Author: Scott

While she writes about the black sites we illegally operated in Poland and Romania, Hilzoy steps aside and answers the important question of why we don’t allow torture in our name. There are two reasons, and sympathy is only the first… and most tenuous. More than sympathy stays our hand: Hilzoy eloquently writes why.

There are some things we, as individuals, should not do to other people. Often, we will also sympathize with those people, and that sympathy might prevent us from, say, torturing or raping them. Sometimes we feel no sympathy, however — the other person might be a person only a saint could sympathize with, like Jeffrey Dahmer. If our only reason for not torturing or raping people was sympathy, then when faced with such a person, we might have no reason not to do whatever we liked to him or her. But sympathy is not our only reason for not torturing and raping people. There’s also self-respect: the thought that whatever someone else might choose to be like, and even if that person has chosen to be Jeffrey Dahmer, there are certain things that I will not choose to do, because I do not want to be the sort of person who does them.

If someone saw me not torturing Jeffrey Dahmer and said: Gosh, there’s hilzoy, all undone by the thought that such a horrible person might suffer even a teensy bit of pain, I would think: sorry, but you do not understand why I am doing this at all. And if someone thinks that the reason I do not want my country to abduct children, to disappear people without charges and without trial, to waterboard them, or to keep them in isolation for months on end, is nothing but concern for them, they are making a similar mistake. I feel terrible about what we have done to a lot of people — the Uighurs, for instance. I do not have a lot of sympathy for Osama bin Laden. But that fact has precisely nothing to do with my thinking that there are certain things I simply do not want my country to do, even to him.

Only tangentially related: Some nuts and bolts of CRSTs and other Guantanamo related legal decisions. Very interesting.

Linked by Brutal Women, Virushead’s warning:
May She Be the New Jesus (so to speak)

I have something to say about the recent Supreme Court decision that upheld the ban on late-term abortions, whether or not the pregnancy endangers the woman’s life.

I’m a pragmatic contextual ethicist with a spiritual sensibility, and I cannot be silent. I cannot pretend that I don’t understand the next step in this game. If you stop for a moment to think about it, what will be required next is blindingly obvious.

A dead woman.

The post goes on to explain, that much like runaway teens, it’ll matter who the dead woman is. Pretty, white, and probably a mom– it’ll take at least that to get people to understand that this affects everyone, even their own tribe. Abortion isn’t all welfare moms, you’re not just punishing sluts– this will affect everyone, even the most faithful and hopeful families.