One of Al Qaeda's goals, it's not just to attack the United States. It's to prove that we're hypocrites—that we don't live up to American principles.
I can't say that I agree with his claim that torture is enough to create an enemy. The issue of torture as a damnable act—as clearly as I stand where I do—is debated for a reason. Because all sorts of behavior can be damned and justified by those who are usually more interested in damning and justifying the people who engage in the behavior.
If the question is simply what would be American? then the argument of torture can be lost as easily as Cheney makes his arguments. Because when enough Americans accept the trajectory of his morality the value is American. Let's be honest. This country is not a sanctuary of moral clarity. And we don't want it to be, because that requires puritanism.
The harder argument to make is about the efficacy of torture. Because results have to be there. And while Cheney likes to speak as an authority on the wisdom of torture, his only credential is faith. Those who are trained and experienced should really provide a sober counter if they have one. And my only credential is faith that they have one.
I'm kinda hoping that the strongest and clearest sober counter doesn't have to be Jesse Ventura.
3 comments:
This country is not a sanctuary of moral clarity. And we don't want it to be, because that requires puritanism.I don't agree here -- in fact, doesn't it sound even a little bizarre for a person to say that they don't want their nation to be a nation of moral clarity? I know we're all participating in American-ness, so it's difficult to see this with a transcendental eye... but of course we want moral clarity. And don't think for a minute that puritanism wasn't part of what made America possible. I think it's a very superficial idea to suggest that the documents drawn up by Hamilton, Madison, Jefferson, etc. were themselves enough to bring about the civilization that now exists. The whole notion of Liberty must be supported by moral clarity -- this is why people who side with Hobbes and assume that human beings are intrinsically corrupt will never buy the libertarian argument.
But in my view, the problem is never puritanism, but hypocrisy as it corrupts puritanism. I hope it's clear that what I'm talking about is not about labels or names -- we're both using a lower-case "p" for puritanism. If one of Al-Qaeda's goals was to expose our hypocrisy, I can only say that between the time I was 23 on 9/11 and now, they've made a convert out of me, at least.
Cheney's superabundance of moral clarity was obviously never the problem -- rather (it seems to me) it was his inability to rise above the morality-is-subjective-and-therefore-we-define-morality mindset. In short, he was too much of a strategic rhetorician and not enough of an abiding, principled idealist.
Anyway. I'm going to Asheville for the weekend. Take time composing your response. I'll check back. I'm really interested in what you think -- if you think I've seized on a phrase that you used haphazardly, or if you want to defend that proposition about not wanting to be a sanctuary of moral clarity (presumably because you think that's impossible and think that presuming to be such a thing leads to tyranny?).
Peaceout, gout.
natersod (whoa!)
I think what Michael was trying to say is that, people who believe they have complete or perfect moral clarity, are often frightening, immutable, and rather dictatorial.
Or at least that's my take on it; anyone who thinks all their moral choices are clear and simple is either in a state of dangerous denial or utterly, utterly sheltered. Either way, the end result are choices that aren't always considered in a rational way.
presumably because you think that's impossible and think that presuming to be such a thing leads to tyranny?-
people who believe they have complete or perfect moral clarity, are often frightening, immutable, and rather dictatorial.-
that's precisely it. i can only back off the insistence that the moral issue should make the torture argument clear if i accept that torture can be both defended and criticized with moral syllogisms.
and those arguments should be a part of the debate. to value the erasing of such arguments is not only a waste of time, it's a value that too often leads to the devaluation of the individuals who hold 'immoral' views.
I believe there's a huge difference between "i don't like that moral view" and "i don't like that you have that moral view."
Post a Comment