Find » Legal » Is Torture Wrong?

Is Torture Wrong?

Can it Be Ethical to Use Bad Means (torture) to Achieve a Good End?

By Scott Schlimmer, published Apr 02, 2007
Published Content: 97  Total Views: 229,302  Favorited By: 22 CPs
Embed:  
Rating: 4.2 of 5
Simple ethical questions are easy to answer. Is torture wrong? Of course it is. But simple ethical questions aren't really questions. It reminds me of the old Coaches Versus Cancer tournament, whose proceeds go to fighting cancer. We have yet to see a Coaches Supporting Cancer tournament.

Sadly, most people's thinking stops there. Is torture wrong? Yes. I'm an ethical person. I'm done. I'd like to pose a real ethical question.

Is Torture Wrong?

Consider this hypothetical. You're a law enforcement agent and you get a tip that there's a plan to blow up the Earth. You expect that they'll detonate a set of nuclear weapons, destroying the world in a couple days. Then you catch somebody who knows about the plan, and knows how to stop it. But the person refuses to divulge the details. For clarity, let's say this plan is 100% sure. There is no doubt.

If you torture this person, you will be able to get the information from them, foil the plan, and save the world.

Should you torture this person to save the entire world? This question is as easy as the simple "Is torture wrong?" question. Of course you should. But wait, I thought torture was bad. In this scenario, we might even say that not torturing would be wrong. How's that for turning the tables?

Ethics: Bad Means for a Good End

What gives? If torturing is wrong, how were we able to find a situation when not torturing is wrong? It's because ethical questions are not as simple as people make them. We've uncovered a situation where you need to use bad means for a good end.

To measure the ethics, you need to do a cost-benefit analysis and compare the bad means and the good end.

First, there's the bad means, the torture. Are you doing something wrong by torturing this person? Yes. Torture is bad, and you are doing a moderately bad thing. If you want to quantify, we'll call it a -4.

Second, there's the good end, the saving the world. If you don't take action, the world ends. But if you torture, you save the world. That's a very good end. We can quantify that as a +10.

Is Torture Wrong?

Fox News raises an interesting question. Even more interesting, when is torture ethical and when is it wrong? And why?

Credit: Fox News

Copyright: Fox News

Takeaways
  • Is torture wrong? Of course it is.
  • Would you torture one person to save 100? Most likely, yes.
  • Ethical issues aren't as simple as people make them.
Did You Know?
Sometimes, it's ethical to do a bad thing (use bad means) to achieve a good end.
Comments
Comments 1 - 15 of 16
Next >>
 
Thanks Jennifer, I love to hear that. Too often people don't really consider the issues. Their opinions then end up simplistic and rhetorical. I don't want to convince anybody, but I want people to realize why people hold the opposing opinion. Thanks for the comment!

Posted on 04/17/2007 at 1:04:00 AM

 
I love that you'll take on those topics of blurry moral question. Kudos for your insight and your bravery.

Posted on 04/15/2007 at 11:04:00 PM

 
Scott, taking the life of another is wrong. I know that we live in a world in which things have gotten so blurred that we would like to justify whatever choice we make. Obviously being raped is something that no one wants and hopefully if it happens to a woman, she does not have to deal with such an awful consequence. I cannot imagine how I would feel is I were in that position. Nevertheless that child is innocent. As far as the death penalty is concerned, let us hope that when such a decision is made, as imperfect humans we have all the necessary facts to say that the right person was put to death. Otherwise well... otherwise, we are no different than the murderer.

Posted on 04/04/2007 at 10:04:00 PM

 
Interesting. I think you're plenty ethical to kill a murder who's trying to kill you. I'd like to hear your ethics thoughts on two other cases: 1) Aborting a fetus if the woman was raped. 2) The death penalty.

Posted on 04/04/2007 at 9:04:00 PM

 
Yes killing in self defense is killing. Humanity might wink at it and say " she was only defending herself" but the outcome is the same. I hope that susty fellow comes back; unless you have actually managed to scare him off. That coward.

Posted on 04/04/2007 at 2:04:00 PM

 
Rusty: If you're still paying attention, I'd love to hear your thoughts on the Death Penalty.

Posted on 04/04/2007 at 1:04:00 PM

 
I'm actually not commenting on the rape case. That's hazier. I'm commenting on the Kill Someone Who's Trying to Murder You question I asked you. "To answer your question, Self defense is a very different matter and the scenario would also be different." To be fair, you didn't explicitly say you'd kill to defend yourself from a murderer, but if you didn't imply that, then I don't know it answered my question.

Posted on 04/04/2007 at 1:04:00 PM

 
NO WAY. I'M NOT AGREEING THAT MURDER IS RIGHT. THERE IS NEVER A JUSTIFICATION FOR IT. THOUGH IT WOULD HAVE VBEEN AN ACCIDENT,I DID ACCTUALLY KILLED THE RAPIST AND MY LOVED ONE. IN BOTH SITUATIONS I SHOULD PAY FOR MY ACTIONS BY WHATEVER LAWS GOVERNING THAT COUNTRY OR WORLD. AND YES, IN THAT MOMENT I WOULD HAVE SHOOSEN TO DISREGARD MY ETHICS AND WOULD HAVE ACTED UNETHICALLY.

Posted on 04/04/2007 at 1:04:00 PM

 
I'm going to take this one step further. If a person knows that torturing one person will save many other people, and then chooses not to save those people...I'll go as far as saying that that person is acting unethically by not torturing. That person is indirectly responsible for many deaths by sticking stubbornly to rigid beliefs and by choosing not to prevent the deaths.

Posted on 04/04/2007 at 1:04:00 PM

 
So you can justify murder, but not torture? You've contradicted yourself. "Either murder is wrong or it isn't. An ethical person cannot diviate from his or her beliefs." By your own definition, you aren't ethical. Don't worry, I still say you're ethical.

Posted on 04/04/2007 at 1:04:00 PM

 
Well, if it isn't Mr. Scott S. I was wondering when you'll stop by this page. to answer your question, Self defense is a very different matter and the scenario would also be different. If I were to walk in on someone raping my daughter, I would obviously pick up whatever object at my reach and hit the individual with all the force and fury that I could muster. If I killed him in the process, then so be it. My conscience might still bother me a great deal for having taken a life, but I managed to save my daughter. I would even venture further and agree with one other scenario (the saving of billions over one, even if I had to sacrifice a loved one) both of these scenarios require quick thinking on the part of the person, a moment decision and action. Never would I agree however,with your viewpoint that torture is right.

Posted on 04/04/2007 at 12:04:00 PM

 
Murielle: Would you kill to defend yourself from somebody who's trying to murder you? Or would you stick to your beliefs and let the murderer kill you?

Posted on 04/04/2007 at 12:04:00 AM

 
Rusty: Your formalization of ethics is interesting, but I disagree with almost all of the premises. An ethical person will never violate his beliefs? The end result has no impact on whether a decision is ethical? Who truly believes those things? Do you? The theoreticals are nice, but the real world has to come into play at some point. If your premises were true, then so would your formal conclusion. But they aren't. And frankly, I don't believe that a decent ethical debate can be simplified into a formal logic chain. Things just aren't that simple.

Posted on 04/04/2007 at 12:04:00 AM

 
Hey, someone got here before me? Well as much as I eould love to go along with you on this one Scott, I think that I will have to agree. An ethical person cannot diviate from his or her beliefs. Either murder is wrong or it isn't. How could we decide or rationalize as to when it is right to kill? Once you do obviously you're no longer holding that belief to be true.

Posted on 04/02/2007 at 11:04:00 AM

 
To continue, in the examples you gave, you are dealing with definition #4 In all your examples, motives and outcome are being considered in philosophical terms which allows for a choice, therefore the person would no longer be ethical if he choose to go against his ethics. 4. (usually used with a singular verb ) (that branch of philosophy dealing with values relating to human conduct, with respect to the rightness and wrongness of certain actions and to the goodness and badness of the motives and ends of such actions.)

Posted on 04/02/2007 at 10:04:00 AM

Type in Your Comments Below - (1000 characters left)

Submit your own content on this or any topic. Get started »
Comments 1 - 15 of 16
Next >>
Advertisment