Philosophy Now Forum

On the Moral Permissibility of Waterboarding KSM: Part 1 of 3

Ethics is a subject matter notoriously fraught with disagreement. Many ethicists have fruitlessly sought to establish universal moral truths or tenets. Moral facts are hard to come by. In the end, the most compelling moral judgments we share are intuitive ones (which is not to say there‘s nothing but our intuitions speaking for them). So compelling are some that they are not susceptible to being undermined, nor should they be. They are grounded in common sense, our sense of fairness (or justice), and are a product of our humanity. We all, for example, find it morally impermissible to dismember babies for sport. We all, for example, believe that beating old people on a whim is morally impermissible. So compelling are certain of these beliefs that if God Himself came down and told us that dismembering babies for sport was morally permissible, we wouldn’t accept it. We would continue to think it was morally impermissible. No moral theory exists, has existed or will ever exist that could undermine that moral judgment. Ultimately, it is these moral judgments which serve as a litmus test for ethical theories. If, for example, applying Ethical Theory X results in the proposition that dismembering babies for sport is morally permissible, then Ethical Theory X goes in the scrap heap. No ethical theory can undermine our moral judgment that dismembering babies for sport is morally impermissible, but instead our moral judgment can be used to undermine an ethical theory.

What follows is part 1 of 3 of my argument for the moral permissibility of waterboarding Khalid Sheik Mohammed (KSM).

I'm intentionally not giving an outline of my upcoming argument, so bear with me for now if you don't see the relevance of Part 1.

Part 1: The Home Intruders Scenario

Suppose that you are home, it's 2 AM and your family are sleeping in their rooms. Your daughter is in the first room up the stairs. Your son is in the next room, a bit further down. And you, your spouse, and your newborn are in the last room. You are startled from your sleep and soon come to realize that six men have broken into your home, they're armed, and, obviously, pose a threat to your family. Before you know what to do, they go into your daughter's room and shoot her to death. They exit her room and begin heading toward your son's room. Before you can load your semi-automatic rifle, they’ve killed your son too. They’re now exiting his room and walking towards yours.

Here's the moral question: Is it morally permissible to come out of your room with your semi-automatic rifle and attempt to kill them all? Or, is something else, perhaps something “less drastic”, morally required of you? Are you morally required, for instance, to try to shoot the guns from their hands? Are you morally required to try to reason with them?

Given the circumstances, the vast majority of people believe that it's morally permissible to kill the home intruders. Sometimes I phrase this as “shoot to kill the home intruders,“ but it would be preposterous to morally sanction shooting to kill but not killing, so I’ll just do away with the ‘shooting to kill’ talk. I take this, then, to be an uncontroversial ethical judgment: it is morally permissible to kill the home intruders. But it’s more than uncontroversial, it's so compelling that it cannot be undermined by either a conflicting intuition (e.g. “that it's morally impermissible to kill people”) or by any ethical theory which would have us conclude that it's not morally permissible (or, it is morally impermissible) to kill the home intruders.

This is the first part of my argument, and I’d like now to hear if anyone wishes to argue that it’s not morally permissible to kill the home intruders.
I think since this is a commonsense view, the putative view, that the philosophical onus is on anyone who wishes to challenge the claim that it’s morally permissible to kill the home intruders. Another way to say this is that this isn’t a belief we need to be argued into -- but out of. So, I’ll wait a bit to see if there are any objections. If not, I’ll move on to Part 2 of my argument.

Don't go out on a limb or anything by saying that you think it's morally permissible to kill the home intruders. You all believe it, so why not just say it? Oh, I know, you're afraid you're falling for some philosophical trap, and you want to afford yourself the opportunity to carp about this later. Well, I'll wait several hours before I post Part 2. If no one objects, and we get to 30 views (and 0 replies?), then we'll adopt the 'silence is consent' rule. You've been notified, so now even your concession can't be challenged later.

So its only for sport its not morally permissable, just dismembering babies is fine? As history is replete with such stuff.
Is this an example of one of those fantasy scenarios you accused me of?
"shoot the guns from their hands", are you being serious with this moral alternative? But since you plan to fire a semi-automatic rifle I'd be more worried about your neighbours lives or have you brought a bunker for a house? I'd also guess that reason would tell you that reasoning with them is probably not an option.
You've neatly slipped from the moral permissablity to kill those who've entered your house and killed members of your family, to morally permissible to kill home intruders?
At most it says its morally permissable to defend oneself and loved ones, whether this means its morally permissable to kill home intruders might upset the cop who has entered to investigate why the back-door was open.
Depends upon the circumstances I'd say. If they've done what you say then I'd say yes, even if you are a drug-baron and your son and daughter went for their guns when they saw the DEA.
So my objection is that your case does not generalize from the specific fantasy that you put forward. At most it says its morally permissable to defend oneself and family from threat of death.

All of your comments are irrelevant. That's my response to your inanities.

To everyone else,

I'm asking a simple moral question. I've described the scenario. Of course it's idiotic to add conditions to my scenario which I can simply reject on the grounds that there's no need for me to include them in my scenario. So, saying that the cops are at your house, that superman is on the way, that you're a drug baron, etc. is pure nonsense. I can legitimately reject the stipulation that the cops are at your house, that superman is on the way, that you're a drug baron, etc., because my version is realistic as it stands. All of this is remedial thinking, but obviously it's beyond one member, so I'm making it explicit. There are infinitely many possible realistic moral scenarios. I'm asking about this one. Is this really that hard? I mean, really.

But you are right, as your 'philosphical essay' is like a scientologist questionnaire, i.e. closed questions that are so specific that 'yes' would be the only answer. Presumeably this will lead to your fantasy having someone in charge of some person who has information about the 'attack' that if tortured would save the family. Just guessing mind, as you apparently have the option of rewriting in pts 2 & 3.

Got it: you think it's morally permissible to kill the home intruders. Thanks.

Anyone else?

not morally permissable but rational

No, I think it permissable to defend oneself from the home intruders who are threatening me with death. Not just 'home intruders', which is why this is the Law over here.

This is a moral dilemma, so if it isn't morally permissible, then you're saying it's morally impermissible. You're saying -- without so much as an argument for your counter-intuitive and contentious claim -- that it's morally wrong to kill the home intruders in this scenario. The man who kills them is morally wrong for doing so.

I'm glad you chimed in, really, but you realize you have no argument for your position. I know it and you know it.

So, you're telling me that in that situation, you would be wondering -- you know, while they're walking to your room -- whether they are a threat to your wife's, to your newborn's, and to your life?

LOL...dude, how are you still alive?

Because I don't do things that would invite the visit of six armed killers.
p.s.
I thought this home-intruder* scenario had them already killing, so I think I can reasonably infer that they are threatening me.
p.p.s
Will there be many more of these emotive scenarios before you state your case?

You need to take reading lessons. I'm not going to explain anything to you. It's all there. Go back and read it.

I'll bite.

Given the provided scenario where it appears that the protagonists have wilfully entered my house and I have very good reason to believe that they will kill me then I believe that I am morally permissible to defend myself in a way that may lead to the death of the intruders. I also accept that if my only apparent means of defence are firearms then shooting to kill may be the best option available to me based on my expertise.

Given the stated purpose of the thread I assume this will lead to a ticking time bomb scenario where we may be lead to extol the philosophy of Jack Bauer. I may be wrong but I'm sufficiently intrigued.

Thank you, John, you are the reason why I will post Part 2 tomorrow.

I swear, there's absolutely no incentive to offer an argument to people who can't bring themselves to agree that killing the home intruders is morally permissible. It's almost unbelieveable that they don't believe it. If you put them in those circumstances, they would kill the home intruders and wouldn't think they did something immoral in defending the life of their families in those circumstances. Yet, they will disingenuously say here that they don't think it's morally permissible just because they think it might help my case.

Seriously, who among you is going to argue that the man who kills the home intruders does something immoral? Go head. Argue that it would be immoral to defend his life and that of his family by killing the home intruders, when killing them is the only reasonable option open to him given the circumstances the home intruders put his family in. I'd love to see that argument.

And, yes, John, I'm going to argue that the Home Intruders scenario is fundamentally the KSM case. But getting from A to B takes a bit of philosophy, and that's what I hope to do with Parts 2 and 3.

Let me also say this. If you cannot come to agree that it's morally permissible to kill the home intruders, or you've stated or implied that it's morally impermissible, I'm not going to address any of your comments. You can see that as my avoiding having to take on objections, or you can see it for what it is: my refusal to waste my time with people fundamentally different in moral perspective and reasoning capacity than the vast majority of people on this planet. I mean, really, if you think it's morally impermissible to kill the home intruders, then my argument will not seem compelling to you at all, so you needn't worry about any of the rest. You and I would only be talking past each other. I'm not interested in long, tedious, pointless debates.

Many of you, I'm sure, agree that it's morally permissible to kill the home intruders but disagree that it's morally permissible to waterboard KSM. That's how I like it. At least we can debate without talking past each other.

Part 2: The Justification

Consider any moral act (one person does something to another person) in isolation, and it’s impossible to say whether it’s a good or bad act. In fact, it’s neither good nor bad. Human beings don’t commit moral acts in isolation, so determining the moral status of any moral act requires taking into account the significant circumstances under which it was committed. The circumstances determine the moral status of moral acts, and a slight difference in circumstances might mean a difference of moral status: Act One, with circumstances A, B, and C, might be morally permissible, whereas a similar act, Act Two, with circumstances A, B, and D, might be morally impermissible.

What’s next is my analysis of the Home Intruders scenario. I want to lay out the significant circumstances (of it) that inform our judgment that killing the home intruders is a morally permissible act. I'm presenting them as six significant circumstances, but I'm open to adding, subtracting, or altering any if good reason is presented for the change(s). The significant circumstances of the Home Intruders scenario:

(1) The home intruders are in the process of carrying out an immoral act -- namely, killing the remainder of the family.
(2) The home dwellers' lives are being threatened.
(3) The home dwellers are morally justified to act as if their lives are threatened.
(4) The home dwellers are not morally required to simply accept their apparent fate at the hands of the home intruders.
(5) The home intruders have forfeited their right to life in virtue of placing the home dwellers in these circumstances.
(6) Shooting the home intruders is one of the least drastic yet effective measures the home dwellers can take in order to thwart the home intruders from carrying out their immoral plan.

Circumstance (1): We’re noting that an immoral act is in progress. The home intruders are planning on killing the rest of the family. This is a stipulation, so it makes no sense to challenge it.

Circumstance (2): The armed home intruders, given their actions, pose a mortal threat to the rest of the family. They plan on killing them.

Circumstance (3): Even if the home intruders were not planning to kill the home dwellers, the home dwellers are morally justified to act as if their lives are in danger, given the circumstances. It would be highly unreasonable, for intance, to require that the home dwellers should first ask the home intruders if they were indeed planning on killing them. We would also need to mantain that it would be reasonable to believe the home intruders in such a situation.

Circumstance (4): It goes against our pre-philosophical notion of fairness (or justice) to expect the home dwellers to accept becoming murder victims of the home intruders. That is, they aren’t precluded from trying to save themselves in certain situations, and the situation they find themselves in is one in which they can, morally speaking, take action to thwart the immoral act from being carried out.

Circumstance (5): The home intruders had a right to life, just like anyone, prior to wilfully becoming credible threats to the lives of the rest of the family. To be clear, while the home intruders keep the home dwellers in this threatening position, they forfeit their right to life.

Circumstance (6): The action the home dwellers take (that is, shooting to kill the home intruders) is both effective and one of the “least drastic” measures available to them given the circumstances. If we’re serious about (4), that it’s reasonable for the home dwellers to take some preventive measure, then it would be unreasonable to morally demand that they try to reason with the home intruders, shoot the guns from the hands of the home intruders, manage to get safely down and away from a second-story window with spouse and newborn in tow, etc., when the home intruders are but seconds away. There seems to be no alternate option that’s as likely to succeed in thwarting the attack as shooting to kill, so shooting to kill gets sanctioned as morally permissible despite its violent nature. If there were a less violent method as likely, or more likely, to succeed as shooting to kill the home intruders, then shooting to kill the home intruders would not be morally permissible. Finally, shooting to kill doesn’t seem like a disproportionate response. So, just because some action is the most likely to succeed, it doesn’t mean that it’s morally permissible to use it. If, for example, I’m about to throw a baseball at you, and the only thing available to you to stop me (say you’re in a wheelchair) is to shoot me with the rifle you’re holding, then we might not sanction shooting me as morally permissible despite the fact that there’s no other alternative way to stop me from hitting you with the baseball.

It is, thus, my contention that these circumstances morally justify killing the home intruders. These are the reasons we'd give, should we be pressed, for our moral judgment that it's morally permissible to kill the home intruders.

I hope I have covered all the significant circumstances in this scenario and that my analysis is accurate. At this point, I welcome any objections, input, or questions. Now, some of you will be trying to undermine this because you feel like we’re getting closer to the end of my argument and you simply must find somewhere to object before it’s too late. Yeah, I get it. But I only ask that you try to focus solely on my analysis. If you disagree, tell me what you’d change, add, or subtract, and why. There’s still more philosophy required of me to get to my conclusion, so fear not: you’ll have plenty of time for objections later.