(This is Part 1 of a 2-part article.)
Where torture is used it means that a particular precept is being invoked, both by the torturers themselves and by the institution or government that creates a climate, innocently or otherwise, where the process can appear.
This precept is that, "The end justifies the means." For clarity, let's first look at two extreme examples:
In the Middle Ages the Spanish Inquisition and other Inquisitions justified the use of torture in helping to keep the True Beliefs of the church intact.
In the minds of the inquisitors and their superiors, the pursuit of this end was so overwhelmingly important that it justified any means whatever, including severe torture of "heretics" and their burning at the stake.
Imagine! In the name of Jesus, who preached love, compassion and tolerance, people were being tortured and murdered. But this is merely an example of the seemingly logical end-result that follows from believing the precept that, "The end justifies the means."
Today the Inquisition is remembered solely as a severly cautionary tale, as a blot upon the history of Christianity and indeed, upon the history of humanity itself.
That is, the Inquisition is not remembered today for its seemingly noble ends but for the inhuman means that it used. And it's remembered this way for a good reason, because the means used were the real end that it achieved. The savage means were what entered into history.
The true principle that operates here is somewhat different from the precept that was cited above. In fact, it's the exact opposite. Here it is:
The means that we use to achieve our end
is the real end that we achieve.
No matter how noble our end appears to be, if we use ignoble means to achieve it then that dark ignobleness is the real end that is attained and remembered.
Let's take another example from among a thousand that could be used: Hitler.
Do we imagine that Hitler went to bed at night thinking that he was evil? Very doubtful. By his own statements, he was creating a pure Aryan race—and space for it—that would be the shining light of humanity.
If in the process of achieving this desirable end a few eggs needed to be broken, well, that was simply the price that had to be paid. After all, as the saying goes, "You have to break some eggs to make an omelet."
Of course, the ignoble means that Hitler used are today what he is primarily remembered for. He has entered the history books as a primary example of evil. This is no accident. It is an extreme though precise example of the path that "The end justifies the means" walks upon.
It's an iron law, as much as gravity: Paradoxically, the more that the "means" are considered unimportant in comparison to what seems to be an idealistic end, the more grim the results tend to be. This is so because the means are the end.
In other words, it is not enough to hold some shining ideal of what we'd like to achieve or where events should go. Much more vital than that, no matter how important the end seems to be, is to use noble, conscious and humane means—since that is what will be achieved, that is what will be remembered.
(This is the end of Part 1. Go to Part 2.)
—jim sloman, 5.15.04 for Mar 3
|
