, like I do for the friend, the lion, the pray and the victim.

Nor do I feel that I would need to feel for him, because it is his very actions that cost him my empathy in the first place.

(and to my mind the torturer is a much a criminal as the bomber, no matter how legitimate the agency he works for pretends to be)

Empathy is about understanding. Understanding is about meaning. Meaning is acquired by me when I can put myself into the picture with the object being understood.

“Empathy is the idea that the vital properties which we experience in or attribute to any person or object outside ourselves are the projections of our own feelings and thoughts.”

The subject viewing an object of art experiences emotional attitudes leading to feelings that are attributes of qualities in the art object thus aesthetic pleasure may be considered as “objectified self-enjoyment in which the subject and object are fused.”

The social sciences adopt a similar concept called ‘empathic understanding’, which refers to the deliberate attempt to identify with another person and accounting for that persons actions by “our own immediate experience of our motivations and attitudes in similar circumstances as we remember or imagine them”. This idea refers to a personal resonance between two people.

[JimOfferman]

Originally Posted by coberst

The social sciences adopt a similar concept called ‘empathic understanding’, which refers to the deliberate attempt to identify with another person and accounting for that persons actions by “our own immediate experience of our motivations and attitudes in similar circumstances as we remember or imagine them”. This idea refers to a personal resonance between two people.

Which is precisely what is lacking between me and the terrorist or the torturer. I can understand, but it doesn't resonate with me at all.