It’s a phrase we conservatives like. For some reason, liberals don’t share our enthusiasm. To them it smacks of ‘black-and-white thinking’ or ‘Manicheanism.’ They think we are intolerant because we will not tolerate bad behavior. But do liberals really think that every issue is murky and ‘gray’ and that everything must be tolerated?
Suppose a man wanted to rape Alan Colmes’ wife (assuming he has a wife). Would Colmes say: "You can’t rape her, but you can cop a feel?" Would he work out a compromise? Would he negotiate with the fellow? Would he take the potential rapist’s point of view to have some merit? I doubt it. He would take himself and his wife to be wholly in the right and the potential rapist to be wholly in the wrong. That’s called moral clarity.
To head off a possible misunderstanding, those of us who speak of moral clarity do not mean to imply that they are some people (us) who are wholly good, and other people (them) who are wholly bad. Maybe that is what our opponents intend with the dreaded epithet, ‘Manicheanism.’ But no human being is wholly good or wholly evil. Even James Carvile has his good points, among them, the tenacity of a pit bull. In terms of the above example, the point is merely that Colmes and his wife, in respect of that one action, are wholly in the right while the potential rapist is wholly in the wrong. That is consistent with saying that Colmes and his wife have their vices and the potential rapist his virtues.
Some issues are hard to make out morally speaking. But others are quite clear. To think that all issues are hard to decide looks to be a hasty generalization from the fact that some are. To be opposed to moral clarity as such is idiotic since even liberals have their politically correct things to be morally clear about.
In a conciliatory spirit, let me propose an issue on which both conservatives and liberals ought to be morally clear. Terrorist acts are always and everywhere wrong by their very nature as terrorist acts. The indiscriminate slaughter of noncombatants to achieve a political objective is wrong by its very nature and the supposedly good consequences of such acts cannot be used to justify them.
Can we all agree on that?
Can we agree that the indiscrimate use of torture is always and everywhere wrong? Is this morally defensible?
Posted by: John Gallagher | Sunday, 29 May 2005 at 01:14
Supriseingly Alan Colmes does have a wife. Mr Valicella you left out "simplistic" as a description of positions and beliefs taken on the basis of moral clarity,a word in great use when that "amiable dunce"Reagan was President. I must digress to note that the Wash. Wise man" ,Clark Clifford, who said that ended up blubbering in court when sentenced for bank fraud,at the age of 81. That's wisdom for you. You make a key point when you say"even liberals have their politically correct things to be morally clear about". That's worth a separate post as it touches upon the question of the instantaneous variability of the liberal mind. John Gallagher, we might be able to answer your question if it wasn't for the indiscriminate use of the word torture. Think of the late Susan Sontag in the NY Times magazine giving as an example men being forced to stand with their arms outstretched!!!! No offense,just a thought.
Posted by: johnt | Sunday, 29 May 2005 at 10:11
I wonder if Sontag would distiguish between being BEHOODED and being BEHEADED.
Posted by: Bill Vallicella | Sunday, 29 May 2005 at 16:49
I think there are instances at Guantanamo that fit any reasonable person's definition of torture. So my question is this: Is the indiscriminate use of torture, however you understand the term, ever justified? I agree that terrorist acts ought to be condemned, but I also believe that it belies the hypocrisy of some conservatives when they refuse to condemn the use of torture. How do we gain the moral high ground when we seemingly take a "ends justifies the means" attitude when it comes to our own actions? A recent Thomas Friedman column nails the problem here.
Posted by: John Gallagher | Sunday, 29 May 2005 at 16:52
And now for an opposing point of view. As the Medium Lobster rightly points out, you can't make an omelette without breaking a few eggs. Freedom is indeed on the march!
Posted by: John Gallagher | Monday, 30 May 2005 at 00:06
First let me say that the question on torture moves away from the content and overall point Mr Vallicella makes,to which I see no answer from Mr Gallagher. Now I am not a genius as my recent post on ontolgy proves,but I've been in and seen enough debates to know when an opponent seeks to shift the ground to terms,he thinks,favorable to himself. It is sadly usual for the tactician to then think himself an Napolean of dialectic,rather than a failure at an attempted weak maneuver. If at this point we "need to gain the high moral ground",against a totalitarian,blood thirsty,kill crazy,death loving,movement of mass murderers, then I would say that there is a extremely dense fog around that moral ground which first must be dissolved. Back to Mr Vallicella's post and it's title for edification and further thought.
Posted by: johnt | Monday, 30 May 2005 at 10:06
johnt: If you read my post above, you will see that I have indeed answered Mr. Vallicella's question. I said: I agree that terrorist acts ought to be condemned. How is this not an adequate answer? I am not ignoring Bill's question, but deepening the inquiry. Do the ends ever justify the means? I suspect that many of the Neocons would answer this in the affirmative. If you accept that the ends justify the means then you can justify both terrorism and torture. If you do not, then I maintain that you must condemn both. Why do conservatives then hesitate to condemn the use of torture? Do they lack moral clarity on this issue? Did you even bother to read Mr. Friedman's column? I'll summarize for you: Acts of torture and abuse of prisoners committed by our troops damage our ability to convince potential allies in Islamic countries and elsewhere that we are much better than the terrorists that we are fighting and make it more difficult to wage the war on terror. Do you disagree with Friedman on this point?
Posted by: John Gallagher | Monday, 30 May 2005 at 14:54
John Gakkagher,No iI didn't read Friedman's column nor do I intend to. You see we have managed to convince a number of potential allies in Iraq,and as you have noticed in Lebanon and elsewhere. This in spite of Mr Friedman. What pray tell would i learn that I have not heard in drumbeats for the past two years? You ask earlier "is the indiscriminate use of torture ever justified". I responded by using the Susan Sontag story and asking for some kind of definition,no answer! So what am I doing here? Your condemnation of terror gets you nowhere,apart from Prof. Churchill and loons of that ilk who would not condemm terror. This you'll never believe but the inflation of the torture issue is largely a handy tool in another war,the war against Bush. No? Try the Koran flushing/Newsweek story,how about the outrage,sheer outrage,at the Saddam's underwear photos. How about sleep deprivation being treated as torture,how horrible. As to U.S. policy,I can hardly pick up a paper and not read of arrests,investiagations,trials,convictions,of people who engaged in unauthorized mistreatment or brutality. The commision headed by James Schlesinger could find no high cover up or authorization for such behavior,despite the smearing of Alberto Gonzalez for doing the appropriate research into just what int'l law covered. Mr. Vallicella's post was not about terror,he sought,I think both practically and rhetorically,to establish a basic agreement. If you recall the post started off with a hypothetical rape question,and you later used the word "hypocrisy". There is a connection which I'd rather not make but it goes back a few years to a previous President and it should make some more circumspect in their use of the word. I am against torture as before this war it was usually understood. I Know of no conservative who advocates torture although I know plenty of liberals who were quite willing to overlook rape. I would advocate the use of pressure coerecive tactics,such as sleep deprivation,uncomfortable postitons,and the like. Now, a hypothetical question. If intelligence is meant in part to save lives,what would you do? If I thought I could save Americam lives by making a prisoner sweat,even if it took a smack in the face or a boot in the buttocks,yes i would do it. Would you regard that as torture and would your conscience be as impregnable if afterwards life is lost? I say hypothetical,but only in the sense that we're rather comfortable in our homes and on our computers. In that case those means justify the ends.
Posted by: johnt | Monday, 30 May 2005 at 20:54
John Gallagher, the coversation has gone off the wall,time to wrap it up. I made a number of hastily put points,none of which were answered. I even went so far as to describe what I MIGHT do under certain circumstances,thereby clearly indicating what I would't do and therefore disagree with. No indication that any of this penetrated. I clearly gave a specific reason,one reason among others,why armies collect intelligence. If intelligence helps armies in their operations against enemies PERFORCE those armies have a greater chance of success,otherwise why bother? If success means victory in a given situation then either at the time of victory or at any time afterwards that armies soldiers will benefit,and I don't mean they will be awarded new boots. Both within the U.S. and in the war zones,as well as in foreign countries,France Spain,Italy,Great Britain,action has been taken based on intelligence that has led to capture,arrests of terrorists who were planning what,to stock the shelves of the local supermarket? Have you once heard the phrase"acting on intelligence"? You should,but won't,consider the role of the very liberal media you rely on for disseminating and stressing torture stories that might inflame,again,the Newsweek story. You continue to deliberately misread Mr Vallicella's post,of which terror was a minor part. Oh yes,liberals have moral clarity,when they want to,there certainly aren't any grey areas when it comes to George Bush! Having had most of what I said ignored it is time for me to sign off. But there is a specific anecdote about intelligence; Pvt. Joe Zilch was pulled off a booby trapped toilet bowl just seconds before a small bomb loaded with razor blades was set to explode. Unfortunately a NY Times reporter unwittingly took his place. Life's a wash.
Posted by: johnt | Tuesday, 31 May 2005 at 12:09
Is torture ever justified? I hope to post something on that. Have any American lives been saved because of torture? Well, nothing like 9/11 has occurred since 9/11.
Posted by: Bill Vallicella | Tuesday, 31 May 2005 at 14:21
Since we have gotten off on a conversation about torture, I would add that torture is in the mind of the victim. Please note that there are reports of exhibitionistic women creating situations in which Muslim men are condemned to Hell. Yet, to most American men, it is--BRING IT ON! I think that we need to be most careful in discussing torture. Is it physical torture, mental torture, emotional torture, ideational torture? We come closest to agreement with physical torture, but when we start messing with the ideas in the enemies head, can we claim it is his responsibility that he has such a screwed up vision of the world?
Posted by: Bill | Tuesday, 31 May 2005 at 18:28