- MUST READS
- PRODUCTS
- RESOURCES
- MULTIMEDIA
- ENFACTLOPEDIA
- FSM AUTHORS
- ABOUT US
- CONTACT US
- FSM BLOG
- DONATE
- PRESS COVERAGE
SEARCH FSM
- IN THIS SECTION
November 3, 2009
Surprise – Princeton Professor Says, 'I Ought to Torture a Terrorist' to Save New York
“Peter Singer may be the most controversial philosopher alive; he is certainly among the most influential.” –New Yorker
Peter Singer’s résumé: Self-identified vegan. World-famous liberal philosopher. Educated at the University of Melbourne and the University of Oxford. Professor of Bioethics in the University Center for Human Values at Princeton University. Laureate Professor at the University of Melbourne. Praised by New York’s elites. And…pro-torture?
Difficult as it is to fathom, Singer’s views on torture are closer to a conservative’s than a liberal’s. In The Life You Can Save – Acting Now to End World Poverty (2009) he writes (pages 165 and 166):
Take the basic argument that torture is always wrong. Given the well-documented tendency of police and guards to abuse prisoners, and the low probability that torture will yield significant information, that rule seems likely to have the best consequences. Yet, I would argue, if I find myself in the highly improbable scenario where only torturing a terrorist will enable me to stop a nuclear bomb from going off in the middle of New York, I ought to torture the terrorist. What the individual ought to do, and what the best moral rule directs one to do, are not necessarily identical.
In other words: Yes, we can. To make things more interesting (per the back cover):
All author royalties from the sale of this book will be donated to Oxfam.
Do I relish saying, “I agree somewhat with Peter Singer”? It feels somewhat strange, I know. To my knowledge, there’s clearly no “well-documented tendency of police and guards to abuse prisoners” unless you take the words of prisoners (from convicted child rapists to serial killers) seriously. (I don’t.)
Still, Singer’s openness to “torturing a terrorist” in order “to stop a nuclear bomb” is welcome. Today, toxic moralists claim that torture in all circumstances is wrong, a position Sir Winston Churchill – to his credit - rejected.
The lessons of World War II are ignored or hidden to make way for the new moralist. Professional activists are usually great performers and are emotionally invested in their roles as terrorist-centric protectors. This makes them feel good on their search for public significance. But the fact that do-gooders are happy to sacrifice New York or Sydney for their agendas just reinforces my belief that they’re run-of-the mill fundamentalists. At least Singer – to his credit – acknowledges that a forceful interrogator is in the position to save millions of citizens.
When Churchill’s men used physical means to destroy Hitler’s national socialist state – he didn’t become a Nazi in the process. To the contrary, he – together with the allies – bombed the vegetarian dictator’s regime to smithereens. What’s more, his willingness to extract information through physical force radically shifted London’s moral position from a Chamberlain-like ostrich farm to a Jew-saving state.
So, why do professional activists advance the view that torture makes us just as bad as our enemies? My answer: politics, politics, politics. Who seriously argues that Churchill was no better than Hitler? My answer: politicians, politicians, politicians.
Today’s new moralist even attacks shows like 24 for simply raising ethical questions relating to the benefits of torture within a post-9/11 context.
Of particular interest are some of the show’s torture scenes. “CTU [Counter Terrorism Unit] uses a physiological monitoring polygraph system during interrogations to judge if prisoners are telling the truth,” explains 24: The Ultimate Guide. “When a suspect wears the wrist-cuffs, CTU can monitor heart rate, respiratory system, pulse, body temperature, and other vital signs to analyze their intent during questioning. The blue switch hub transfers data into black digital ‘filter boxes,’ where each vital sign is isolated and fed into a sophisticated computer system for real-time analysis.”
One can also see how 24’s fictional Agent Rick Burke’s “torture kit” could be useful in order to extract relevant information. Inside his vanguard stainless steel medical carrying case are standard medical syringes, and four bottles of Hyoscine-Pentothal, a “truth drug.”
What really interests me, however, are America’s real-life professionals, and how they rely on science and technology to gather and extract information. Thus, when a so-called pacifist argues that America’s security hawks are no different than evil medieval cartoon characters, I don’t think they’re up to scratch with the latest developments.
With a range of professionals working collaboratively, we can see why Cheney’s loyalists were ahead of the game. Today, patriots continue working to protect lives across the world – and sometimes I think it’s too easy for off-the-field moralists to theorize from the sidelines.
Above all, they need our support. Hypocritical liberal leaders do the West a great disservice when they appear to privately support water-boarding while railing against pro-security measures in public. When will they openly say, “I ought to torture a terrorist”?
FamilySecurityMatters.org Contributing Editor Ben-Peter Terpstra, an Australian-European satirist, is a contributor to a number of websites, from On Line Opinion (Australia's e-journal of social and political debate) to American Thinker. His pieces are also posted on his blog, Pizza Trays and Beer Bottles.
Reader Comments: Submit Your Comment (0)
| Print This E-mail This |
|
