The main question surrounding torture today is whether or not there is ever a case where it is justifiable. Would torturing someone to save the lives of thousands be considered right? Can you torture someone to save the life of just one other person? What if that one person is close to you, and your judgment clouded by your own distress? Can you ever really be certain that the person you are torturing is going to tell you what you want to know in time, or that they even know anything at all? It seems as though there is a never-ending stream of questions that jeopardize any attempt to legitimize an instance of torture. When, then, could we say it is acceptable, or is there ever even a case where it is? To save the life of one other person is to say that the attempted murder committed by the recipient is more heinous an act than the torture used against them to prevent that murder. To torture in order to save the lives of thousands is to say that, despite the probability of not getting the proper information in time or even having the right person to torture, it is acceptable to at least try because of what is at stake. Whether or not to torture becomes increasingly relative, almost to the point of there being no case in which every question is answered sufficiently and efficiently enough to justify the act before the torture even begins. So, is it then right to say that anyone who engages in an act of torture has ignored one of these questions, and is therefore acting immorally? I believe that it is. Without sufficient justification prior to torturing, the act then becomes questionable and, because of its incredibly violent nature, immoral.
In what hypothetical cases could torture be completely justified, if any?
Are any of these cases realistic or probable enough to reasonably institutionalize or excuse torture?
No comments:
Post a Comment