My post the other day on torture (or coercive interrogation techniques if you prefer) has provoked hysteria in some corners on the web. One guy even called me a “false prophet,” which at least represents a much more dignified dive into name-calling than you’ll typically find on many other blogs.

Even though I mentioned this nugget before, it bears repeating since several people have perhaps inadvertently mischaracterized my comments: My goal in analogizing the torture debate to the abortion debate was not to defend abortion. The analogy was strictly between the nature of the two debates. (Not that anyone asked, but I’m strongly pro-life.) My sole point was that reckless and hostile name-calling doesn’t move the ball forward, even if your cause is just.

In retrospect, I shouldn’t have been surprised that such a seemingly benign point turned out to be controversial here on the Internets. For some prominent blogosphere residents, name-calling is practically a cottage industry. It’s certainly easier to personally insult someone as, say, a Christianist, than to thoughtfully respond to their ideas. In deriding their chosen art form, I was peeing in their virtual garden. Sorry about that, fellas.

It’s also not surprising that the anti-torture people, the ones who would like to see the Khalid Sheikh Muhammads of the world swaddled in relative comfort lest our moral purity be compromised, steadfastly refuse to address the consequences of their position. Let’s assume torturing someone like KSM is evil; let’s further assume that we debase ourselves if we waterboard him, put him in a stress position, or give him the dreaded attention grab. Lastly, let’s assume that as a matter of principle we’d rather not lower ourselves to handling him in such a rough manner.

The question for the anti-torture people is, How many innocent lives would you be willing to surrender so that we might live up to this principle? As a further inquiry, were a mushroom cloud to rise over an American city and we had not exhausted every conceivable effort to prevent such a catastrophe, would you still feel you had done right? Sorry - silly question. Of course you would, because moral introspection apparently isn’t your bag. But do you think your countrymen would share your sense of self-satisfaction as they raced to avoid the fallout?

Is what I’m saying here a sad exercise in moral relativism? Obviously. But it’s an arrogant philosopher’s stance to think that we can fight a war without doing the intellectual equivalent of getting our hands dirty. The refusal to address the moral consequences of the anti-torture position is especially glaring when so many are doing so much more than getting just their figurative hands dirty. At the very least, intellectual honesty requires an answer to the simple question of what kind of sacrifices are in order to honor the moral imperative of treating Khalid Sheikh Muhammad with kid gloves.

What I’m proposing is choosing the lesser of two evils. I’ve yet to see the defenders of KSM’s dignity and comfort allow as much regarding their position. But, truthfully, why would they? Dismissive name calling that casually pays homage to your own moral superiority is so much more fun.

Compliments? Complaints? Contact me at Soxblog@aol.com