Then, the test subjects were split randomly so that half of them were told that the terror subject was a Muslim-American man affiliated with a Middle Eastern terror network, and who was intent of bombing U.S. military recruitment centers. The other half were told the terror suspect was a white Christian man affiliated with a violent anti-abortion group, and who was intent on bombing abortion clinics. Finally, the test subjects were asked a number of questions about the effectiveness, definition, morality, and legality of torture. 

When the responses were tallied, it emerged that people on both sides of the political spectrum had more or less favorable opinions about torture—including how effective it is at generating useful information, as well as the ethics of it—based solely on the identity of the person being tortured.

• The conservative test subjects, who generally held more favorable opinions of the War in Iraq and were pro-life, generally thought that torture was more effective and less morally problematic when the terror suspect was the Muslim-American targeting military recruiters, and that torture was less effective and more morally problematic when he was the white Christian abortion clinic bomber.
• Likewise, the liberal test subjects, who generally were more opposed to the War in Iraq and were pro-choice, thought torture was more effective and less morally problematic in the case of the white Christian abortion clinic bomber, but that is was less effective and more morally problematic in the case of the Muslim-American targeting military recruiters.

This adds much subtlety is the perception that conservatives are wholly supportive of torture and liberals are resolutely opposed to it—rather, both sides are more favorable to it depending on how opposed they are to the goals of the person being tortured. If this merely dealt with their moral views on torture, that would be troublesome enough, but this also impacted their opinions on the effectiveness of torture, as well as the definition of torture itself (that is, whether waterboarding is torture), which ideally are factual matters with no connection to the identity of the potential torture subject.

David drew out several very perceptive conclusions from this. First, these results show that there are many hypocrites on both sides of the "aisle": conservatives more often favor torture, but less so when the suspect is someone with whom they share some general opinions, and vice versa with liberals' opposition to torture.

Second, it's easy to acknowledge this hypocrisy in people on the other side, but not in ourselves—we think we're principled, and they're not. This is not to say there are not truly principled people on both sides—after all, the numbers were mixed in all cases on all questions—but on the average we're more hypocritical than we like to think, and no less hypocritical than people on the other side.

Finally, the general recommendation of the research is humility—recognize that each of us is an imperfect judge of our own feelings and beliefs, much less anyone else's. Examine your own values to make sure they're as sound as you think they are, and that you apply them as universally as you think you do, before you point the finger of hypocrisy at someone else.

[Comments are welcome as always, but please do not turn this into a raging debate over torture itself.]