Torture: A Few Thoughts

The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy entry on "Torture" states that torture is:

"(a) the intentional infliction of extreme physical suffering on some
non-consenting, defenceless person; (b) the intentional, substantial
curtailment of the exercise of the person's autonomy; and (c) in
general, undertaken for the purpose of breaking the victim's will."

(This definition of torture encompasses many aspects of what we now know as torture, but its sometimes limiting aspects will be ignored for this discussion.)

As stated in the article on torture on the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy and as most logical people will agree, torture is morally wrong and should not be permitted as a legitimate form of reconnaissance. The basis of the immorality of torture is based on the infliction of pain on another human being, the loss of autonomy, one of the most essential ethical rights of each human being, and the breaking of a person's will, which can leave permanent physical of psychological ailments that will influence the person's standard of living or quality of life in their post torture world. Despite the strong moral grounds that state that torture is immoral the practice still continues, but for what reasons can it be legitimate?

Despite the strong immoral territory that encompasses torture, it can be a legitimate option in some instances. In such cases as the "ticking bomb" scenario where a bomb has been planted and the police, who captured an accomplice in the crime, believe it to be their only option to use torture and believe torture will result in valuable information being gained to avoid detonation of the bomb. In such a case information must be known and criteria must be met in order for some moral justification to occur; the police must know (1) that the person going to be tortured has the information needed, that no other person has any information, and that the person going to be tortured is actually that person, (2) the information that the person knows puts them into guilt, (3) factual details of the situation such as there actually is a bomb, the number of people going to be effected as a result, etc. and (4) what torture consists of and if it will be a viable method in this situation. This information stated that must be known is not all encompassing by any means, but is a general criteria that I feel must be met in order for some moral justification to be made about torture in this instance. From this example we must recognize that these instances are few and far between and, by no means, should be used as support for legalizing torture. And while this information can be critical to saving thousands of lives, does it provide legitimate end to a very gray area of a heated ethical debate?

A few people will use this information about the "ticking bomb" scenario and try to make torture a legal action in times of war and in our country because we are affected by terrorism everyday. However, if this were going to become true, I think there would be a magnificent snowball effect that would ultimately undermine an sense of civility that we have tried to establish in the world today. Firstly, the legalization of torture in our country would send a message to the world that it is all right to torture because the leader of the world, the United States, says it is morally justified through the law. This would then create problems with the balance of power of our executive branch and the United States police forces because people would be able to be picked up and tortured just because they might have information in a case, which would seriously undermine the liberties prescribed by the Founding Fathers. Additionally, if we torture our prisoners of war this will provide for the door to open for our own soldiers to be tortured and that is certainly a result not desired by United States citizens or global citizens. Finally, if we were to legalize torture we would simply be reverting back to medieval times of violence and all progress made towards civility and the attainment of unalienable rights for all would be for not.

Despite the aforementioned reasons against torture I am by no means implying the absolutist view of torture, that it is wrong in all instances no matter what. I believe an absolutists view would be just as terrible as the legalization of torture because like laws and regulations, there is a gray area to morality. For instance, most people would agree that killing another human being would be wrong, however, the gray area arises in cases of self defense. Like this instance of murder, torture can be an effective means of preventing a catastrophe in such cases as the "ticking bomb scenario" if it is a last resort. So, while some cases of torture can be permitted, the actions of the United States to change the definition of torture so that the military officials can essentially "torture" people at Guantanamo and other containment areas will be taking a step in the negative direction of civil liberties and has severe consequences, as mentioned above.