Problematizing "the new normal"

Rick Salutin has a written a particularly good column on the subject, Torture and the new normal. First he poses the question:

Can you justify torture under "the new normal"? This is sometimes done in the name of the ticking bomb. What if you know one is set to go off in a subway etc., wouldn't that validate torturing a terrorist who has details?

Then Salutin concedes that we're all capable of committing acts of violence if the provocation is sufficient:

Now, I certainly think you can imagine a situation in which any of us might act brutally under stress for the sake of a noble result, often involving kids or loved ones, or mass murder of innocents. You don't have to be Jack Bauer on 24.

Personally, I can imagine anyone doing almost anything, under certain conditions. If you get tossed into that blender, you have to achingly do what seems right or required, and live with the consequences. That's what having a conscience is all about:  lonely individual choice and responsibility.

This is a provocative point in its own right. My inclination is to agree. Occasionally — though I don't know why I should daydream about such a topic — I imagine how I would respond if someone broke into our house and threatened my sweetie. I don't have any trouble believing that I could resort to violence, and be pretty pleased with myself about it, too.

As Salutin says, the scenario necessarily involves kids or loved ones. If the only person at risk was me, I'd be more likely to passively cooperate with the intruder and hope he only wanted my valuables. (An amusing thought, because I have no valuables.)

Salutin asserts, "having a conscience is all about lonely individual choice and responsibility". That's an interesting image:  when it comes to moral choices, Salutin pictures each individual as alone in the universe, just her and her conscience.

As a theist, I don't quite see it that way. I believe that moral direction comes from outside of ourselves. And not only that, I also believe that God provides support to help us do what is right:  at least an inner nudge in the right direction. It's a partnership, not a lone individual grappling with a grave and difficult decision in an indifferent universe.

But I admit, even from the perspective of a theist, there's truth in Salutin's way of expressing things. When I am confronted with a moral decision, ultimately only I determine which path I take. It helps if there's someone watching. A little social pressure often tips the scales in favour of the good. But ultimately I am responsible for my moral decisions:  not God, and not society.

But we still haven't gotten to the issue Salutin set out to address. Here it is:

U.S. law prof and human-rights buff Alan Dershowitz thinks torture should be legalized under clear conditions in these harsh times, so as to control and regulate its negative effects. He says this precisely because, he claims, he is opposed to torture. There's a fine legal mind at work. …

I'm against legalizing acts like torture. … They should remain crimes, to be punished or — very rarely — treated as exceptions, full of moral ambiguity.

But perhaps it doesn't seem so ambiguous to you. Isn't it just a matter of the end justifying the means, even if that means is torture? I'd say the problem with means-ends arguments lies usually not in the means, where attention mainly focuses, but in the ends, which tend to go unexamined.

I have set the last sentence in bold type because this is the point upon which the discussion pivots.

We need to pause here to consider what "means" and what "ends" Salutin has in mind. Torture is proposed, by people like Alan Dershowitz, as a means to a noble end. The end is, the victory of good (Western ideals like democracy, individual freedom, the separation of church and state, equality for women, and the like) over evil (terrorism, Islamo-fascism and the like).

That's the logic that is being thrust upon us, and we're not supposed to examine it too closely. But Salutin deconstructs it. He doesn't just want us to reject the means — torture — he wants us to reject the end:

The "war on terror" is no real war, more an endless state of tension like the wars in Nineteen Eighty-four. Even George Bush says it will last years, or decades.

It makes me respect the power in that phrase, the new normal. It normalizes what is absurd, objectionable and entirely questionable (and not so new, either). Instead of challenging this absurd and disastrous "new" version of reality — clash of civilizations, war on terror and their like — you end up agonizing over issues like torture, as a response to it. You don't seek out a different interpretation altogether of events such as 9/11. Instead, you fall in line with the war mentality, though you might be for or against a particular tactic.

Means and ends reverse:  The end of fighting a successful war on terror becomes the means to multiply practices such as torture and moods such as fear. I'd say this applies as much to Osama bin Laden's jihad as to George Bush's "war." All the intensity would be far better invested in rejecting their versions of reality, which jibe minimally with actual conditions in places such as the Middle East and offer no hope for a better future.

There are all kinds of provocative remarks here:

• the "war on terror," is no real war, more an endless state of tension;
• we should vigorously reject this absurd and disastrous "new" version of reality;
• we should not even consider torture as a legitimate means to achieve victory in the "war on terror";
• neither "George Bush's 'war'" nor Osama bin Laden's jihad — the two worldviews are depicted as parallel — offers any hope of a better future.

Well! You are cordially invited to offer your thoughts in response to Salutin's provocative point of view.