In our continuing discussion of the role of consequences in moral deliberation, we turn our attention to torture and the suffering of innocence. There are significant differences in the pair of readings for today and the kinds of harms and victims of harms that they focus on. There are similarities as well. 

One of the things in common is that both stories alert us to the obvious fact that the consequences of our actions do not occur in a vacuum. They affect other human beings who all share in equal dignity.  

READ THIS

"The Abolition of Torture" Andrew Sullivan

Additional Resource:

"The Ones Who Walk Away From Omelas" Ursula K. Le Guin

WATCH THIS (Optional)

A video essay reflecting on "The Ones Who Walk Away From Omelas" 

1. What is torture? How do you know?
   1. If it's sometimes permitted to kill someone, how can it be impermissible to simply hurt them?
   2. What are the core claims and in what are they grounded about both sides of the "torture debate"? 
2. The video narrator suggests that suffering and inequality are simple facts about human existence. What value does he suggest this awareness offers? 
   1. Couldn't the fact that we are cognizant of the inevitability of suffering and inequality lead some to justify a purely utilitarian approach to life, minimizing those everyday harms, sacrificing the happiness of the few for the needs of the many? How do you respond to that suggestion?
3. One clear difference between the torture which Sullivan is discussing and the torture of the innocent child in the Le Guinn shortstory is just that: the claim of innocence. If we accept, for the sake of argument, that the detainee we are waterboarding is truly an enemy combatant who has vital information that could help us prevent a imminent attack, ought those facts influence our consideration of what harms against him are morally permitted?