Class Notes (811,179)
Canada (494,542)
Sociology (3,207)
SOC203H1 (77)

Authority Lec 4.doc

5 Pages
Unlock Document

University of Toronto St. George

Authority Lecture 4 March 18, 2013 Torture: Weber vs. Durkheim (By Stephen Lukes) -He wrote an intellectual biography on Durkheim, and locates the thought of Durkheim in the life and social context of the thinker. -2005 is just after the Gulf war. The UA had been in Iraq for 4 years. Shocking prison photos were released, and it was clear the US was engaged in torture. There was debate as to whether or not torture can ever be justified. The article deals with the question of moral authority, and it also pits Weber against Durkheim, and hence looks sort of like a position paper. Thus, it shows how we can extract thought from thinkers and apply them to burning affairs. -Lukes, in the beginning of his article, takes a jab at some political philosophers who argue that even to consider whether or not torture is right under certain circumstances is wrong. The question shouldn’t be raised, because doing so leaves it open to charges of morality. He doesn’t have patience for this argument. We shouldn’t have good faith at all times when it comes to politics. We don’t always act in goof faith in politics, and it may even be that the very fact of being a political leader means making questionable or unethical decisions. 1. Torture: Some recent examples -In addition to the Second Gulf War and Iraq example just mentioned, we will see examples of US military practices in Iraq. They use stuff to prevent people from seeing or breathing clearly. They would handcuff with plastic tie tabs, which often casued skin lesions and long term effects like nerve damage. Beatings with hard objects, slapping, punching, and being paraded naked also happened. They would attack prisoners for multiple days, they would expose them to loud music while hooded, and expose them to the hot sun while hooded. This is US military intelligence from Iraq. -In the Phillipines in the mid 1990’s, the Phillipino authorities forced information out of people. Through torture, they justify it because they were able to uncover terrorist attacks. They beat a suspect with a chair and a long piece of wood. They broke his ribs, put out cigarettes on his private parts and so on. After this, they turned him over to American authorities, along with the new information they gathered. 2. Torture as Concept -Here, he will offer a seemingly acceptable definition of torture by Lukes in his comparison with Weber. Torture is the infliction of excruciating pain. We have to be more precise, however, because private individuals may inflict excruciating pain against each other. Here, however, we are talking about torture inflicted by states against criminals. -An example is from Algeria. There was a rebellion against the French, and the French engages in systematic torture at that time. With the British authorities, they caught members of the IRA and tortured them. The Israelis will sometimes catch opponents and engage in state torture. Also the US example. -Further, torture can be psychological or physical. This means, that to humiliate someone may be a form of mental or psychological torture, even in the absence of physical pain. 3. Can Torture be Justified? -The central question that Lukes is asking (while he is interested in liberal democratic states) is whether there are circumstances under which liberal democratic states can be justified in torturing. Some may think yes. Amnesty international is on principle, on the other hand, opposed to all forms of torture. Lukes doesn’t really like the question to begin with. -Consider the ticking bomb argument, which may provide a justification for torture in the Philliopino case. Consider that authorities may have a suspect in custody, and that they might believe an attack is about to happen. They believe that the suspect knows about the attack, and if they get the information from him, they can save the attack from happening. Some may say that according to this argument, it is conceivable that torture could be justified. It is weighing the lesser of two evils because they could save many people. -Well Lukes raises this possibility and argument (the ticking bomb argument that has been used as a justification), but Lukes says this is a bad way of posing the problem. This is because in practice, it isn’t likely that prisoners held by states will ever have such information. It is very difficult for those who might be considering torture to know what lives might be saved if they were to extract certain information. Lukes thus says this argument shouldn’t be taken to seriously. Thus he proceeds to a more theoretical argument… 4. A Weberian Argument -We read a part of Weber. Think of his definition of the state. Right away, he says the state is an association that has a monopoly over the use of violence in a given territory, and thus holds violence as central to the definition of a state. If we were to read the end of Politics as Vocation, we would also find he has a tragic view of politics in that he believed that those who become involved in politics with loving visions of what lies ahead of their country, often have to accept that in order to achieve that vision, they have to adopt unsavory (dirty) means. This is a reality of political life. -Here is what Lukes has to say, and Weber as well in illustrating this tragic view of politics. Lukes summarizing Weber: For Weber, there is no consolation to be had in the thought of pursuing politics. one who chooses to engages in politics, lets himself in for the diabolical use of violence. Weber says: The world is governed by demons, and those who let themselves in politics, for power and force, contracts this force (they enter a deal with the devil). In other words, as a politician, don’t think that good will follow good actions and evil will follow evil actions. We have to recognize that sometimes doing things that are good can have evil consequences and vice versa. No ethics in the world can escape the fact that often good ends are bound to the fact that one must pay the price of using morally dangerous means. Further, evil consequences are often probable and possible. We cannot justify when the ethically good purpose justifies the ethically bad means. We fool ourselves into thinking that by adopting clean methods will lead to clean results. The implication (according to Lukes) is that if one is a serious politician, they have to prepare that they may have to use evil means to achieve good ends. -If this is the case, and a politician has to use dirty means to achieve good ends, it would imply that torture can be justified under certain circumstances. It may be that torturing some people may be needed to establish order in society and so on. 5. A Durkheimian Counter-Argument -Lukes sets forth a Durkheimian counter-argument. Lukes draws on an episode of French history in which Durkheim was involved, and extracts a lesson from it that Durkheim would have taken and applies it today. -In 1892-1894, a Jewish army Captain names Dreyfus was found guilty of treason in France. He was found guilty of passing secrets to the enemy. Dreyfus was sent to an island. In 1896, new evidence emerged and pointed to a different culprit, another general in the army, not Drweyfus. A new trial was held, and the new general was immediately acquitted. One issue is the question of who did it. the second question is one of anti-semitism. Were the courts who found him guilty and then the other guy not guilty courts in which a Jew couldn’t have a fair trial? This is a question that eventually divided French society. It was a divisive issue. On the one side were those who were anti-Dreyficides, who were often royalists or monarchists, military people, people on the right, and those who believed in the authority of the church, and hence felt he was guilty. The Drefusards thought he was innocent, unfairly tried, they were on the left, the socialists, those who thought the French church had too much power, anti-traditionalists and secularists, didn’t think the military could be trusted, hence they thought he was simply guilty of being a Jew. The argument of those against Dreyfus was that even if he was innocent, he did a disservice to reopen the affair because it causes conflicts. So his guilt or innocence was secondary, and instead, they wanted to maintain the unity of France by not calling into question the authority of the military and so on. They wanted to preserve the unity of French society by upholding the unity of its institutions. -Zola in 1898 wrote an article accusing the authorities of a cover-up, and accused judges of obeying the orders of the military and hence said Dreyfus didn’t have a fair trial. Zola, as a consequence of what he wrote was sent to jail, and had to flee to England to stay out of jail. -In 1906, there was a new trial, and Dreyfus was found innocent. It was found that there were documents forged that proved his guilt. So eventually, he was vindicated, but it was 12 years later. -Back to the anti-Drefusar argument ,they argue that it is a mistake to believe that Dreyfus has to be respected. According to conservatives, national interests trump individual interests. National interests are maintaining the respect of traditional institutions in France, not promoting civil conflict, etc. Keep in mind however, that the French has just had a war with the Prussians, and WW1 was about to hit. So you can understand their desire to maintain unity. They had multiple French revolutions, and hence it is an internally unstable France, at the same time that Europe is losing its predominance in global affairs. So Prof says that these are the kinds of preoccupations that nationalists had. -Durkheim entered the debate and wrote that the antis had it wrong when talking about the importance of traditional institutions for maintaining unity. Durkheim says those days are gone. The new civil religion is one of… The church, aristocracy and so on don’t have the same moral authority they used to have. It is outdated, and hence not feasible to think they will have the same sway in bringing people together as in the past. At the same time that these institutions are losing power, there is a new belief however. this is the religion of individualism. It is not a religion in a church, but society, peopl
More Less

Related notes for SOC203H1

Log In


Don't have an account?

Join OneClass

Access over 10 million pages of study
documents for 1.3 million courses.

Sign up

Join to view


By registering, I agree to the Terms and Privacy Policies
Already have an account?
Just a few more details

So we can recommend you notes for your school.

Reset Password

Please enter below the email address you registered with and we will send you a link to reset your password.

Add your courses

Get notes from the top students in your class.