Summary: To Torture Or Not To Torture

Torture is something that is known as wrong internationally. Torture is “deliberate, systematic or wanton infliction of physical or mental suffering by one or more persons acting on the orders of authority, to force a person to yield information, to confess, or any other reason” (World Medical Association, 1975, pg.1). There is a general consensus that there is a right to be free from any kind of torture as it can be found in many different human rights treaties around the world. The treaties show that all of the thoughts about torture are pointing away from the right to torture someone no matter what the case

Torture is known as the intentional infliction of either physical or psychological harm for the purpose of gaining something – typically information – from the subject for the benefit of the inflictor. Normal human morality would typically argue that this is a wrongful and horrendous act. On the contrary, to deal with the “war on terrorism” torture has begun to work its way towards being an accepted plan of action against terrorism targeting the United States. Terroristic acts perpetrate anger in individuals throughout the United States, so torture has migrated to being considered as a viable form of action through a blind eye. Suspect terrorists arguably have basic human rights and should not be put through such psychologically and physically damaging circumstances.

Torture is not a new ethical dilemma, because torture has been practiced throughout human history and in different cultures. Now, however, the Geneva Convention and other modern norms suggest that human beings should not resort to using torture. Torture is becoming taboo as a method of intelligence gathering, which is why the methods used during the Iraq war were decried. However, the ethical case can be made for torture. If torturing one human being leads to information that could save the lives of a thousand, torture suddenly seems like a sensible method. This is a utilitarian perspective on torture, which many people find palatable. However, there are problems with this method of thinking about torture. The state-sanctioned use of torture creates a normative framework in which torture becomes acceptable. Torture sends the wrong message about what a free, open, and enlightened society should be. Even if torture is only acceptable in extreme circumstances, as with a suspect who might know something about an impending terrorist attack, who decides when and what type of torture should be used? There is too much potential for abuse of the moral loophole with regards to torture. If the United States hopes to be a role model, then torture cannot fit into its intelligence methods.

“A Case For Torture” is an essay written by Michael Levin in which he tries to make a compelling case for the use of torture as a punishment during specific situations in the United States. Levin cites different hypothetical situations in order to logically prove his argument. His use of theoretical instances is meant to help direct the reader to an understanding of the applications of his policy on torture. The examples he uses include a hypothetical terrorist attack on Manhattan and hospital robbery. But unfortunately, the examples Levin cites lack strength due to their inapplicability to the current world. Equally important, in today’s terrorist centered climate, there is no room for Levin’s position on torture. Michael Levin in “A Case For Torture” is not logically convincing in his discussion as to why torture is a valid form of punishment, because his assertions rely too heavily on the speculative, and are not contemporary enough for use in modern times.

The most ethical resolution for torture in interrogations is to allow it to only happen during certain times. Psychologists should develop a method where minimal risks of long term problems occur. I believe this is the most ethical way, because to protect national security we need information about terrorist attacks quickly. Additionally, America needs to be able to trust the source of the information. I also believe that the CIA should also perform back ground checks on the people being questioned to prevent the risk of hurting innocents. I believe that this will be justified, because we should protect the majority while taking the fewest causalities. We will need to obtain the information so there would be no further attacks and we could

Mohamed al-Kahtani was a prisoner at Guantanamo Bay who endured numerous disgusting and truly horrifying acts of torture. Being seduced by prostitutes and female officers, told to act like a dog and forced to crawl on his hands and feet while barking, and forced to urinate himself are just a few examples of the type of life prisoner’s at Guantanamo Bay are living. They are held in solitary confinement, while all day and night their lights in the rooms are kept on. Each day prisoner’s are tortured. Whether it is psychical or emotional torture, it is occurring all round the camp. Prisoner’s being tied down and forced to listen to extremely loud rock music for and extended period of time is one of the tactics used

Most of the controversy surrounding the use of torture is rooted in the ethical reasoning that is used to justify it. Before 9/11, it would have been incredibly hard to justify the use of torture or enhanced interrogation techniques on known terrorists and prisoners of war. The very idea of torturing another human being would force the American people to put aside some of their most cherished morals and beliefs, in a way that would render ourselves no better than the enemy and strip ourselves of the moral high ground. The culture of the United States, and other developed countries, made torture a longstanding unacceptable taboo and violation of basic human rights and dignity. Torture was an unnecessary, unethical, and unreliable practice that had no place in American policy before 9/11.

“Rather, this discussion deals with torture for the purpose of preventing a greater evil.” Page. 125

Torture is one of the most extreme methods of eliciting information; unfortunately, it has been used for centuries and is still prevalent worldwide.

We are aware of some of these “enhanced interrogation techniques” from various leaks and the CIA’s torture report. Some of these techniques consist of rectal feeding and rehydration which is a debatable technique itself since it is thought to be a helpful method to dehydrate detainees who refused to eat. Another technique is the confinement in a box where detainees are kept inside small boxed for long periods of time. The most commonly heard about, waterboarding: where the detainee is strapped on the board tilted down, head to the ground while the face is being covered with a cloth and water is poured down making them have a drowning sensation. Other techniques also include beating and threats to their family members and loved ones, along with

The Merriam-Webster dictionary defines torture as the act of causing severe physical pain as a form of punishment or as a way to force someone to do or say something. But what would one call morally acceptable torture? Is sleep depriving a criminal in order to find out the location of a missing person wrong? Does waterboarding a terrorist to find out information count as a morally correct reason to torture?

Holmes explains, the Utilitarianism theory: The ideas that the goal of society should be to bring about the greatest happiness for the greatest number of people, the act of utilitarian it is the action towards the morally right act to produce the favorable balance of good over evil which everyone considered, the rule for utilitarianism; action which is only right, if, it is required by rules, for instance don’t kill, steal, lie. etc..” … However,” the Principle of utility actions are right when they tends to promote happiness and wrong when they do the opposite towards morally right actions that are proposing as it maximizes utility and minimizes when the propositions are wrong for instance ,

“ The object of terrorism is terrorism. The object of oppression is oppression. The object of torture is torture. The object of murder is murder. The object of power is power. Now do you begin to understand me?” - George Orwell, 1984

Taking a closer look into the moral reasoning behind torture, we use the theories of two philosophers, Kant and Mill, to determine whether or not torture is ever ethical. John Stuart Mill and Immanuel Kant, both proposed different philosophies, using deontological and teleological theories in ethics. John Stuart Mill used a teleological theory, which prioritized the end result of an action, based off the moral nature of the action itself, compared to the deontological theory proposed by Kant, which presented actions as obligations of an individual, leading them to act in a certain way. Mill used a code of ethics, also known as utilitarianism, which provided ideal principles, in the role of each individual. These principles were imperative to how a person should use them, and in the fashion which they must do so. The more happiness produced from an action, was the scale of how right or wrong an action became. Something that produced the greatest amounts of happiness were right, and actions that produced the least amount of happiness, were wrong. These were the standards set into place. In other words, the consequences of the actions were how they were determined moral or not, not the actual actions themselves.

Water boarding, removal of limbs, drilling holes into the body, electric shock, and crucifixion. All of these are methods of a subject called torture, or the act of which one inflicts physical or psychological pain for purpose of degrading, intimidating, controlling, or getting information (“Torture”). Throughout history, these have all been reasons for torturing people; however, whether or not torture should still be allowed is a topic of debate. There is a long and detailed history of torture, along with numerous reasons people are tortured today, and survivors face a wide variety of mental and physical effects.