One of the interesting things about the torture or coercive interrogation debate is that it highlights the Problem of Evil in a secular way. The classic formulation of that classic problem was how to reconcile evil acts with existence of a beneficent God. The secular equivalent it turns out, is structurally the same. If coercion is ‘useful’ to protect society; then how can you justify the use of those acts to sustain the liberal vision of the earth, without arguing like Ivan, that Paradise on earth stands partly on suffering? If protecting gays, lesbians and even atheism from the al-Qaeda requires force and the survival of those social goods required ‘useful’ acts could one accept the social ‘goods’ knowing what their preservation entailed? Or would you refuse it at the price? Come to that, why shouldn’t warfare itself come under the same moral cloud, because it too requires the use of evil to protect a good? Surely water boarding is far less damaging to a human body and much more transitory in effect than firing a .50 caliber round at it. If it is alright under Geneva, to shred a man with a machine gun to defend the social ‘goods’ then why not through simulated drowning?
The answer must be: ‘because we choose not to under any circumstances’. Otherwise we are only haggling over the price, but not the principle. The real problem must be how to preserve the principle or else the whole debate is really about seemingness and appearances, however we may pretend otherwise. The only way to save the principle is to say, as Ivan does, “I most respectfully return him the ticket.” If evil is the price of God, then Ivan doesn’t want God; similarly, if BHO means what he says, then if torture is the cost of saving a city, even his child was in that city, then he should not save the city. That was Jeff Jacoby’s argument, and it’s a good one. In fact, I kinda like it myself. But the hitch is practicality.
I seriously doubt, when the chips are down, the ‘because we choose not to under any circumstances’ argument will stand up for long. Once the costs are sufficiently high, I think most people, including myself will throw principle out the window. Even if you don’t believe that BHO would make an exception if his own kids were at stake, I think it’s fair to say he would be sore tempted to do what he said he would not do.
Personally, I don’t think there is any logical way out the problem of evil without throwing in extra terms like freedom or other arguments that allow us, like Obama to recast the issue as a “broader question”. That allows us to squirm out, but it really suggests there’s no unimpeachable answer to the question. We can only resolve to try and uphold our ideals, but in the end let’s hope the cup will pass away. “Deliver us from evil”, otherwise things get really hairy.
