Sunday, December 18, 2005

Star Trek Ethics

I thought about Captain Kirk this morning, while reading an article about torture.

An argument I’d read a few days pitted two people, one of whom said that of course you could torture if the moment warranted it, and if it was reviewed and approved by someone above you in your structure, and the other of whom said that of course you could torture if the moment warranted it, so long as you understood that what you were doing was morally wrong, and you were willing to be punished for doing it. Therefore, torture was okay so long as you could find someone to take the blame for doing it. Other articles say no, that’s completely wrong – that there are no conditions under which torture is acceptable. Even if you knew that doing so would prevent a massive loss of life, you could not do so and still call your society civilized. Which led me to wonder how the people whose lives were being saved would feel about it. Would they, en masse, be willing to die so that their society could continue to call itself civilized?

I found myself remembering a moment in one of the early Star Treks wherein Captain Kirk sternly says that he is willing to die in order to prevent information from being given out which could imperil the planet in question; further, so are all of the members of his crew. I remember thinking even then that this was remarkable. Did they really did feel this way? Every one of them? Most of them? The bridge crew? Spock? I think that, perhaps, they were willing to die so long as they didn’t have time to think about it - so long as it was an abstract danger. But if they had to contemplate it – then, perhaps no-so-fast, Jim, lets see what the alternatives might be.

I think most of us are opposed to torture, regarding it and its practicioners as barbaric. Thats part of the reason that we regard terrorists as barbaric. When its our life on the line,though, that assessment might change, and what in moments of quiet contemplation would be found unacceptable would likely become rapidly less so (particularly if the torture subjects are people we don’t particularly care about, or even actively dislike).

But we'd look the other way. We wouldn't do it ourselves, and we'd just as soon not be asked for permission, either. We'd rather someone else took care of it and didn't tell us until it was done -- if then.

I don't want to have to make this choice, but I know which way I'm leaning.

2 comments:

STAG said...

Plausible deniability.

Unfortunately it comes back to bite you in the ass sometimes. Ollie North is a fine example, and Mahar Arar is a little more current. You remember him...the father of four who was born in Algeria. Came here as a child of three, got his Canadian citizenship as a young man, became an Engineer. Quiet, no politics in his family. Went home for Ramadan, and his flight had a connection in New York. US officials arrested this Canadian citizen, and sent him to Syria for questioning. Two years of torture and imprisonment, the Canadian Embassy finally got him out and home.
Seems he had done nothing wrong.
He surfaces in the newspaper from time to time as his case winds slowly through the courts.
You read about such cases...and say "oh well". I wonder how it would play if it was turnabout. A US citizen kidnapped by a friendly government and sent to a questionably neutral state for harsh interrogation?

I would rather it be done openly, personally, or not done at all. But thats just me....I am the guy who would like to see Hamas officials strapped into time bomb vests and set out in the desert...and film it. I'm not a normal granola crunchin liberal...I am a granola crunching liberal with a severe attitude.

Merry Christmas Bill,
and many blessings on your family.

STAG said...

Sorry...got some facts wrong on the above rant....

Mahar came to Canada at 17, was a wireless technician, um....the rest of the stuff is pretty much right....I hit "post" before I googled...always a bad habit...