Argumentative Essay: Is Torture Ever Justified?

Torture methods have been used for many purposes, whether for information gathering, humiliation or out of pure evil. No matter the motive, one thing remains true the act's definition: "the intentional infliction of extreme physical suffering on some non-consenting, defenseless person; the intentional, substantial curtailment of the exercise of the person's autonomy; in general, undertaken for the purpose of breaking the victim's will" (Miller). International law has been established, most notably the Geneva Conventions formed by the United Nations, to prohibit torture. Despite this, its use persisted and seemed as if its use became normalized following the tragedy of 9/11. As a result of this, debate over whether or not the use of torture should be justified resurfaced. This paper will err on the side of it being unjustified and that it should remain illegal due to how immoral the act is and how ineffective it is.

The immorality of torture is only comparable to that of slavery (Marcovitz, Front Flap); why is this the case? Firstly, noting the stripping of personal autonomy, an individual who is being tortured is essentially fitting the role of what Kant described as a means to an end. Thus, treating this person as less than what they should be treated as, human and everything that constitutes this reality. Therefore, the act of torture "does not simply violate you: it makes you violate yourself—it denies something even more fundamental than freedom: personhood" (Chazelle). Thus, the extreme physical suffering experienced during torture is not the only reason it is morally repugnant. But is due to suppressing the rights humans are entitled to under the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (United Nations) and the psychological anguish one faces due to the "fear, humiliation, abandonment, and open-ended sadism" (Chazelle) brought about and done by the torturer. This anguish persists and could manifest into "forty-one psychological disorders and as well as seventy-six physical maladies" (Marcovitz 68). Thus, showing the helpless reality those tortured face, treatment is available for these hardships but only does so much to silence the experience that caused the dehumanization.

Another thing to note on, despite the immorality of the act, some hypothetical scenarios might deem torture permissible. Those being instances of crisis: the beating scenario, in which an uncooperative car thief is tortured to save a baby's life, and the ticking time bomb scenario, in which a terrorist is tortured to reveal a nuclear bomb's location, which in turn will save thousands of lives (Miller). In both hypotheticals, the act of torture is brought about over the possibility of extracting information to save a singular or multiple innocent lives. Thus, "it is plausible that there will be at least some scenarios in which one will be forced to choose between two evils, the lesser one of which is torture. Indeed, the above-described police beating scenario (certainly) and the ticking bomb scenario (possibly) are cases in point" (Miller). 

Next, some may say torturing for information gathering is justified if it could save many lives if the information is given; a typical example regarding this is the "ticking time bomb" scenario. In which a senior law officer uses torture against the leader of a terrorist group since this will guarantee information regarding a nuclear bomb location (Ethics - Torture). However, a question needs to be asked about this information's efficacy. Everyone has lied to escape some form of conflict. Why would this trend not remain or even grow to a heightened degree when someone is faced with a possible life-threatening scenario? Overall the "information extracted by torture is highly unreliable. The subject of torture has one clear motive: make the torture stop, at least temporarily, and is "invented for that purpose and having no bearing on anything besides the torture" (Evinger and Bourassa). Another thing to ask is, "how do serious, well-intentioned individuals know that the person they are questioning has information that could prevent a crime or an attack" (Evinger and Bourassa)? This is even applicable to the "ticking time bomb" scenario. How would the torturer know the "guaranteed" information is truly that; how would they discern if what is told to them is not misinformation? There seems to be no answer to these questions since the only way torturers could genuinely know the veracity of what is said to them is if they were "skilled mind-readers" (Evinger and Bourassa). As of now and throughout history, no person has possessed the ability to read another person's mind directly. Thus showing how unreliable, ineffective, and how much of a time waste the use of torture is. 

Some individuals may claim that torture is justified since an individual's pain should not take precedence over others' lives. Terrorists or anyone who plans to or commits a comparably evil act should not be given the same rights as citizens, and torture is a way to extract vital information to save lives. Responding to these arguments, tortured people usually lie or provide false information to get out of such conditions for the first one. Thus saving thousands based on the information provided will more than likely not occur. Also, a question needs to be asked: "at what point, if any, does the potential threat posed by terrorism become so grave that the protection of the many warrants the erosion of an individual's fundamental human rights" (Bellamy 124)? Thus, feeding into the second argument, why are these individuals treated the same as citizens. Despite their evil intentions, they still fall under the protection of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which guarantees fundamental humans rights for all and declares no one should be subjected to torture (United Nations) and still fall under the protection of many national and domestic laws. Also, and quite possibly the most critical point regarding this argument is "in legal terms, the absolute prohibition on torture and other ill-treatment are "non-derogable" - that means it cannot be relaxed even in times of emergency" (Why Amnesty Thinks). The last one is that some methods are more productive than torture, such as: analyzing surveillance footage, wiretapping, and tracking internet activity for someone or many people in question. Overall, "States have a huge variety of ways to collect information on crimes – both past and planned – without losing their humanity. Torture is a primitive and blunt instrument for obtaining information" (Why Amnesty Thinks). 

Lastly, and quite possibly the most significant point, the use of torture should remain illegal unconditionally. Even though it is morally inhumane in nearly all circumstances and ineffective, "U.S. interrogators are still bound by the Constitution – courts have cited the Fourth, Fifth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments as protecting suspects from torture. And in international law, the United States is bound by the Geneva Conventions, the Convention Against Torture, and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, all of which bar torture and abuse of prisoners" (Facts on Torture). Thus those subjected to torture are still granted protection and rights, but let us look at possible exceptions. The first one being the ticking time bomb scenario; a question needs to be asked about a double standard? Hypothetically let's say a head leader in a terrorist group kidnaps and then subsequently tortures a soldier for information regarding raiding an integral location that keeps the terrorist organization running. Many, if not all, would say torturing the soldier is far different than torturing a terrorist. Though morally this could be argued, legally this is not a moot issue, and both sides should be equally protected under the legal provisions in place. Another exception that the act of torture is being done out of self-defense. Thus, the main thing to discern is if the victim of torture poses any harm to the person who will perform the act of torture. It seems as though a terrorist or anyone who plans to or commits a comparably evil act "is a culpable bystander, not a culpable aggressor...this, in turn, would crash against the accepted legal doctrine that bystanders, even guilty ones, may not be hurt intentionally" (Chazelle). Another exception to talk over, why shouldn't the act of torture become somewhat legalized. The "historical record indicates that the slightest legal opening to torture will metastasize into widespread institutional abuse. This "cancerous" spread affects intention, which leads to intimidation, submission, and extraction of false confessions" (Chazelle). Thus, it shows the slippery slope that will come along with legalization or making it seem like less of an issue than it should be. This leads to the use and idea of torture becoming normalized, whether in rare scenarios or not. As a result of this, people will lose sight of the fact that "torture intended as a security tool will always morph into an instrument of power" (Chazelle).