In the immortal words of Catholic theology: Bingo!

Last updated on: December 31, 2014 at 3:48 pm by Mark Shea

In the immortal words of Catholic theology: Bingo! 2014-12-31T15:48:26-07:00 Mark Shea

LOGO Patheos Explore the world's faith through different perspectives on religion and spirituality! Patheos has the views of the prevalent religions and spiritualities of the world.

A reader writes (sorry, my stupid comboxes won’t let my link) about Thiessen’s recent attempt to act as Court Prophet for Torture:

I’ve only scanned the comments, but I watched the interview. Let me say that I’m a hardened neocon, though a Catholic first. But I’ve got to say that Thiessen was committing the classic error of confusing the (valid) principle of double effect with the (invalid) theory of consequentialism.

Consequentialism says that when you do an intrinsically evil act, you can ignore the evil by pointing to the good you hope to gain by the act. I.e., only consequences matter. That’s not double effect. Double effect applies only to evil effects that are NOT DESIRED, EITHER AS ENDS OR AS MEANS.

In the case of torture, you’re willing the torture, even if it’s for a good end, so that’s consequentialism, not double effect. By contrast, if you bomb a purely military target, and a civilian is killed, that’s double effect, b/c (or I should say, as long as) the killing of the civilian was an undesired side-effect, and not desired either as an end (“We want to kill civilians!”) or as a means (“We don’t want to kill civilians but we figure that by doing so we will demoralize the enemy and that will have good consequences”).

When called on this error by one of the e-mailers who accused him of using ends-justifies-the-means logic (i.e., of falling into consequentialism), Thiessen retreated into saying the acts he’s talking about aren’t torture. Well if that were true (and obviously it’s a highly controversial claim), then there’d be no need to invoke either double effect or consequentialism to justify them: if it’s not evil, you can just, you know, do it!

One useful diagnostic for telling the difference between a real double effect argument and consequentialism is to replace your preferred intrinsic moral evil with something you are still willing to regard as an intrinsic and grave moral evil and then see if you’d still be willing to do it in order to achieve your good end. So, for instance, replace “torturing the hairy, smelly bad guy” with, say, “torturing the screaming child of the hairy, smelly bad guy”. If your argument is *really* a double effect argument, nothing will change. If your argument is just consequentialist hogwash, this becomes obvious really fast. Then the choice is to abandon consequentialism or (which is always possible with the fallen mind) find a fresh rationale for wading more deeply into grave evil. History suggests that the latter course is commonly (though not always) taken.

By the way, arguments for, say, terror bombing civilian populations (like Dresden) are, precisely, arguments for achieving a good end through the deliberate torture and murder of children. They achieve *their* effect by melting (literally) the screaming children into a vast statistical pool of other victims so as to anonymize the face of the little girl with the skin burned away.

Uncategorized

Previous Post

February 17, 2010

356 Followers!

Next Post

February 17, 2010 Kevin O'Brien, Actor Extraordinaire, writes

Browse Our Archives

Select a Category Uncategorized

Select a Month May 2020 April 2020 March 2020 February 2020 January 2020 December 2019 November 2019 October 2019 September 2019 August 2019 July 2019 June 2019 May 2019 April 2019 March 2019 February 2019 January 2019 December 2018 November 2018 October 2018 September 2018 August 2018 July 2018 June 2018 May 2018 April 2018 March 2018 February 2018 January 2018 December 2017 November 2017 October 2017 September 2017 August 2017 July 2017 June 2017 May 2017 April 2017 March 2017 February 2017 January 2017 December 2016 November 2016 October 2016 September 2016 August 2016 July 2016 June 2016 May 2016 December 2015 November 2015 October 2015 September 2015 August 2015 July 2015 June 2015 May 2015 April 2015 March 2015 February 2015 January 2015 December 2014 November 2014 October 2014 September 2014 August 2014 July 2014 June 2014 May 2014 April 2014 March 2014 February 2014 January 2014 December 2013 November 2013 October 2013 September 2013 August 2013 July 2013 June 2013 May 2013 April 2013 March 2013 February 2013 January 2013 December 2012 November 2012 October 2012 September 2012 August 2012 July 2012 June 2012 May 2012 April 2012 March 2012 February 2012 January 2012 December 2011 November 2011 October 2011 September 2011 August 2011 July 2011 June 2011 May 2011 April 2011 March 2011 February 2011 January 2011 December 2010 November 2010 October 2010 September 2010 August 2010 July 2010 June 2010 May 2010 April 2010 March 2010 February 2010 January 2010 December 2009 November 2009 October 2009 September 2009 August 2009 July 2009 June 2009 May 2009 April 2009 March 2009 February 2009 January 2009 September 2006 June 2006 July 2005 April 2005 May 2002 April 2002 0000

TAKE THE

Religious Wisdom Quiz