Michael Sandel's Is Torture Ever Justified?

Is Torture Ever Justified? In chapter two of “Whats the right thing to do”? by Michael Sandel, he brings up the question, “Is torture ever justified?”. Sandel brings up the point that it would depend on that context of the situation. Depending on the situation, torture is justified. It depends on the situation. Torturing someone for no reason is unforgivable but torturing someone to save thousands of lives justifies torturing. Sandel mentions a very good scenario in determining if torture is ever justified. Sandel says, “You capture a terrorist suspect who you believe has information about a nuclear device set to go off in Manhattan later the same day. In fact, you have reason to suspect that he planted the bomb himself. As the clock ticks

Some people believe that it is one of the best tactics to get information when a criminal is not being compliant. They believe that it is a great tool to save others lives when necessary. The people that favor this are favoring torture when it is necessary not when it is not necessary. Some get confused that the criminals should be tortured regardless if it will save thousands or not. That would be unlawful because in America there is a system that will punish criminals by taking their time away and not physically punishing them. Sandel brings this up in the book. He says, “Recall that the person being tortured to save all those lives is a suspected terrorist, in fact the person we believe may have planted the bomb. The moral force of the case for torturing him depends heavily on the assumption that he is in some way responsible for creating the danger we now seek to avert. Or if he is not responsible for this bomb, we assume he has committed other terrible acts that make him deserving of harsh treatment” (Pg. 25 Sandel). Even if he is deserving of physical torture, the justice system in America prevents that from happening. Torturing is only justified when it is in the moment and the clock is ticking to save thousands of innocent

Some find it to be necessary when the there is little time left to save people. Others believe that it is wrong and that is all there is to it. Sandel switches up the scenario a bit when he adds something new to the example. He says, “Suppose the only way to induce the terrorist suspect to talk is to torture his young daughter (who has no knowledge of her father’s nefarious activities). Would it be morally permissible to do so? I suspect that even a hardened utilitarian would flinch at the notion. But this version of the torture scenario offers a truer test of the utilitarian principle. It sets aside the intuition that the terrorist deserves to be punished anyhow (regardless of the valuable information we hope to extract), and forces us to assess the utilitarian calculus on its own” (Pg.26 Sandel). Sandel brings something new to the table when he mentions the daughter. Both sides would agree that punishing the daughter for the father’s decisions is wrong. No matter the scenario, no matter the situation, nobody should ever punish the kids because of their parents