In this scenario there is substantial moral justification for torture. Consider this: law enforcement believes that torturing the target will save thousands of innocents; law enforcement knows of no other way to save those lives; loss of life is imminent; the lives about to be lost are innocent; the target has no good reason to murder the victims; the target is known to be morally responsible for planning and arming the device and if it explodes, that individual will be responsible for the murder of thousands. The target is liable on two aspects. First, the target is causing law enforcement to make a choice between two evils, torturing the target or allowing innocents to die. Were the target to do what people consider the right thing and disclose the location of the bomb, law enforcement would not have to pursue interrogation techniques. Second, the target is engaged in completing his purpose which is to murder thousands of innocents. In this environment laid out, torture is both unlawful and unusual and if law enforcement officials tortured the target they would be tried for a crime...
First, the ticking-bomb scenarios are cases in which torturing the terrorist will save many innocent lives at the cost of non-lethal suffering to one individual. Torturing the terrorist would thus produce the most happiness/well-being. This approach has great strengths but also creates complex questions: is torture still the lesser evil if it only saves one person? Is it morally right to torture a person’s children to extract a confession? Is it morally right to torture ninety-nine people in an attempt to save one-hundred others? In theory this type of thinking can justify extreme inhumanity as long as it is calculated as the lesser evil. Secondly, one ought to do what produces the most happiness/well-being. Despite the wider case against torture, a person confronted with the immediate choices in the ‘ticking bomb’ case is unlikely to take these issues into account; ‘interrogators will still use coercion because in some cases they will deem it worth the consequence. Few people would be unable to see a moral basis for torture if it was carried out in a reasonably clear ‘ticking bomb’ case and if the intention of the torturer was to ‘do the right thing.’ The difficulties of the immediate choice between carrying out torture and allowing deaths make it difficult to morally condemn the unfortunate person charged with deciding. Therefore, one ought to torture terrorists in such scenarios. The only pragmatic concern would be that torture does not
Capital punishment and torture are often looked down on in today’s societies because they are viewed as cruel and unconstitutional, but perhaps they would help in more ways then we would like to admit. They can be beneficial in many ways such as encouragement to be truthful, encouragement to live by the laws, and as a source of punishment. Capital punishment and torture are thought to be too painful, and the person doing the punishment is also committing a crime.
Should torture be used to gain important information? First you have to ask if interrogational torture even works. As described by Brecher, torture is not a useful tool in obtaining information in regards to the ticking time bomb scenario. Brecher argues several things that discount the use of interrogational torture. First, from the perspective of the person being held captive, they know that if they do know the location of a bomb for example, that they will be...
...s invaluable. The efficacy of torture can be seen in the capture of Zubaydah and the prevention of the “Dirty bomber,” Jose Padilla. Effectiveness has also been proven; it has hypothetically saved many lives and has prevented many plots known to the general public. Ex-Vice President Dick Cheney said in a speech in 2009 that the “enhanced interrogation” of detainees “prevented the violent death of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, of innocent people” (“The Report of The Constitution Project's Task Force on Detainee Treatment”, 1). Since it has been deemed illegal by the UN it has to be done in secrecy. In result, it cannot be deduced how much has been prevented by this procedure since that information is classified. However, it is irrefutable that torture, in its essence, is beneficial and should be accepted as a means of ensuring public safety.
At first glance, Utilitarian moral theories may seem to support the idea of torturing this innocent man. If we look at this situation we see that there is a dilemma of hurting one man, or having to bear the death of many. We may say that since the basis of Utilitarianism is to do what is best for the greater good, then there is no question that we would torture this one man so that we may save thousands. Take a step back and look at this situation from another angle. What truly is the greater good here? Let us focus on the idea that “if punishing John will do no good, then John should go free” (Pojman, 2002, p.109). What is the chance that a captured soldier is going to give away the secret location of the bomb? It is highly likely he has been trained not to speak under any circumstances. If he does not speak then you have just diminished utility for every single person involved.
The issue of torture is nothing new. It was done in the past and it’s done now in the 21st century. Without saying one side is right and the other side is wrong, let us discuss the part that we agree on and find common ground. We as Americans want to protect Americans from harms. So how do we prevent that from happening without torturing? It is impossible to get answer without some sort of questioning and intimidation techniques, since we know captured prisoners during war are not easily going to give up information. We know the enemy we face doesn’t follow the Geneva Convention or any law that pertains to war, so does that mean we shouldn’t also follow the Geneva Convention also, which prohibits torture? Of course not, because we want to be example for the world. Republicans argue that we have to do whatever is necessary to keep Americans safe, and Democrats argue it goes against our values and makes us look bad. We as Americans, as leader of the free world we
Is the intentional pain that an individual experiences justified if there is the potential to save the lives of many? Torture is the most used weapon in the “war against terrorism” but does it work? The purpose of this essay is to identify what the motives for torturing are, the effectiveness of torture, and important issues with the whole process of torture.
In this case of the use of torture in the interrogation of terrorists by the United States, it is easy to jump to the conclusion that the sacrifice of one person 's well-being to obtain information that could be used to save more than one life would be justifiable, but what happens when you complicate this issue? For example, the use of torture can cause strain on foreign alliances as well as further instigate the organization that the person being tortured belongs to. This can lead to a stronger terrorist organization that is more unified. As a result of this effect, we can put more lives in harm’s way. The information could also allow the United States to locate the terrorist organization and eliminate its members while expecting our own casualties. The utilitarian approach would deem torture as ethical if the total amount of casualties, regardless if they are from the U.S, the terrorist organization, or uninvolved third parties, is less than would be without the torture. Unfortunately, there is often not enough information at the time of interrogation to determine if the utilitarian approach is ethically
The use of torture has always been a hot topic of moral and ethical discussion. Typically, the discussion is not about whether or not torture is good, but rather if there is ever a morally acceptable situation in which torture should be allowed to occur. Does a criminal’s deeds strip him of basic human rights and make it morally okay for him to be physically and mentally abused? Do certain situations such as war make torture acceptable? It is generally agreed upon that torture is a terrible violation of a person and their rights; the common thread among moral questions such as these is if there are any times when torture could be considered morally acceptable. In order to analyze this moral dilemma, an ethical system is commonly used as a
Torture, the most extreme form of human violence, resulting in both physical and psychological consequences. A technique of interrogation that has been proven time and time again to not only be ineffective but also a waste of time. Studies have shown that not only does torture psychologically damage the mind of the victim, but also can hurt the inflictor. If there is proof that torture is useless, why do we still use it? Torture should not be used to get information out of prisoners because of the risk of false information, enemy resistance and utter uselessness.
Torture is the act of inflicting severe pain or suffering, mental or physical, on an individual to obtain information, to intimidate or for punishment. Torture is expressed in many ways, for example, rape, hard labour, electric shock, severe beatings, etc, and for this reason it is considered as cruel, inhumane or degrading treatment. Therefore, it is a violation of human rights and is strictly prohibited by international law. Michael Davis and many other individuals have stated that torture is worse than murder. He claims, “Both torture and premature death are very great evils but, if one is a greater evil than the other, it is certainly torture”. With that being said, there are three major reasons to discuss, in which, torture is not morally acceptable. However, in many cases it is considered very beneficial, but the disadvantages outweighs the benefits. Firstly, bullying is a form of torture but to a lesser extent, in which it results in an individual suffering from low self-esteem, suicidal thoughts, self-harm, etc. In addition, torture is mainly used as a means to obtain information, however, it is an ineffective interrogation tool in which, the data given could be falsified. Lastly, torture is sometimes utilized to shatter the autonomy of individual, that is, the right to their freedom and independence, forcing the victim to succumb to the torturer’s way of thinking.
Torture is the act of inflicting severe physical or psychological pain, and/or injury to a person (or animal) usually to one who is physically restrained and is unable to defend against what is being done to them. It has ancient origins and still continues today. The torture debate is a controversial subject to modern society. Because it is such a complex subject, many debatable issues come from it. For example, many have debated whether torture is effective in obtaining the truth, affects the torturers, threatens the international standing of the United States, or undermines justice. Others include what qualifies as torture, or whether or not the United States should set an example by not torturing. The two opposing claims to this topic would be: (a) that torture should always be illegal because it is immoral and cruel and goes against the international treaties signed by the U.S. and torture and inhuman treatment, and (b) yes, torture is acceptable when needed. Why not do to terrorists what they are so good at doing to so many others?
Torture can prevent the attacks resulting in terror or can go and prove no one, no one can infringe the right of Americans in the result of another attack, and therefore torture is justifiable. The similarities between ISIS and Al Qaeda is scary and torture needs to be in the back pocket of all officials to prevent similar disasters. The clock stopped ticking on 9-11, and anyone on the street can tell oneself where they were the minute they heard. The use of torture could save the lives of thousands, send the message that America is in charge, and can become more commonly accepted in the eyes of disaster. A ticking bomb could be going off at any time, it could destroy a spouse, a son, a daughter, a friend, a neighbor, or maybe the threat is to oneself, torture could get the information to destroy the bomb before it destroys one’s life. Torture is justifiable.
As we analyze this scenario through the eyes of Kantian Deontology, it is imperative that we recognize that, for our purposes, the lives of the civilians in question are irrelevant. This is because, as stated earlier, the consequences of one’s actions are meaningless; it is only the intent and will that truly matter in deciding an actions morality. We are only concerned with discerning the moral nature of torture itself. By removing the possibility of a terrible outcome, Kant leads us to a clear verdict on torture. In response to the first question that Kantian’s must ask themselves, it appears that torture fails. Torture is certainly not a maxim that many would want to will into the natural law. The second formulation of the categorical imperative, the basis of the second question that Kantian’s need to consider, is where torturing for information is declared absolutely impermissible. By torturing someone for information, specifically the location of several bombs, we are disregarding their rational autonomy by using them merely as a means only (Reitan). There is one scenario where the torture of the criminal could be considered morally acceptable. This is supported by Kant’s stance on capital punishment. Some may find this surprising, but Immanuel Kant was a
Torture is the process of inflicting pain upon other people in order to force them to say something against their own will. The word “torture” comes from the Latin word “torquere,” which means to twist. Torture can not only be psychologically but mentally painful. Before the Enlightenment, it was perfectly legal to torture individuals but nowadays, it is illegal to torture anyone under any circumstances. In this essay, I will demonstrate why torture should never acceptable, not matter the condition.