AlterNet: Torture and the “Controversial” Arc of Injustice

Solomon of Alternet writes about the act of torture now becoming debatable, or controversial, in US public discourse. Why is it not outright unjust?

The argument for being against torture, is that it is bad for the ‘image’ of the US abroad. That is not really the proper ethical reason to ban it, right? So China cares less about its image abroad and tolerates torture; does that make them less ethical?

The ‘image’ argument reminds me of argument held in The Corporation by Joel Bakan: corporations who adhere to social justice, and not just plainly act in the best interest of shareholders, but direct profit also to causes of ‘social justice’ (think BP, think Body Shop) – are, according to economics giant Milton Friedman, unethical. Let me repeat that:

It is unethical for corporations to act in anything but the best interest for the shareholders. Even if this means screwing social justice over.

Externalities like the environment, the poor; it is unethical to care about them as a corporation. Ofcourse, a corporation can and should care about the environment and the poor, if it is in the best interest of the shareholders. So the only social justice for corporations that is ethical is an insincere one.

Likewise, the social justice, e.g. being against torture, that the US government is and should be concerned about, is an insincere one. The question is, is it unethical or ethical?