About Me

Name: Michael Cannon...
Email: mcomcorp@gmail.com
Loading...

Create Your Own Blog Find Other Townhall Blogs

Comments

Blog Roll

 

Kant's Ends Principle applied to the Torture Issue

Perfect Opportunity to Apply The Ends Principle

Here is a good example how a smart person and a whole group of people can fall into a trap that defies common sense.  Basing themselves on the idea that we can never use coercion or torture in any circumstances, even circumstances where many thousands of innocent people will be killed if we do not coerce information from a prisoner who has this knowledge, people like Ginsburg will unabashedly allow the thousands to die to uphold the "principle" of no torture.  They could resolve this dilemma and recover their common sense if they would apply Kant's Ends Principle to the situation.  How?
 
The Ends Principle says, we should always treat other people as ends in and of themselves and not as means to our ends.  The prisoner who knows the information that will kill thousands of us is of couse in direct violation of the Ends Principle.  He is using these thousands of people as a means to his ends of hurting our society, the government and our country.  Now, the authorities who have the power to coerce information from this person have a choice to make.  Do they violate the Ends Principle by torturing the prisoner and treating him as a means to their ends of protecting the thousands of people?  Or do they violate the Ends Principle by treating the thousands of people as a means to the ends of the prisoner by not torturing him and allowing the thousands to die?  There is no middle ground here.  Someone's desires are going to be violated here.  Will it be the prisoner or the thousands of innocents?   
 
Robert Kane, in the book I cited so many times to you says this is an easy decision to make.  Since the moral sphere of tolerance and respect for all has been broken by the prisoner who will allow thousands of innocents to die, the right thing to do is to use whatever means necessary, from least to most violent, to get the information needed to protect the innocent and restore the moral sphere where the Ends Principle will be respected.  While recognizing that this is not a perfect situation and it is necessary to violate someone's desires to save others, Kane does what he must to restore the moral sphere and tolerance for all (The Ends Principle).  This is common sense, springs from natural law and humankind's basic understanding of right and wrong. 
 
So, the question is, Why and how could someone so smart as Ginsburg and others on the left arrive at an exact opposite conclusion?  How could they decide to uphold the "principle" of no torture instead of the principle of the rights of the thousands of innocents?  Why are they not able to see that they are respecting the prisoner's rights over the rights of the thousands of others?
 
I think this is because those on the left want to feel good, righteous and tolerant and they feel they are better equiped to decide things for others than others are for themselves.  They prefer seeing themselves as protectors of a principle of decent society over the lives of innocent people.  Their thinking is that, even if many of us have to die for the principle of no torture that is what we will do because the idea of torture is so abhorant to us.  They have confused an extreme tactic (Torture) with a true principle of a just society (The Ends Principle) and have decided to sacrifice the latter for a vague, feel good, desire to protect the former.  And in the process, they give over to the evil doers of this world a tremendous advantage.  They give away the guiding principle of a just society and let malfeasance control us instead forcing evil doers to respect the true princple of a free and just society. 
 
It is amazing to me that this simple truth, aprehended by many simple, normal people who live in the real world and abide by the common sense that God gave them, is impossible for these liberal elites to grasp.  I think this issue can be communicated in such a way as to blow the leftist position out of the water and expose their narrow and erroneous view of the situation for what it is.  Once exposed to the real world, it will no longer be tenable.
 
 

 

 
 
 
Ginsburg Shares Views on Influence of Foreign Law on Her Court, and Vice Versa
 
Published: April 11, 2009

COLUMBUS, Ohio — In wide-ranging remarks here, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg defended the use of foreign law by American judges, suggested that torture should not be used even when it might yield important information and reflected on her role as the Supreme Court’s only female justice. The occasion was a symposium at the Moritz College of Law at Ohio State University honoring her 15 years on the court.

Skip to next paragraph
Kiichiro Sato/Associated Press

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg on Friday at Ohio State University, where she talked freely about her work, past and present.

Related

Times Topics: Ruth Bader Ginsburg

“I frankly don’t understand all the brouhaha lately from Congress and even from some of my colleagues about referring to foreign law,” Justice Ginsburg said in her comments on Friday.

The court’s more conservative members — Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and Justices Samuel A. Alito Jr.Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas — oppose the citation of foreign law in constitutional cases.

“If we’re relying on a decision from a German judge about what our Constitution means, no president accountable to the people appointed that judge and no Senate accountable to the people confirmed that judge,” Chief Justice Roberts said at his confirmation hearing. “And yet he’s playing a role in shaping the law that binds the people in this country.”

Justice Ginsburg said the controversy was based on the misunderstanding that citing a foreign precedent means the court considers itself bound by foreign law as opposed to merely being influenced by such power as its reasoning holds.

“Why shouldn’t we look to the wisdom of a judge from abroad with at least as much ease as we would read a law review article written by a professor?” she asked.

She added that the failure to engage foreign decisions had resulted in diminished influence for the United States Supreme Court.

The Canadian Supreme Court, she said, is “probably cited more widely abroad than the U.S. Supreme Court.” There is one reason for that, she said: “You will not be listened to if you don’t listen to others.”

She also offered a theory about why after World War II nations around the world started to create constitutional courts with the power to strike down legislation as the United States Supreme Court has.

“What happened in Europe was the Holocaust,” she said, “and people came to see that popularly elected representatives could not always be trusted to preserve the system’s most basic values.”

American hostility to the consideration of foreign law, she said, “is a passing phase.” She predicted that “we will go back to where we were in the early 19th century when there was no question that it was appropriate to refer to decisions of other courts.”

Justice Ginsburg turned 76 last month and underwent surgery for pancreatic cancer in February. Here on Friday, she was energetic, enthusiastic and characteristically precise in her answers to questions from two law professors in a 90-minute conversation. She spoke mostly about her career as a litigator specializing in women’s rights and her years on the court.

In a videotaped tribute, Chief Justice Roberts described Justice Ginsburg’s work habits — including her “total disregard for the normal day-night work schedule adhered to by everyone else since the beginning of recorded history” — and congratulated her for reaching what he said was the midpoint of her career on the court.

In her remarks, Justice Ginsburg discussed a decision by the Israeli Supreme Court concerning the use of torture to obtain information from people suspected of terrorism.

“The police think that a suspect they have apprehended knows where and when a bomb is going to go off,” she said, describing the question presented in the case. “Can the police use torture to extract that information? And in an eloquent decision by Aharon Barak, then the chief justice of Israel, the court said: ‘Torture? Never.’ ”

The message of the decision, Justice Ginsburg said, was “that we could hand our enemies no greater victory than to come to look like that enemy in our disregard for human dignity.” Then she asked, “Now why should I not read that opinion and be affected by its tremendous persuasive value?”

Justice Ginsburg also discussed her career as an advocate, one that included six Supreme Court arguments and a role in shaping the language of the law. She helped introduce the term “gender discrimination” as a synonym for “sex discrimination,” she said, explaining that her secretary had proposed the idea while typing a brief to be submitted to male judges.

“ ‘The first association of those men with the word “sex” is not what you’re talking about,’ ” the secretary said, Justice Ginsburg recalled. “ ‘Why don’t you use a grammar-book term? Use gender. It has a neutral sound, and it will ward off distracting associations.’ ”

Justice Ginsburg expressed dismay at being the only woman on the Supreme Court. “There I am all alone,” she said, “and it doesn’t look right.”

In this area, too, the Canadian Supreme Court provides a model, Justice Ginsburg said. That nine-member court has four women, including its chief justice.

Justice Ginsburg concluded her remarks with advice to the students in the audience about one of her great passions.

“For a first opera, I would say, pick ‘Butterfly’ or ‘Bohème,’ ” she said. For her part, she added, she was looking forward a little warily to a six-hour production of Wagner’s “Siegfried.”

“Wagner is a great, great composer,” she said, “but he needed a good editor.”



-- 
Michael Cannon
MCOM Corporation
mcannon@mcomcorp.com
mcomcorp@gmail.com
305 453 3731, cell 305 942 6035
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive