Torture and Narrative: An Absolute Violation of the Self

Richard S Matthews

Research output: Chapter in Book/Report/Conference proceedingChapterResearchpeer-review

Abstract

[Extract]
My central point in the following is to defend the moral relevance of narratives in the philosophical debates concerning the justifiability of torture. In some areas of enquiry - symbolic logic, for example - it is legitimate to have an extremely narrow disciplinary focus, using only the tools of that discipline, to answer questions of disciplinary import. However, in other fields this can and should vary depending on the context and the questions being asked. In the debates about the justifiability of torture, liberalism about sources is required along with a complementary multi-disciplinary focus. Unfortunately, this is commonly only the case. Philosophers often seem content to presuppose a clear understanding of torture and then employ one or more of either utilitarianism, virtue ethics or deontology to make a case for or against. In law, theorists regularly combine moral theory, legal princeiple and the definition of torture from the United Nations Convention against Torture to do the same. In both cases, morally essential empirical material from a wide range of disciplines and writings is regularly ignored. In particular, the careful analysis of narratives - whether of survivors, torturers, or involved other parties - is conspicuously absent.
Original languageEnglish
Title of host publicationConfessions
Subtitle of host publicationConfounding Narrative and Ethics
EditorsEleanor Milligan, Emma Woodley
Place of PublicationNewcastle upon Tyne
PublisherCambridge Scholars Publishing
Chapter7
Pages143-159
Number of pages17
ISBN (Print)1-4438-1920-4, 978-1-4438-1920-6
Publication statusPublished - 2010
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint

Violations
Torture
Utilitarianism
Philosopher
Moral Theory
Virtue Ethics
United Nations
Deontology
Import
Theorists
Liberalism
Symbolic Logic
Survivors

Cite this

Matthews, R. S. (2010). Torture and Narrative: An Absolute Violation of the Self. In E. Milligan, & E. Woodley (Eds.), Confessions: Confounding Narrative and Ethics (pp. 143-159). Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.
Matthews, Richard S. / Torture and Narrative : An Absolute Violation of the Self. Confessions: Confounding Narrative and Ethics. editor / Eleanor Milligan ; Emma Woodley. Newcastle upon Tyne : Cambridge Scholars Publishing, 2010. pp. 143-159
@inbook{7190c45fdd134de1886bea217edab8cc,
title = "Torture and Narrative: An Absolute Violation of the Self",
abstract = "[Extract]My central point in the following is to defend the moral relevance of narratives in the philosophical debates concerning the justifiability of torture. In some areas of enquiry - symbolic logic, for example - it is legitimate to have an extremely narrow disciplinary focus, using only the tools of that discipline, to answer questions of disciplinary import. However, in other fields this can and should vary depending on the context and the questions being asked. In the debates about the justifiability of torture, liberalism about sources is required along with a complementary multi-disciplinary focus. Unfortunately, this is commonly only the case. Philosophers often seem content to presuppose a clear understanding of torture and then employ one or more of either utilitarianism, virtue ethics or deontology to make a case for or against. In law, theorists regularly combine moral theory, legal princeiple and the definition of torture from the United Nations Convention against Torture to do the same. In both cases, morally essential empirical material from a wide range of disciplines and writings is regularly ignored. In particular, the careful analysis of narratives - whether of survivors, torturers, or involved other parties - is conspicuously absent.",
author = "Matthews, {Richard S}",
year = "2010",
language = "English",
isbn = "1-4438-1920-4",
pages = "143--159",
editor = "Eleanor Milligan and Emma Woodley",
booktitle = "Confessions",
publisher = "Cambridge Scholars Publishing",

}

Matthews, RS 2010, Torture and Narrative: An Absolute Violation of the Self. in E Milligan & E Woodley (eds), Confessions: Confounding Narrative and Ethics. Cambridge Scholars Publishing, Newcastle upon Tyne, pp. 143-159.

Torture and Narrative : An Absolute Violation of the Self. / Matthews, Richard S.

Confessions: Confounding Narrative and Ethics. ed. / Eleanor Milligan; Emma Woodley. Newcastle upon Tyne : Cambridge Scholars Publishing, 2010. p. 143-159.

Research output: Chapter in Book/Report/Conference proceedingChapterResearchpeer-review

TY - CHAP

T1 - Torture and Narrative

T2 - An Absolute Violation of the Self

AU - Matthews, Richard S

PY - 2010

Y1 - 2010

N2 - [Extract]My central point in the following is to defend the moral relevance of narratives in the philosophical debates concerning the justifiability of torture. In some areas of enquiry - symbolic logic, for example - it is legitimate to have an extremely narrow disciplinary focus, using only the tools of that discipline, to answer questions of disciplinary import. However, in other fields this can and should vary depending on the context and the questions being asked. In the debates about the justifiability of torture, liberalism about sources is required along with a complementary multi-disciplinary focus. Unfortunately, this is commonly only the case. Philosophers often seem content to presuppose a clear understanding of torture and then employ one or more of either utilitarianism, virtue ethics or deontology to make a case for or against. In law, theorists regularly combine moral theory, legal princeiple and the definition of torture from the United Nations Convention against Torture to do the same. In both cases, morally essential empirical material from a wide range of disciplines and writings is regularly ignored. In particular, the careful analysis of narratives - whether of survivors, torturers, or involved other parties - is conspicuously absent.

AB - [Extract]My central point in the following is to defend the moral relevance of narratives in the philosophical debates concerning the justifiability of torture. In some areas of enquiry - symbolic logic, for example - it is legitimate to have an extremely narrow disciplinary focus, using only the tools of that discipline, to answer questions of disciplinary import. However, in other fields this can and should vary depending on the context and the questions being asked. In the debates about the justifiability of torture, liberalism about sources is required along with a complementary multi-disciplinary focus. Unfortunately, this is commonly only the case. Philosophers often seem content to presuppose a clear understanding of torture and then employ one or more of either utilitarianism, virtue ethics or deontology to make a case for or against. In law, theorists regularly combine moral theory, legal princeiple and the definition of torture from the United Nations Convention against Torture to do the same. In both cases, morally essential empirical material from a wide range of disciplines and writings is regularly ignored. In particular, the careful analysis of narratives - whether of survivors, torturers, or involved other parties - is conspicuously absent.

M3 - Chapter

SN - 1-4438-1920-4

SN - 978-1-4438-1920-6

SP - 143

EP - 159

BT - Confessions

A2 - Milligan, Eleanor

A2 - Woodley, Emma

PB - Cambridge Scholars Publishing

CY - Newcastle upon Tyne

ER -

Matthews RS. Torture and Narrative: An Absolute Violation of the Self. In Milligan E, Woodley E, editors, Confessions: Confounding Narrative and Ethics. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing. 2010. p. 143-159