Yesterday, in
class, we discussed the ticking time bomb situation and the problem of torture.
While in class, we discussed two situations, the first situation was if there
was a man who said he knew of a bomb that was going to kill thousands of
people, would it be justified to torture him to get the codes to the bomb? The
second situation, was instead of torturing the man who knows the code, what if
the only way we can get him to talk is by torturing his daughter. Dr. J then
took a straw poll and asked our class who would torture the guy with the bomb
and then who would torture the daughter. Not surprisingly, most of us, using
our utilitarian calculus and trying to bring the least amount of pain to
greatest amount of people, said we would torture the man, however we would not
torture the daughter. Why is it that most of us won’t torture the daughter? Our
calculus would still tell us that torturing that daughter would bring the least
amount of pain to the greatest amount of people. Is it because she is
blameless? Is it because she is a child? Why do we feel we can justify
torturing the man but not his daughter?
Furthermore, I think, as Dr. J correctly
pointed out, when we raised our hands for torturing the “terrorist”, we had a
warped idea of torture being a couple punches to the man to get him to spill
the codes. But, that isn’t really what torture is, is it? Our discussion got me thinking and I
decided to do some research on how torture is defined.
According to an
article from the Telegraph UK, torture is defined as: "Any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether
physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as
obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession, punishing him
for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having
committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason
based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted
by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public
official or other person acting in an official capacity." (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1505073/How-the-law-and-UN-define-torture.html)
Even after reading this article and this defintion of torture, I still wanted
to know what exactly torture looks like. I found this article (http://science.howstuffworks.com/five-forms-of-torture.htm#page=0)
that lists the 10 most prevelant forms of torture and why they are used. The
list includes burning, penetrating injuries, asphyxiation, traumatic removal of
tissue and appendages, etc etc. These two articles alone have me questioning my
“yes” answer to torturing the man who knows the bomb codes. I don’t think any
utilitarian calculus, now after doing only a little research, could convince me
that torture is just. To further hammer the point home, here is an article about
the ineffectiveness of torture and how it not only hurts our image globally,
but also puts our troops in even more danger, every time we torture prisoners (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A2302-2005Jan11.html).
It is a really interesting read
but even if you don’t get a chance to read these articles what do you guys
think, have your answers changed since class? Would you still torture the man
with the bomb codes? Would you even think of torturing the daughter? If yes,
why do you think torture is justified? If no, why do you think it isn’t
justified?
I think that torturing the bomber would be justified if and only if you could know for sure that the bomber would give the correct information. However, since you cannot know that he will tell you the information, justification for torture is basically impossible if you believe that humans should always be treated as ends in themselves. According to the utilitarian calculus, if you could know that the bomber would give the information, torture would be justified because it would yield the greatest amount of happiness and the least amount of pain for the greatest amount of people. This is a consequentialist view of justice but if you take a non-consequentialist view like Kant, torture could never be justified.
ReplyDeleteA better approach to getting information from the bomber and a healthier solution to torture in general would be to incentivize the giving of information. Whoever has the bomber captive should give the bomber an incentive like less punishment or safety since the bomber knows that if he doesn’t give information, the consequences are worse. This method is much more humane and would likely be effective because people respond to incentives.
After reflecting on our class discussion as well as your blog post, I have changed my mind from my initial response that yes, I would torture the terrorist. I now believe that torture is wrong under any circumstances. One comment from class really stood out to me. Dr. J remarked that acts of torture are often some of the most creative of human activities. Marx says that what differentiates us from animals is our capacity for conscious free and creative activity. This is a key element of our humanity and using this capacity in order to torture our fellow man is a perversion of nature. Not only are we not treating individuals as ends in themselves (a la Kantian ethics), we are turning our human nature into a weapon in order to dehumanize a fellow man by putting him under such painful conditions that we are pitting his mind and body against one another and robbing him of his agency. Under no circumstances is this the just, moral, or humane thing to do.
ReplyDeleteI think the reason why we are more capable in torturing the bomber than the bomber's daughter (who has no affiliation with the bomb or her father's terrorist plans) because we measure guiltiness and innocence with morality. Think about it: wouldn't it make sense for us to be hesitant with harming someone who is absolutely innocent, compared to harming someone who is absolutely guilty? I believe this is something we can refer back to in the "Utilitarianism" chapter we read last week. While the torture scenario shows that the prospect of saving hundreds of lives by inflicting severe, inhumane pain to someone who is potentially guilty due to being a terrorist can be justified, it does not justify the scenario of torturing an innocent person to save hundreds. We can morally justify ourselves if we tortured the bomber because of our assumption that he is in some way responsible for causing harm and potential danger to many people. However, we cannot morally justify ourselves in harming the bomber's innocent daughter because we cannot measure how much pain she deserves due to the amount of "guilt" she has. Hopefully, my next sentence will make more sense. There is no sense of individualism in the case. It is impossible to measure complete justice through a utilitarianism mindset because it eventually just calculates which action will give happiness to the greatest amount of people and pain to least amount of people, rather than the individual's happiness and rights. Because of this, we cannot apply what is moral through utilitarianism as well. As the Utilitarian chapter has concluded, justice cannot just be calculative in happiness by itself; it must have morality incorporated in it. Morality in this situation does not simply calculative how many people can get happiness, but whether a person deserves a certain amount of inhumane pain due to a certain amount of guilt he/she has.
ReplyDelete