A case of the evils

As mentioned earlier (and here, here), I've been reading some books on evil for some further background to a book on torture that I am editing -- not quite Christmas reading.... I've long been attracted to philosophical pragmatism and it provides a framework for how I think about international politics and ethics, globalization, environmental and development issues, and a number of other more traditional philosophical subjects, etc. I've mostly been looking at torture in pragmatic terms (remember, philosophically pragmatic and not the kind of policy thinking that passes for "pragmatic" in the policy world). So, it's particularly nice to read Richard J. Bernstein's terrific little book, The Abuse of Evil (Polity, 2005). One of the central attractions of pragmatism for Bernstein and for myself is its emphasis on fallibilism and pluralism. Here's Bernstein in a straightforward passage that is particularly germane to our contemporary situation:

There is no incompatibility between being decisive and recognizing the fallibility and limitations of our choices and decisions. On the contrary, this is what is required for responsible action. We must recognize that whatever we do, there will always be unintended and unpredictable consequences. Acknowledging and intelligently assessing these consequences may require altering our conduct.... And because of human finitude and limitation, we cannot avoid making mistakes. "Steadfastness" and "staying the course" are not virtures but vices when they involve ignoring the undesirable consequences of our choices and actions....

...[The heart of the matter] is the unspoken assumption that "tough-minded realism," strength, forcefulness, decisiveness, and persistence are based upon unwavering moral certainty. For without a firm, absolute, moral conviction, we will lack the determination to do what is required to fight evil. But here is where we detect the gross fallacious slide from subjective moral certitude to alleged objective moral certainty. The strength of one's personal conviction is never sufficient to justify the truth or correctness of one's claims. This is the primary lesson of pragmatic fallibilism. Furthermore, we need to expose the vulgar form of the Cartesian Anxiety that corrupts so much of current political rhetoric. We are presented with the alternatives of either steadfast moral certainty or a wishy-washy vacillating relativism. And the not-so-hidden implication is that pragmatic fallibility is effeminate and tender-minded; it lacks the guts to cope with the evil of terror. Over and over again, so-called tough-minded realists affirm this in conscious and subliminal ways. We need to bring this attitude out into the open and expose it. It is based on confusion between subjective certitude and objective certainty. Ideologists, fanatics, and fundamentalists are always claiming certainty. History is full of discarded certainties.... The fervor with which one asserts the possession of moral certainties is no evidence whatsoever for the truth or validity of one's claims....