WAKE FOREST, N.C. (ABP) — Debate over the morality of coercive force would be served better if everyone involved quit using the word “torture” altogether, said Daniel Heimbach, professor of Christian ethics at Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary.
“The problem here is that in hotly debating the ethics of so-called ‘torture,’ one side strongly — and rather self-righteously — objects to any ‘immoral use of force,’ while the other side is most often in fact trying to defend nothing more than ‘morally justified use of force,’” said Heimbach, research institute fellow with the Southern Baptist Convention Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission.
“But, of course, ‘moral’ and ‘immoral’ uses of force are by definition completely different things, and there is no real disagreement as to the ethical substance of the issue.”
The real questions are when, how and under what circumstances the line between morally justified and unjustified use of force is crossed, he insisted.
“Neither side in the torture debate is defending immoral use of force, and neither side is saying coercion should never be used, under any circumstance, no matter how mild. [Which is] all to say, we should stop using the word ‘torture,’ which is so emotionally inflammatory opponents cease communicating,” Heimbach said.
Instead, opponents over the use of coercive force “should use other language that states more clearly and exactly what is truly opposed and defended,” Heimbach said.
Both sides in the debate should be able to find common ground by starting with the acknowledgement that coercive force is a “graduated continuum” that extends from mild discomfort to painful death, he asserted.
“For those able to set aside emotion for the sake of moral clarity, answers for how anyone finds the moral boundary separating justified from unjustified use of force are answered by applying principles of just war,” Heimbach said.
just-war principles — such as proportionality of ends and means, probability of success, whether war is the option of last resort, whether the proper authority is making the decision to enter war and whether the prosecutors of the war use no essentially evil means — would provide reasonable guidelines for determining whether moral boundaries are violated in regard to coercive force, he suggested.
“I strongly agree it is always wrong to apply force immorally, and if that is what … [is meant] by ‘torture,’ then I do indeed strongly oppose torture — immoral use of force — under any circumstance and urge everyone else to oppose it as well,” he said.