At the time, there was reason to believe additional attacks were immanent, and that we had custody of people with sufficient knowledge of them that we would be able to thwart them. There were two moral principles in conflict: a. Torture is morally wrong. b. The President is responsible for protecting the citizens against attacks.Originally Posted by Sargent
When confronted with conflicting moral principles, the first step of moral behavior is determining which violation is the greater evil. Moral courage consists of acting to prevent that evil, knowing that one is committing a lesser evil, and accepting the consequences of that act. To take an example from another era, Dr. M. L. King chose a course of action that would highlight the denial of civil rights to a large group of citizens. He did so in the knowledge that he would be violating the prevailing laws, spent time in jail for that violation, and, to my knowledge, never complained about it.
Mr. Bush chose to authorize harsh interrogations, knowing that some would characterize the methods as torture, in the belief it was necessary to prevent the murder of civilians in the US and abroad. He choses the lesser evil, and responsibility for it, in order to prevent the greater evil. That is moral courage.
Before you respond, place yourself in his position and consider the alternative: "Yes, they murdered a lot of people, and we could have forced this guy to give up the information to stop that, but at least we didn't make anyone uncomfortable."
Bookmarks