Posts
Torture is any act that causes pain to the subject where no relationship exists between the agent and the subject that would guaranty the subject protection from grave or lasting harm.
"Harm" is to be understood as including physical, mental and spiritual harm.
"Grave harm" is to be understood as any harm that could threaten the subject's life.
"Lasting harm" is to be understood as any harm that could threaten the subject with permanent injury or disability.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
I know this topic is being widely discussed in the Catholic blogosphere right now, and so I'm probably just stating things that have already been dragged out and debated, but I wanted to ask you.
Generally, from a Catholic perspective, what is wrong for the individual is wrong for the state, and the same for what is morally right - there's a kind of analogy between the two. So, if one takes an instance of an individual legitimately hurting another in self-defense, isn't it somewhat analogous to torture?
I mean, if someone had a gun to my back, I could twist their wrist until they dropped it - even if it turned out only to be a water gun. Can a government not twist the wrist of someone who claims to have set a bomb to go off, until they allow it to be disarmed? Even if it turns out to be a false claim?
And wouldn't your definition of torture mean that I was torturing the man behind me with a gun?
Sorry - obviously these questions are angled at a specific answer; I'm just trying to state an opposing viewpoint as concisely as possible, and I'm interested in your explanation.
And wouldn't your definition of torture mean that I was torturing the man behind me with a gun?
I think answering this question is the key to the whole thing. I would say no, it would not be torture under my definition.
If a man has a gun to your back, he is in a position of power over you, insofar as he has a means of coercing you to do what he wants or to take your life. I would say that such a relationship, as twisted and evil as it is, is one that guaranties him protection from grave or lasting harm, since you would essentially be a hostage and he would be the one holding you hostage.
I suppose one could say that his position of power does not guaranty him protection from harm, since you can obviously hurt him if you get the opportunity to twist his wrist. So I suppose that "guaranty the subject protection" might need a bit of a rewrite.
Actually, I'm beginning to think that my 1st tentative definition of torture was a better one. Perhaps I need to consider refining it and offering a third.
Post a Comment