L. J. Siden

To the editor,

I'd like to take this opportunity to respond to Mr. Meade's recent letter in which he condones the "moral" use of torture. My first question would be, whose "moral" template is he referring to? Morality refers to a code of conduct or a set of beliefs distinguishing between right and wrong behaviors. The problem is the arbitrariness of morality; it is subjectively created by philosophy, religion and/or ones conscience. The actions deemed moral by one individual or culture may not be classified as such by others. For the most part, right and wrong acts are classified as such because they cause benefit or harm, respectively. Many moral beliers are based on prejudice, ignorance, or even hatred. Examples of the subjectivity of morality would be white supremacists, who believe that advocating hate and violence toward non-whites and Jews is morally beneficial to their cause; and the terrorists involved in the tragic events of 9/11, who were morally convinced that their actions were justified based on their extremist religious beliefs.

I am a Christian, as is Mr. Meade, and as such we profess to follow the teachings of Jesus Christ. If we research Christian scripture and the wide range of Christian social teachings, we get a very consistent historical answer that it is never right to torture another human being. In the Gospels, Jesus talks about loving your neighbor as yourself, do not repay evil for evil, love your enemy. There's this sense that each person is created by God in the image of God and has an inherent dignity, and torture would render that dignity undermined. I am sure Mr. Meade and others will argue that the terrorists gave no thought to brotherly love, and they would be correct, but do we abandon our Christian morals and wallow in the hate they are attempting to disseminate throughout the world? Do we pick and choose to follow only the teachings of Christ that benefit our own selfish interests?

As for torture, it is great at extracting false confessions, but I believe essentially useless for extracting intelligence. Consider this: when do you stop torturing someone? The usual answer is when you get the answer you need. The truth is that you are looking for information that fits you preconceptions. if your suspicions are incorrect, you will reject a truthful answer and keep torturing until the victim tells you something that matches you false picture of the situation.

L. J. Siden

Gilmanton