Thursday, September 26, 2013

Is torture just?


In class, we have touched on many hot-buttoned issues and whether or not we can use the philosophies we have learned to justify or discredit these issues. One of the issues we briefly discussed in class is torture. This idea of whether or not torture is just and whether or not we can use Mill’s philosophy, in particular, to justify or declare torture unjust got me thinking not only about Utilitarianism and torture but also my own beliefs about the use of torture in the modern world.


In Utilitarianism, the definition of justice is to “calculate what action will generate the most pleasure for the most people or the least amount of pain for the greatest amount of people.” (Dr J lecture notes) Therefore, one could make the argument that when the government tortures a detainee whom they believe has information on a terrorist attack, they are acting justly. Their action is just because by torturing this one person they could save thousands of people. In addition, if a person walked into our classroom on Friday saying there was a bomb on Rhodes College campus and he was the only one with the codes to defuse it, according to the Utilitarian philosophy, it would be just for our class to torture him to get those access codes. Our actions our just because by torturing and getting the access codes, we are bringing about the least amount of pain for the greatest amount of people. 

In contrast, however, Mill also states that humans have certain rights that cannot be infringed upon.  Mill asserts “every person has a valid claim on all of society to protect him or her in the possession of that right.” (Dr J Lecture Notes) Therefore, don’t we as United States citizens have the right to the protection of our physical body by the government? Thus, if I am detained, is the government not infringing on my rights by torturing me and causing physical harm to my body, and in turn violating a major Utilitarian principle?

Consequently, seeing how one could make the argument using Utilitarian philosophy for or against the use of torture, made me wonder what the current American population thought of torture.  In my research I found a recent article by the Huffington Post in which it stated “According to the new HuffPost/YouGov survey, only 25 percent of Americans said that torture of suspected terrorists who may know details about future attacks is never justified. Nineteen percent said it is always justified, 28 percent said it is sometimes justified, and 16 percent said it is rarely justified. The 41 percent of respondents who said torture is rarely or never justified are outnumbered by the 47 percent who said it is always or sometimes justified.”( http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/12/14/torture-poll-2012_n_2301492.html) Why is it that the majority of Americans think torture is justified in some way, shape, or form? Is it because we are in a war? Is it because we watched thousands of Americans die on 9/11 that we think it is just to torture people who may attack us again?

However, in another recent article by the NYTIMES, it concludes the findings of a panel examining post 9/11 torture. In this article “The panel found that the United States violated its international legal obligations by engineering “enforced disappearances” and secret detentions.”  The article goes on to state “The core of the report, however, may be an appendix: a detailed 22-page legal and historical analysis that explains why the task force concluded that what the United States did was torture. It offers dozens of legal cases in which similar treatment was prosecuted in the United States or denounced as torture by American officials when used by other countries.” (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/16/world/us-practiced-torture-after-9-11-nonpartisan-review-concludes.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0) Therefore, although many Americans think torture is justified, is it really? Were our actions at Guantanamo Bay, for example, just?  I guess the question for me really is, is it ever ok to cause physical and mental pain to another person, in order to extract information you think that person may have? While I personally don’t believe in torture, it’s a complex issue that I think is becoming more and more relevant in this day and age. It is an issue I believe, in which,  we all need to stop and ask ourselves: Are we ok with torture? And how do we feel about living in a country that uses torture to obtain information? 

3 comments:

  1. Morally, I would say that torture on any human being just to gain information is absolutely unjust. You cannot will torture to be the maximum act as a universal law (Kant), so therefore, torture is irrational or unjust. In a scenario, if there was a Rhodes student that said there was a bomb on Rhodes College campus and he was the only one with the codes to defuse it, then yes, I would think it's absolutely necessary to "torture" the student to get the code. This is relative to the "act of coercion" by Mill. Considering the fact that there is a limited time, and inevitability of someone dying - one man or a hundred Rhodes College students - then I will think it is absolutely necessary to impede the rights of the student with the code and torture/kill him.

    On another scenario however, if a terrorist was captured and he was tortured because he could know the details about future attacks, then that action is absolutely unjust. Even though torturing this man for information could save many people, it is not necessary to hold him/her hostage and inflict torture and pain on him just because he "might" know about future attacks. In reality, he is still a human being with rights. "Future attacks" always remains a "possibility" because they have the potential to either happen or not happen. It is different compared to the inevitable result of the student and the bomb - someone is definitely going to get hurt or die. However, people dying due to future attacks will always remain a "possibility". The right to coerce does not apply to the latter scenario.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Rosemary,

    This reminds me of our conversation during the symposium on Friday when we discussed the scenario of a murderer on death row with the cure to cancer. Similar to your thought experiment regarding the torture of terrorists with potential information on future attacks, the question was raised of whether or not we would allow the criminal to live since he has valuable information that could save many people. Some of our classmates cited the felicific calculus of wanting to promote the most pleasure for the most people and the least amount of pain for the most amount of people, suggesting that a utilitarian would argue for saving the murderer with the cure for cancer, as well as not torturing the terrorist to obtain information to secure the country.

    While the class was correct in citing the felicific calculus, I maintain that in both scenarios, Mill's idea of a rights-based society comes into play. As you stated, according to Mill, a right is when a person has a valid claim on society to protect him/her in possession of that right. In these scenarios, based on the felicific calculus, it would maximize pleasure and minimize pain for the most individuals to live in a society that protects basic rights (upholding of the laws and the right to a life free from torture, respectively). As a unique utilitarian believing in the idea of rights, Mill's views seem to be more nuanced than perhaps other utilitarians who would simply advocate for adding up pleasures and pains when making decisions.

    ReplyDelete
  3. I agree that in the Kantian view of justice torture would absolutely be deemed as unjust. Simply because you cannot will it as a universal law. I think that Mill however would say that torture is just in certain situations because it could cause the least amount of pain for the most amount of people. For example, the situation we have been using in class is if a terrorist is obtained, and they have the knowledge to diffuse a bomb that would otherwise explode and kill a lot of people. In that situation, I think Mill would say that torturing terrorist to get the information to diffuse the bomb would be just because it is causing one person the greg amount of pains file swing the loves of many. Also, I think that Mill would say there terrorist lost the opportunity to be protected by the laws of society because of their actions in the past.

    ReplyDelete