War - Torture - Violence

A recent New York Times opinion piece "Torture Versus War" asks "What is it about the terrible intimacy of torture that so disturbs and captivates the public? Why has torture long been singled out for special condemnation in the law of war, when war brings death and suffering on a scale that dwarfs the torture chamber?" The author then proceeds to indulge in some hand-wringing over the effectiveness of torture in eliciting information, and to a lesser extent its legality, with scarcely a mention of moral and ethical considerations. And he appears, to me at least, to take as given that war is perfectly reasonable, in terms of efficacy, legality, morality and ethics, and to assume that his readers must accept this position.

These are exactly the kind of hypocritical moral contortions that make me see red!

Firstly, let me say it plainly: TORTURE IS WRONG. "In defending the Bush administration's torture program, Republicans have likened the 'high-value' detainees to mass murderers, who don't deserve to be treated humanely". The Republicans seem to have a gift for always missing the moral crux of every question. By deeming any other human being as "unworthy of humane treatment", one denies one's own humanity, and hence, I would think, one's own worthiness of humane treatment - a dangerous position to take. There are not now, nor can there ever be, extenuating circumstances, legal posturings or moral arguments that can change that. So, once again: TORTURE IS WRONG, ALWAYS!

But what really angers, shames, disgusts me is the bland assumption that everyone agrees that war is a perfectly acceptable political instrument. Wrong. I would venture to say that almost no "rational" human being accepts that view. What is almost universally accepted is that despite any misgivings or moral qualms that may exist, somehow nation-states possess an inalienable right to wage war. Poppycock! Where did this cockeyed notion come from, that somehow disembodied entities - states, corporations - have rights beyond those of individuals, that there is somehow a different set of ethical values that applies, apparently simply by dint of their supra-individual character?

The ten commandments of the old testament have become controversial in the U.S., but nevertheless I think we can all agree that the proscription of murder, theft, adultery and other anti-social behavior simply codifies an ethical stance that is almost universal. Further, it seems plain to me that ethics and morality are the foundation of all law. No one seems to have any objections to the notion that an individual has no ethical right to seek to achieve an end, no matter how just that end may be, through violent means, nor to the codification of that view into law. True, the law sets forth the notions of extenuating circumstances, justifiable homicide, self-defence, but these are all subsidiary to the essential moral truth. So I ask again: if an individual is subject to this ethic, and bound by the laws based upon it, how is it that nations and corporations are held to a lower standard? As I can imagine no argument from ethics to support this standard, I can only conclude that it exists purely through coercion. In the case of nations through the near-monopoly of violence enjoyed by the state. In the case of the corporation, the enormous economic coercive power it enjoys - though the rise of privatized arms of state violence is a deeply disturbing new development.

But if it is wrong, ethically, legally, for an individual to try to achieve his ends through violence, then surely it is, if anything, more wrong for the state or corporation, given their enormously greater destructive power? In which case it would appear logical to impose more stringent laws against state and corporate violence. To which the standard response is that the state monopoly of violence is required to control the violence of criminal citizens, and as a defense against the violence of other (always "less civilized") states. This position is based upon a false premise, whose falsity moreover is taken as given in the case of the individual: namely that violence is an acceptable tool, and that violence is the only available response to violence.

I would like to humbly suggest that this is complete and utter hogwash. While it will probably remain true for the foreseeable future that there exists no greater coercive power than the individual nation state to curb the "natural" tendency to violence of nation states - the UN has repeatedly proved itself to be utterly impotent - this does not mean that war is ever justifiable or necessary. One might think that the the failure of the "Great War to End Wars" to do any such thing would be proof enough of that.

So if on the one hand violence is unacceptable, and on the other there is no power great enough to curb the violence of nations, what is to be done?

Firstly we need to take seriously the ancient idea that in fact the the only legitimate response to violence is loving kindness.

Secondly, each of us, as an individual, has the moral duty to oppose state violence, and to oppose the production, distribution and use of the tools of that violence. Siddhārtha Gautama, Jesus of Nazareth, Mahatma Gandhi, Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. and countless other unsung heroes have shown in word and deed what must be done. If we fail, the 21st century is already shaping up to make the 20th, the bloodiest in history, look like the garden of Eden.

"You may say I'm a dreamer, but I'm not the only one"

VIOLENCE IS WRONG, ALWAYS! TORTURE IS WRONG, ALWAYS! WAR IS WRONG, ALWAYS!