Liberal democratic torture

Steven Lukes

    Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

    Abstract

    Liberal democracies have long practised torture, but should they ever permit their officials to torture (and, if so, when?), how should their citizens think and talk about it, and how should the law treat it? Is it just another instance of 'dirty hands' in politics? If it averts some terrible harm, can resorting to it be seen as choosing the 'lesser evil'? What, then, is torture? The 'torture memos' of the Bush administration's legal advisers are reviewed and their attempt to narrow its definition criticized, as is Judge Posner's attempt to confine it to physical coercion. Attempts to evade the questions above (on the grounds that torture is never effective in averting disaster) are rejected. It is suggested that torture, unlike other cases of dirty hands considered, cannot be rendered liberal-democratically accountable, in the sense that it will sometimes be legitimate and, when not, punished, because its practice cannot be publicly recognized without undermining both the democratic and liberal components of liberal democracy. This suggestion is supported by adducing a 'Durkheimian argument' to the effect that our institutions and customs have been so penetrated by core elements of an egalitarian 'religion of individualism' that violating them threatens a kind of 'moral disintegration'. This, it is argued, requires liberal democracies to reject the very idea of a scale that can allow comparison of the benefits against the costs of torturing. The absolute prohibition serves to maintain inhibitions, though these are currently being eroded by the fear of terrorism.

    Original languageEnglish (US)
    Pages (from-to)1-16
    Number of pages16
    JournalBritish Journal of Political Science
    Volume36
    Issue number1
    DOIs
    StatePublished - Jan 2006

    Fingerprint

    torture
    democracy
    individualism
    disaster
    terrorism
    Religion
    anxiety
    citizen
    Law
    politics
    costs

    ASJC Scopus subject areas

    • Sociology and Political Science

    Cite this

    Liberal democratic torture. / Lukes, Steven.

    In: British Journal of Political Science, Vol. 36, No. 1, 01.2006, p. 1-16.

    Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

    Lukes, Steven. / Liberal democratic torture. In: British Journal of Political Science. 2006 ; Vol. 36, No. 1. pp. 1-16.
    @article{2e671a852ba841c39a8d1d90ac3ee04e,
    title = "Liberal democratic torture",
    abstract = "Liberal democracies have long practised torture, but should they ever permit their officials to torture (and, if so, when?), how should their citizens think and talk about it, and how should the law treat it? Is it just another instance of 'dirty hands' in politics? If it averts some terrible harm, can resorting to it be seen as choosing the 'lesser evil'? What, then, is torture? The 'torture memos' of the Bush administration's legal advisers are reviewed and their attempt to narrow its definition criticized, as is Judge Posner's attempt to confine it to physical coercion. Attempts to evade the questions above (on the grounds that torture is never effective in averting disaster) are rejected. It is suggested that torture, unlike other cases of dirty hands considered, cannot be rendered liberal-democratically accountable, in the sense that it will sometimes be legitimate and, when not, punished, because its practice cannot be publicly recognized without undermining both the democratic and liberal components of liberal democracy. This suggestion is supported by adducing a 'Durkheimian argument' to the effect that our institutions and customs have been so penetrated by core elements of an egalitarian 'religion of individualism' that violating them threatens a kind of 'moral disintegration'. This, it is argued, requires liberal democracies to reject the very idea of a scale that can allow comparison of the benefits against the costs of torturing. The absolute prohibition serves to maintain inhibitions, though these are currently being eroded by the fear of terrorism.",
    author = "Steven Lukes",
    year = "2006",
    month = "1",
    doi = "10.1017/S0007123406000019",
    language = "English (US)",
    volume = "36",
    pages = "1--16",
    journal = "British Journal of Political Science",
    issn = "0007-1234",
    publisher = "Cambridge University Press",
    number = "1",

    }

    TY - JOUR

    T1 - Liberal democratic torture

    AU - Lukes, Steven

    PY - 2006/1

    Y1 - 2006/1

    N2 - Liberal democracies have long practised torture, but should they ever permit their officials to torture (and, if so, when?), how should their citizens think and talk about it, and how should the law treat it? Is it just another instance of 'dirty hands' in politics? If it averts some terrible harm, can resorting to it be seen as choosing the 'lesser evil'? What, then, is torture? The 'torture memos' of the Bush administration's legal advisers are reviewed and their attempt to narrow its definition criticized, as is Judge Posner's attempt to confine it to physical coercion. Attempts to evade the questions above (on the grounds that torture is never effective in averting disaster) are rejected. It is suggested that torture, unlike other cases of dirty hands considered, cannot be rendered liberal-democratically accountable, in the sense that it will sometimes be legitimate and, when not, punished, because its practice cannot be publicly recognized without undermining both the democratic and liberal components of liberal democracy. This suggestion is supported by adducing a 'Durkheimian argument' to the effect that our institutions and customs have been so penetrated by core elements of an egalitarian 'religion of individualism' that violating them threatens a kind of 'moral disintegration'. This, it is argued, requires liberal democracies to reject the very idea of a scale that can allow comparison of the benefits against the costs of torturing. The absolute prohibition serves to maintain inhibitions, though these are currently being eroded by the fear of terrorism.

    AB - Liberal democracies have long practised torture, but should they ever permit their officials to torture (and, if so, when?), how should their citizens think and talk about it, and how should the law treat it? Is it just another instance of 'dirty hands' in politics? If it averts some terrible harm, can resorting to it be seen as choosing the 'lesser evil'? What, then, is torture? The 'torture memos' of the Bush administration's legal advisers are reviewed and their attempt to narrow its definition criticized, as is Judge Posner's attempt to confine it to physical coercion. Attempts to evade the questions above (on the grounds that torture is never effective in averting disaster) are rejected. It is suggested that torture, unlike other cases of dirty hands considered, cannot be rendered liberal-democratically accountable, in the sense that it will sometimes be legitimate and, when not, punished, because its practice cannot be publicly recognized without undermining both the democratic and liberal components of liberal democracy. This suggestion is supported by adducing a 'Durkheimian argument' to the effect that our institutions and customs have been so penetrated by core elements of an egalitarian 'religion of individualism' that violating them threatens a kind of 'moral disintegration'. This, it is argued, requires liberal democracies to reject the very idea of a scale that can allow comparison of the benefits against the costs of torturing. The absolute prohibition serves to maintain inhibitions, though these are currently being eroded by the fear of terrorism.

    UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=29144481680&partnerID=8YFLogxK

    UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=29144481680&partnerID=8YFLogxK

    U2 - 10.1017/S0007123406000019

    DO - 10.1017/S0007123406000019

    M3 - Article

    AN - SCOPUS:29144481680

    VL - 36

    SP - 1

    EP - 16

    JO - British Journal of Political Science

    JF - British Journal of Political Science

    SN - 0007-1234

    IS - 1

    ER -