Introduction
To understand this statement we need to define the term torture. According to United Nations Convention against Torture, torture is an act of severe infliction of pain or suffering; be it mental or physical. There are three reasons that lead to torture namely to gather information, for punishment purpose and crimes of hate.
Torture is outlawed in most countries, and is considered anti-Christian by such denominations as The Roman Catholic. Torture does not work. Most people therefore say it is not permissible and only shows lack of moral authority in a society that practices it. It demeans a person’s human rights, shows lack of respect to his ego and results into hatred from the tortured.
Arguments against torture
Some philosophers argue for torture. For example, Miller states that a thief who steals a car with a child inside. The police get hold of him and have to torture him to release information on whereabouts of the vehicle, failure to which the child may die of heat stroke if not found within twenty minutes. Miller’s other example is that of a terrorist who hides a nuclear time bomb in a city.
The police must find this time bomb early enough, failure to which it will kill crowds of people. In both cases, Miller argues that torture is acceptable. Miller states that torturing the thief and the terrorist will make them furnish the police with the required information.
Miller further argues that the thief is considered derisive, pugnacious and rebellious. Miller concludes that upon beating, the thief will realize the beatings will go on until he releases the necessary information of the whereabouts of the child.
However, beating the thief is more or less likely to make the thief defiant and angry rather than repentant. He feels oppressed and hated. Other approaches to the matter would be more operative. For example, offering a gift if the thief releases the car and the child, asking the mother to plead with the thief to have mercy upon the child or opting to withdraw the charges completely. The thief is just interested in the car and he is not after killing the child.
The beatings will go on until the twentieth minute, after which this will be no more important for the sake of the child. It will only be a punishment. In reality, the thief will decline to offer the information after the twenty minutes elapse as he will be accused of murder.
In the terrorists’ scenario, torture is unlikely to be effective too. The terrorist is committed to his cause and is willing to die for the act. Often, some terrorists even go to an extent of bombing themselves. Torture will only make terrorist more reluctant to release the information (The terrorist is committed to his cause and is willing to die for the act. Often, some terrorists even go to an extent of bombing themselves. Torture will only make terrorist more reluctant to release the information).
Terrorists may even send the police into various likely locations which may end up being fruitless searches until the bomb is detonated. This way, a terrorist escapes torture and the plan is executed. The terrorist’s community or family members may forward the information to save their relative’ hence, hindering the mission.
In both cases torture is not permissible. In the thief’s scenario, it involves subjecting one person to pain to save another. Both are human beings and need recognition. Hence, the two scenarios just show how torture works but are naïve to bring out its effects as well as the moral implications. The philosophers who propose torture fail to display how torture works and do not show evidence of its effectiveness.
Torture is not permissible as the culprit may be innocent. In some instances, innocent people are charged with holding of important information which poses a risk to the lives of people. These individuals are in most instances, unaware of what is happening. Items are stolen from a shop, but a shop attendant is accused of the offence. Robbers hijack a bus, a passer-by is accused. Bomb attacks occur; innocent citizens are hostage of the attacks.
These are some of the instances, where innocent individuals are tortured innocently. They lose their liberty, identity and their dignity. For example, a report released by wikileaks in December 2010, stated that Khaled EL-Masri who was a Germany citizen was arrested by mistake and taken to Afghanistan. His arrest was simply because his name resembled that of a real terror suspect whose name was Khalid Al-Masri. Worse still he was dumped in Albania when CIA realized he was innocent.
Torture may sometimes make people look guilty even when they are not. For example, an innocent individual is held captive of an offence, upon torture he pleads guilty to escape the injustice. In other instances, the expression of pain by the tortured convinces the witnesses and the torturer of his guilt. There is also the need to protect life. An individual should not be tortured to death for claims of committing crime (There is also the need to protect life. An individual should not be tortured to death for claims of committing crime).
The tortured also have a right to sanctity of life and Kant states that it is our duty to allow this sanctity to thrive. Some individuals are however to release information they do not have a clue. An example is a terrorist’s wife who will be tortured to tell the whereabouts of her husband. A thief’s son may be exposed to torture to give information about the hidings of his father. Torturing these individuals is not permissible as they are neither involved in the criminal act itself nor the reason behind the crime.
Torturing innocent people is usually referred to as using persons as a means to an end. In other words, the torturers are willing to end crime by spilling innocent blood. One is left to wonder if prevention is really better than cure. Hence torturing innocent people is less tolerable than failing to prevent the danger that occurs to other people by not being vigilant. Torturing an innocent person is far too huge a cost for any intended purpose.
There are times when the innocent are tortured to death. This is done as a form of punishment so that others may learn from the scenario. This is wrong as life deserves preservation irrespective of conditions or results. There is a responsibility involved in killing as compared to letting a person die which does not. While killing is terrible, letting a person is merely out of negligence.
When torturing one individual to save thousands of people, the importance of torture must be made in no indefinite terms (when torturing one individual to save thousands of people, the importance of torture must be made in no indefinite terms). We are therefore required to stimulate the circumstances necessary for survival of human beings and provisionally to uphold the ends or contentment of these people. We are morally impermissible to kill our morally innocent. We should therefore make a huge sacrifice to preserve the greater innocence of individuals.
Where the individual is innocent of an offence, torture is not permissible either. This is because it is morally condemnatory and does not regard the victim. For example when we kill a terrorist, we violate his negative right of not receiving any harm although we have a duty towards the citizens to protect them.
Torture ethically tints our society. It leads to corrosion of a state’s character. As stated earlier, it is an evil that receives much condemnation from all over the world. A society that tortures its people is considered as one that lacks morals and does not uphold the rights of human beings. Christians particularly condemn the act of torturing others, quoting Jesus’ words when He forbade His disciples from giving an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.
Christians further claim that Jesus was tortured on the cross for our sake and fled us from the bondage of sins. Torture harms the victim, the torturer and eventually the entire society. Torture is too much an evil to be considered a means towards an end. It is considered a means through which sadists meet their satisfaction. Torture thus imparts a spirit of revenge.
Tortured individuals develop a feeling of revenge and will want to inflict the same pain and suffering upon the torturer (tortured individuals develop a feeling of revenge and will want to inflict the same pain and suffering upon the torturer). For example, bombing of terrorists hiding venues makes the terrorists react angrily by bombing the attackers too. It is rarely appealing. Tolerance of torture perverts the societal morals. It shows moral decay in a society. Individuals who are subjected to torture may become rebellious after the exercise.
In fact, the rebellion might be practiced in form of a coup d’état in some countries. They may lose a sense of living and become demoralized. In an organization, employees who are subjected to torture, may become demotivated and perform poorly. This in turn may translate into low profits for the organization.
A tortured victim lacks defense. In a scenario where an individual is being tortured to reveal crucial information, his only defense is the information he is withholding. Hence when we torture individuals we deny them the peace and joy whereby individuals are furnished with the means to accomplish needs, live with a purpose and delight in pleasure with lack of pain. We therefore ought to view people as ends not means. Torturing individuals is not a means to end unfairness or to clean the world. In fact torturing a wicked person does not add any peace.
Conclusion
In conclusion therefore, torturing the innocent does not reduce peace in the world. Neither is it a means to acquire justice. Torturing people to death is inherently wrong as there is something sacred and special about sentient rational life which deserves preservation. If torture is used as an extraordinary measure for resolving our problems, its use will be normalized. Individuals henceforth be treated with a lot of brutality whenever need arises.
There will be loss of integrity and respect for human rights will be no longer upheld. In a nutshell, torture is morally disgraceful. It yields lies and hatred and demeans the torturers along with the tortured. It is a vice which we should all fight against.