Doing it for money – the ethics of torture
It might be because dee
p down we are all hypocrites, or it might be the fact that we tend to prefer sweet lies to the ugly reality of truth, but one thing is certain: as much as we like to believe we live in a civilized and moral society, gruesome acts of violence happen all around us, every day. And they happen because, one way or another, they can be justified.
A widespread and little thought about example is torture. Frowned upon as it may be, it still goes on almost everywhere, despite being a violation of basic human rights. Just think of the most notorious cases, those of the American-controlled prisons, such as Guantanamo. If the “war on terror” is a legitimate thing, does it justify applying torture methods to convicted felons (who have tried and maybe succeeded in harming others), if there is a chance of getting vital information from them, which might help protect innocents in the future? Or are human rights inviolable, no matter the circumstances?
In the Western, democratic world, we all agree that the acts of torture committed during the reigns of Saddam Hussein in Iraq, or Muammar Gaddafi in Libya were horrendous and unacceptable. That was part of the reason why we “brought” democracy to their countries, right? But what about the torture of women in developed countries like The United Arab Emirates, or the mutilation of children by rebel forces in many African states? Are these any less infringing on our basic ideals, or is it just not worth the risk of jeopardizing economic interests by interfering to protect the innocent from torture? Apparently the end justifies the means and few feel the need to justify the end.
And speaking of the two bloodthirsty dictators (who happened to thirst for blood long before the USA and its allies finally “noticed”), many common people in their countries still hold them in high regards, despite what the propaganda might have us believe. Why? Because through their acts of torture they became feared, and through this fear, managed to maintain decades of political stability. So does this mean torture CAN be justified? Or does committing these acts alone earn them their fates?
In the end, each person sets their own moral values. What do yours say?
If we consider that torture on a whole, is bad as it inflicts unnessecary pain on a being or beings, can it be justified as an example of saving lives?
Yes. I think it can.
If the value of the information extracted will save more than one life (guranteed) then the forceful gain of that information is justified. If a person in a postion of knowledge willingly withholds – knowing it will lead to the deaths of others then they are as bad as the people doing it.
If we look at this from a utilitarian point of view, the greater good is saving lives of multiple people or persons of importantance (Otherwise why would they be using such extreme methods?).
Might not be specifically relevant to this post, but there has been a really interesting discussion on radio 4 this morning. Repeated at 21:30 tonight.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b017vmfl
Very interesting post. In the case of both those dictators you mentioned, they were at one time or another propped up and supported by western nations including USA and UK because it suited them economically at the time whilst turning a blind eye to the heinous acts commited against their own peoples. Justifying the war on Terror and Standing up for Human Rights when intervening in these countries affairs (though laudable) seems hypocritical when the western world supplies them with arms. As for the issue of torture itself, it is my view that morality is relative. I dont believe in any intrinsic value such as good or bad, they are ultimately abstract notions that we have given meaning to in order to suit our own needs. The reason we follow rules and laws isnt because of any moral purpose but rather i feel we have evolved and adapted them to create a relatively peaceful way of life i.e we agree to give up certain liberties such as the right to kill or steal from whoever we want because the alternative would be to live in a constant state of chaos. We have imposed these rules and conventions on ourselves for the greater good. Better to live generally in a state of harmony with another and enshrine these rules in law than to face the alternative which is ultimately a futile form of existance. Thats my view any way…
Oh and before i get accused of being a nihilst, i’d like to point out that from a personal point of view, whilst i might view the world in terms of moral relativity, i am against torture and have campaigned against it (amongst other things) as a member and supporter of Amnesty International for several years now. I remember having a conversation with other students whilst i was doing my sociology degree and asking hypothetically whether one could justify torturing or even killing one person if it meant that the lives of a hundred people were saved… Many people thought that this was a justifiable position to take; a utilitarian response in which the greater good prevails, save the majority by sacrificing the minority. I however suggested that just because the majority believe something is ‘right’, it doesnt necessarily make it so. Slavery for example was at one point a normal way of life and supported highly across the board, however now days we would find this reprehensible. It could be (and this seems to be the case) that such values are relative to time and place; attitudes and beliefs change over time, hopefully in a way that benefits society as a whole. The tabloids routinely claim that the majority of people would support the re-introduction of the death penalty and it might be that they would if this ever were to happen. I am against the death penalty and again have campaigned on this front for quite some time. My position is that if you are prepared to put other people through torture and the death penalty then you should be prepared that it might happen to you one day. Most people that support these things would never imagine that it could happen to them but thats how totalitarian regimes begin, you sacrifice a few freedoms for peace of mind iand the pretense of security (as we have done so under the spectre of terrorism) in the short term but then one day you wake up in a dictatorship and realise that you have no rights left….