How Cowardice Conflates Brutality with Courage

If you want a compressed future history of where our civilization will go if the Rubber Hose Right gets its way, here’s a conversation that just happened in my combox with a guy who has the cheek to invoke Chesterton in defense of his cowardly defenses of torture. In the tradition of Himmler, he conflates courage with the willingness to stamp on your conscience till it is numb and do the evil thing:

Chestertonrules: Paraphrasing Chesterton: The consequence of being too proud to fight is that the humble must do the fighting.


Would you waterboard one man to save a hundred innocent lives?


I would be making the moral choice to waterboard 100 men to save the life of my child or yours. I would also be waterboarded 100 times to save the life of one of my children or one of yours.


Our intelligence service tells us that waterboarding saved innocent lives. Your position(“moral” elitism) condemns to death innocent people.


That is not a moral choice.

Joye: Would you rape the wife of a suspected terrorist to make him confess and save 1000 lives?


Would you torture the children of a suspected terrorist to make him confess and save 1000 lives?


If not, why not?

Chestertonrules: I would take the action that minimized death and suffering.


Would you take action that maximized death and suffering? If so, what makes this choice of yours moral?


Would you waterboard a man to save the life of a child?

Mark Shea: I can’t help but notice you don’t answer the question. If you didn’t have the terrorist in custody, but had his kid and had the power to communicate with him, would you torture his kid to get the info you want? You’re the one making these bargains with the devil. Answer the damn question.

Chestertonrules: You’re the one avoiding the question!


Would you choose the lesser of two evils or maintain your irrational “moral” position.


Would you take action to minimize death and suffering?


I would, even if it was horrible.


I would be waterboarded to save your child. I would waterboard 100 men to save your child.


What would you do?

Mark Shea: I’m not avoiding the question. I’ve been quite clear for years. You cannot do grave intrinsic evil. So no, I would not torture somebody. Particularly since there are other ways of getting information. So, answer the question, coward. Since you would do anything to save your skin, would you torture the kid? Millions of lives are at stake. Answer, coward.

chestertonrules: I already answered:


Would you take action to minimize death and suffering?


I would, even if it was horrible.


I’m glad men with more moral clarity than you currently possess are protecting our children.

Mark Shea: I’ll take that as “Yes. I’d crush a kid’s testicles if I thought it could save my skin.”

Note again, the curious conflation that the coward makes between the willingness to do monstrous things and bravery.  Asked point blank if  he would torture a child for some perceived good end he replies, “I would, even if it was horrible.”  He’s too much of a coward to come out and say directly what he is saying.  Instead he tries to direct our attention to the imaginary good end, rather than the concrete act of torturing a child.  But in the end, it is the concrete act, not the imaginary and hoped-for outcome that he affirms.

I think if Chesterton were alive today, he would challenge “Chestertonrules” to a duel for staining the honor of his good name.
And yeah.  He’s gone from my comboxes.  I don’t need this filth anymore than I need people saying, “If you could end world hunger by manufacturing Soylent Green from condemned criminals kept alive and harvested in storage pods, would you do it?  Millions of lives are at stake!!!!”

Update: Reader Chad Myers points out that, at the end of the day, what people like this are really proposing is, “How many people would Mary have tortured to free an innocent man (Jesus) from terrorism (brutality at the hands of the Roman soldiers)?”

Indeed, how many children should she torture (assuming she had the power to do it in order to stop the Crucifixion)? Or shall we hold her guilty of “moral elitism”?

Don’t complain to *me* about blasphemy. Complain to those who concoct these hypothetical scenarios in order to justify grave intrinsic evil.