Talk politics.

In his Friday column, see also this earlier post, Charles Krauthammer argues that people who  "believe you never torture ... are akin to conscientious objectors who will never fight in any war under any circumstances" and that "you don't entrust such a person with the military decisions upon which hinges the safety of the nation".  That's an interesting and important claim, i.e., that torture and pacifism are in important respects morally equivalent positions worthy of some sort of grudging respect, but also a pathology of sorts for which we must vet our nation's defenders. 

One can understand why that might be a seductive argument.  Like the pacificist, the torture opponent is taking a principled and absolutist position against violence of a certain kind, contending that there are no situations in which it's acceptable even when the safety of fellow citizens and loved ones is at stake.  But there is a key difference between pacifism and blanket opposition to torture.  The pacifist is arguing against violence in situations even in which one is being directly attacked, that's what makes their absolutism remarkable.  But torture is not being practiced on agents that are attacking, it's being practiced on agents that are already captive, that are in no position to make attacks.

Pacifism argues that it's not okay to take an action an agent even when being directly attacked by that agent, but opposing torture differs in kind because torture is never defense, it's always offense, always doing more than what needs to be done to prevent attack.

But, aren't I missing Krauthammer's point?  Isn't he arguing that torture is okay only if being done defensively to prevent an attack?  I think not.  There's an important difference between performing violence in anticipation of an attack and performing violence insofar as its necessary to stop that attacker from carrying out his/her violent intents.  The pacifist position, taken to its extremes, is arguing against using violence to defend oneself against direct attack, the torture opponent is making a far less radical claim, contending only that it's never acceptable to perform violence against a person that is personally incapable of further attack.

a version x-posted to my journal.