Alan Turing died 70 years ago
Alan Turing’s legacy, 70 years after his death, prompts reflection on how a state that benefited enormously from his codebreaking and foundational work in computing went on to prosecute and chemically castrate him for consensual homosexual acts. Commenters debate the gap between legality and morality, the limits of democratic “popular will” versus individual rights and bodily autonomy, and how far posthumous pardons and honors can meaningfully address such injustices. The conversation also situates Turing among a broader, often overlooked community of wartime cryptanalysts, and notes lingering uncertainties around the circumstances of his death.
Legality, Morality, and Historical Context
- Many comments frame Turing’s conviction as a case where law and morality diverged, noting homosexuality was widely seen as perversion then but is now understood as a normal variation.
- Others stress that people at the time believed they were acting morally, warning that “moral righteousness” can justify great harm and should always be challengeable.
- There is extended debate on whether “real” or objective morality exists versus all morality being subjective and context-bound.
- Some recommend studying Kant’s categorical imperative and Mill’s utilitarianism, plus work on how emotions (e.g., disgust) drive moral judgment.
Turing’s Conviction, Pardon, and Bodily Autonomy
- Turing was convicted of “gross indecency” and accepted chemical castration as a probation condition.
- One view: he was punished directly for being gay; the law criminalized private consensual acts.
- Counterview: the state’s concern was partly security-related (relationship with a younger, vulnerable man; burglary risk), not “mere” homosexuality; critics of this view push back hard.
- Discussion of whether posthumous pardons are appropriate if the law was followed at the time, and whether pardons implicitly affirm guilt.
- Broader argument about bodily autonomy: some assert governments should never restrict consenting adults’ private behavior; others argue democratic will can legitimately impose limits and that “bodily autonomy” is itself a contestable principle.
Suicide, Hormones, and Uncertainty
- Some note his death is not conclusively established as suicide; coronial reasoning is criticized as biased.
- Others cite evidence suggesting suicide, with cyanide poisoning and prior mention of using an “experiment” as cover.
- Several speculate that hormone treatment (chemical castration) may have caused or worsened depression; anecdotal experiences with hormone therapy are shared, but overall impact remains unclear.
Recognition, Credit, and Other Codebreakers
- Strong sentiment that the greatest “justice” would have been to leave Turing free to live and work, rather than showering him with titles or money.
- Multiple comments emphasize that many others were crucial: Polish cryptanalysts (Rejewski et al.), Gordon Welchman, Bill Tutte, Tommy Flowers, Arne Beurling, Hugh Foss, and others.
- Some push back against over-crediting Turing with “breaking Enigma,” stressing the multi-national, multi-decade nature of the work.
Modern Parallels and Ongoing Issues
- Comparisons to current intrusive laws (e.g., on drugs, incest, euthanasia, digital content) and to moral campaigns from different political factions.
- Concern that rollback of rights (e.g., around sexuality and contraception) is still an active risk.
Miscellaneous
- Note of wiped BBC recordings of Turing lectures.
- Mentions of visiting Bletchley Park, donation campaigns (“Flowers for Turing”), and the symbolic timing of his death near the D-Day anniversary.